Why Does the Cross Product of Normal Vectors Determine the Line of Intersection?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding the line of intersection of two planes using both Gaussian elimination and the cross product of their normal vectors. The original poster successfully derived the parametric equation of the line but questions the professor's method of using the cross product to determine the line's direction. It is clarified that the cross product of the normal vectors provides a direction vector for the line of intersection, as this line is perpendicular to both normals. The confusion about parameterizing the line in terms of z versus t is addressed, indicating that either method is valid. Understanding the relationship between the cross product and the line's direction is crucial for grasping the geometric interpretation of plane intersections.
GreenPrint
Messages
1,186
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi,

Find the line L of the intersection of the two planes
x+y+z=1
z-2y+3z=1

What I did was use Gaussian reduction on the augmented matrix. It was easy

[x y z] = [3/2 -1/2 0] + z[-5/2 3/2 1]
or in equation form or whatever it's called
x = 3/2 -5/2 z
y = -1/2 + 3/2 z
z is free variable

What my professor did was take the cross product of the normal vectors of the planes which I guess is just the coefficient matrix with the unit vectors

i j k
1 1 1
1 -2 3

let n1=<1,1,1>
and n2=<1,-2,3>

and he got
5i - 2j - 3k
I agree that this is correct
but then he set z = 0 and said you could set it equal to anything but he recommended zero because it would make the problem easier
got
x+y=1
x-2y=1
solved for x and y and got
x=1, y=0
so he used the point (1,0,0)
and said that the symmetric equation of the line was
(x-1)/5 = - y/2 = -z/3

so I figured out that the parametric equation of the line is
x = 5t+1
y=-2t
z=-3t

OK so I've studied some linear algebra and solved it the way I learned in linear algebra and got a different answer. The professor assumes that we haven't taken linear algebra yet. Yet I find it weird that we would parametric the line in terms of t when z is a free variable from what I learned in linear algebra, so it makes more sense to parametric the line in terms of z, at least that's what I would think.

I'm also not exactly sure why n1Xn2 gives you the direction of the line. Wouldn't n1xn2 give you the direction of the vector perpendicular to both n1 and n2. I don't see why this would be the direction of the line of the intersection of the planes. I also don't see why the components of n1xn2 would be the slope of the of the parametric line.

thanks for any help understanding this.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
GreenPrint said:
OK so I've studied some linear algebra and solved it the way I learned in linear algebra and got a different answer. The professor assumes that we haven't taken linear algebra yet. Yet I find it weird that we would parametric the line in terms of t when z is a free variable from what I learned in linear algebra, so it makes more sense to parametric the line in terms of z, at least that's what I would think.
you could paramterise in terms of either, it shouldn;t make a difference

GreenPrint said:
I'm also not exactly sure why n1Xn2 gives you the direction of the line. Wouldn't n1xn2 give you the direction of the vector perpendicular to both n1 and n2. I don't see why this would be the direction of the line of the intersection of the planes. I also don't see why the components of n1xn2 would be the slope of the of the parametric line.
The line of intersection is parallel to both plane one and plane 2, so is normal to both n1 and n2. Upto a multiplicative scaling, there is only one direction that satisfie sthis constraint and is given by n1xn2
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K