MHB Proving the Planarity of a Quadrilateral using Vector Algebra

Saitama
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
93
Problem:
Consider the non zero vectors $\vec{a}$, $\vec{b}$, $\vec{c}$ and $\vec{d}$ such that no three of which are coplanar then prove that $\vec{a}\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]+\vec{c}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{d}\right]=\vec{b}\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]+\vec{d}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{c}\right]$. Hence prove that if $\vec{a}$, $\vec{b}$, $\vec{c}$ and $\vec{d}$ represent the position vectors of the vertices of a plane quadrilateral then
$$\frac{\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{d}\right]+\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]}{\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{c}\right]+\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]}=1$$

Attempt:
I am stuck at the first part of the problem. Looking at the two sides, it seems to me that I somehow need to show $\vec{a}\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]$ is same as $\vec{b}\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]$. Since
$$\vec{a}\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]=\vec{a}\left(\vec{b}\cdot \left(\vec{c}\times \vec{d}\right)\right)$$
and
$$\vec{b}\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]=\vec{b} \left(\vec{a}\cdot \left(\vec{c}\times \vec{d}\right)\right)$$
It looks like I need to swap $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ but that is not a valid step. I don't know how to proceed with the problem. :(

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hint: Use Lagrange's formula to expand $(\vec a \times\vec b)\times (\vec c\times \vec d) = -(\vec c\times \vec d)\times (\vec a \times\vec b).$
 
Opalg said:
Hint: Use Lagrange's formula to expand $(\vec a \times\vec b)\times (\vec c\times \vec d) = -(\vec c\times \vec d)\times (\vec a \times\vec b).$

Hi Opalg! :)

Let $(\vec a \times\vec b)=\vec{u}$. Then from the Lagrange's formula, I have:
$$\vec{u}\times (\vec{c}\times \vec{d})=\vec{c}(\vec{u}\cdot \vec{d})-\vec{d}(\vec{u}\cdot \vec{c})=\vec{c}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{d}\right]-\vec{d}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{c}\right]$$
Similarly, I have:
$$(\vec c\times \vec d)\times (\vec a \times\vec b)=\vec{a}\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]-\vec{b}\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]$$
Since $(\vec a \times\vec b)\times (\vec c\times \vec d) = -(\vec c\times \vec d)\times (\vec a \times\vec b)$, I get:
$$\vec{c}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{d}\right]-\vec{d}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{c}\right]=-\vec{a}\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]+\vec{b}\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]$$
$$\Rightarrow \vec{a}\left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]+\vec{c}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{d}\right]=\vec{b}\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]+\vec{d}\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{c}\right]$$
which proves the first part.

How to proceed with the second one? :confused:
 
Pranav said:
How to proceed with the second one? :confused:
I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, because I am not sure of the answer. (Thinking)

The condition for a quadrilateral to be planar is that its diagonals should intersect. In terms of the given vectors, this means that there should exist scalars $\lambda,\mu$ such that $\lambda\vec a + (1-\lambda)\vec c = \mu\vec b + (1-\mu)\vec d$. The first part of the problem says that there is some linear combination of $\vec a$ and $\vec c$ that is equal to some linear combination of $\vec b$ and $\vec d$. There must be some way of relating those two pieces of information. (Wondering)
 
Opalg said:
I was hoping you wouldn't ask that, because I am not sure of the answer. (Thinking)

The condition for a quadrilateral to be planar is that its diagonals should intersect. In terms of the given vectors, this means that there should exist scalars $\lambda,\mu$ such that $\lambda\vec a + (1-\lambda)\vec c = \mu\vec b + (1-\mu)\vec d$. The first part of the problem says that there is some linear combination of $\vec a$ and $\vec c$ that is equal to some linear combination of $\vec b$ and $\vec d$. There must be some way of relating those two pieces of information. (Wondering)

Ah but many thanks for the help you provided so far. :)

I figured out the second part but I couldn't use any of the result from the first part. (Thinking)

Here is what I did:

Since the vectors form a plane quadrilateral, the vectors $\vec{b}-\vec{a}$, $\vec{c}-\vec{a}$ and $\vec{d}-\vec{a}$ must be coplanar, hence I have the condition:

$$\left[\vec{b}-\vec{a}\,\,\, \vec{c}-\vec{a}\,\,\, \vec{d}-\vec{a}\right]=0$$
$$\Rightarrow (\vec{b}-\vec{a})\cdot ((\vec{c}-\vec{a})\times (\vec{d}-\vec{a}))=0$$
$$\Rightarrow (\vec{b}-\vec{a})\cdot (\vec{c}\times \vec{d} +\vec{a}\times \vec{c}+\vec{d} \times \vec{a})=0$$
$$\Rightarrow \left[\vec{b} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]+\left[\vec{b} \vec{a} \vec{c}\right]+\left[\vec{b} \vec{d} \vec{a}\right]-\left[\vec{a} \vec{c} \vec{d}\right]=0$$
I can write $\left[\vec{b} \vec{d} \vec{a}\right]$ as $\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{d}\right]$ and $\left[\vec{b} \vec{a} \vec{c}\right]$ as $-\left[\vec{a} \vec{b} \vec{c}\right]$. From here, second part can proved now.

Thanks again! :)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top