Prove Diagonals of Parallelograms Bisect w/ Vector Method

  • Thread starter Thread starter kanki
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vector
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the diagonals of a parallelogram bisect each other using vector methods. Participants explore various vector representations for points A, B, C, and D in parallelogram ABCD, focusing on the intersection point O of the diagonals AC and BD. They derive relationships between the vectors, concluding that the sum of vectors OA and OC equals zero, indicating that O is the midpoint of AC. Further analysis leads to the conclusion that O must also be the midpoint of DB, reinforcing the bisection property of the diagonals. The conversation highlights the complexity of the proof and invites suggestions for more concise methods.
kanki
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I'm stucked here...
How to prove that the diagonals of parallelogram bisect each other using vector method?
Let's say for ABCD which is parallelogram, AB//DC, AD//BC, O is the point of intersection of the diagonals.
Can i straight away apply that \overrightarrow{AO}=\frac{1}{2}\overrightarrow{AB}+\frac{1}{2}\overrightarrow{BC}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Say you have a parallelogram ABCD, AB // CD, and AD // BC. O is the intersection of AC and BD.
You have:
\vec{OA} = \vec{OB} + \vec{BA} = \vec{OD} + \vec{DA}
\vec{OC} = \vec{OB} + \vec{BC} = \vec{OD} + \vec{DC}
\vec{OA} + \vec{OC} = 2\vec{OB} + \vec{BA} + \vec{BC}
= 2\vec{OB} + \vec{BD}
\vec{OA} + \vec{OC} will give you a vector which is on AC.
2\vec{OB} + \vec{BD} will give you a vector which is on BD.
The only vector that's both on AC and BD is \vec{0}.
So \vec{OA} + \vec{OC} = \vec{0} \Leftrightarrow O is the midpoint of AC.
From there, you can easily prove O is the midpoint of DB.
Hope someone will come up with another shorter proof.
To use: \vec{AO} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{AB} + \vec{BC}), just state that O is the midpoint of AC, and \vec{AC} = \vec{AB} + \vec{BC} \Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{2} \vec{AC} = \frac{1}{2} (\vec{AB} + \vec{BC}) \Leftrightarrow \vec{AO} = \frac{1}{2}(\vec{AB} + \vec{BC})
Viet Dao,
 
Last edited:
Probably, a little shorter than VietDao has, but similar.
\vec{AO}+\vec{OB}=\vec{AB}
\vec{AO}+\vec{OD}=\vec{AD}
2\vec{AO}+\vec{OB}+\vec{OD}=\vec{AC}
\vec{OB}+\vec{OD}=\vec{AC}-2\vec{AO}
Thus \vec{OB}+\vec{OD}=\vec{0} (for the reason, which explaned VietDao)
For me it also doesn't looks as simpliest way.
 
But, aren't we have to assume that magnitude of OB and OD is not the same? And so AO is not half of AC.
So how to prove that OB + OD = AC - 2AO = 0?
 
OB and OD are on the same line (they are parallel) (i believe it's given in definition of diagonal).
 
kanki said:
But, aren't we have to assume that magnitude of OB and OD is not the same? And so AO is not half of AC.
So how to prove that OB + OD = AC - 2AO = 0?
Assume only that the two segments of each diagonal are parallel, not equal

\vec{AC} = \vec{AB} + \vec{BC} = \vec{AO} + \vec{OC} = (1 + \alpha)\vec{AO}

\vec{BD} = \vec{BC} + \vec{CD} = \vec{BC} - \vec{AB} = \vec{BO} + \vec{OD} = (1 + \beta)\vec{OD}

Add the above

2\vec{BC} = 2\vec{AD} = (1 + \alpha)\vec{AO} + (1 + \beta)\vec{OD} = \vec{AO} + \vec{OD} + \alpha\vec{AO} + \beta\vec{OD} = \vec{AD} + \alpha\vec{AO} + \beta\vec{OD}

\vec{AD} = \alpha\vec{AO} + \beta\vec{OD} = \alpha(\vec{AD} - \vec{OD}) + \beta\vec{OD} = \alpha\vec{AD} + (\beta - \alpha)\vec{OD}

Since \vec{AD} and \vec{OD} are not parallel, the only possible combination of coefficients on the right hand side is \alpha = \beta = 1

\vec{OC} = \alpha\vec{AO} = \vec{AO}

\vec{BO} = \beta\vec{OD} = \vec{OD}
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top