MHB Proof: Determinant of 3 Non-Colinear Points is 0

Click For Summary
Three non-colinear points define a plane, and adding a fourth point on that plane results in a dependent system, leading to a determinant of zero. The determinant can be set up using a matrix that includes the coordinates of the points and a constant term, which represents the plane's equation. The coefficients of the plane's equation form a vector normal to the plane, and the linear independence of vectors formed by the points ensures that the determinant is zero when a fourth point lies on the plane. The discussion highlights the distinction between finding a unique solution for the coefficients and understanding the non-trivial nature of the solution when the points are coplanar. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that the determinant's value reflects the dependency of the points in relation to the defined plane.
Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
View attachment 4291

I understand the intuition behind it, but I'm unable to prove it. Essentially, three non-colinear points define a plane, and so by adding one more point on the plane, it becomes dependent. This means that the determinant is 0, since there is probably a dependent row lying around. Also, how is that determinant even set up in the first place?

Any ideas?
 

Attachments

  • determinant 2.PNG
    determinant 2.PNG
    7.2 KB · Views: 127
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Rido12,

Here are some things to keep in mind. Let $x,y,z$ range over $\Bbb R$, so we may consider the determinantal condition as an equation in $\Bbb R^3$. By expansion of the determinant along the first row, you can see that it gives the equation of a plane. Note that if you substitute any of the points $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ for $(x,y,z)$, the determinant is zero. Therefore, all three points lie in the plane. On the other hand, let $Ax + By + Cz + D = 0$ be the equation of plane containing the points $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$. If $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ lies on this plane, then $\mathbf{X}\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{0}$, where $\mathbf{X}$ is the matrix

$$\begin{bmatrix}x_0&y_0&z_0&1\\
x_1&y_1&z_1&1\\
x_2&y_2&z_2&1\\
x_3&y_3&z_3&1\\
\end{bmatrix}$$

and $\mathbf{v}$ is the matrix

$$\begin{bmatrix}A\\B\\C\\D\end{bmatrix}$$

Since $\mathbf{v} \neq \mathbf{0}$, it is a nontrivial solution of the homogenous system $\mathbf{X}\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{0}$, and hence $\operatorname{det}(X) = 0$.
 
Hi Euge!

That all makes sense, but how can we show that $\mathbf{v}$ is a non-trivial solution? I guess that would be equivalent to showing it is not invertible, or has dependent rows/columns?
 
Last edited:
Consider that the coefficients $A, B, C$ form a vector normal to the plane. The unit normal to the plane exists because the vector from $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ to $(x_2, y_2, z_2)$ is linearly independent from the vector from $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ to $(x_3, y_3, z_3)$.
 
That makes sense, but I'm thinking I'm not grasping some other aspects related to this question. Suppose we only had three points and wanted to determine the coefficients of the plane Ax+By+Cx+D=0 that passed through those three points. That is equivalent to solving $Xv=0$, where $X$ is:

$\begin{bmatrix}
x_1&y_1&z_1&1\\
x_2&y_2&z_2&1\\
x_3&y_3&z_3&1\\
\end{bmatrix}$

and $v$:

$\begin{bmatrix}A\\B\\C\\D\end{bmatrix}$

But seeing as the system is independent, then only the trivial solution exists ($A=B=C=D=0$). Shouldn't there also be a unique solution (i.e $A=4,B=-1,C=5,D=-4 \implies 4x-1y+5z=4$ whereby $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ are satisfied for all three points?)
 
Last edited:
The coefficients $ A, B, C, D $ were constant from the start. The goal is not to find the formula for the coefficients. The point is $(A, B, C)$ is nonzero, and therefore $(A, B, C, D)$ is nonzero.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K