MHB Reflecting B(3,-1) on Line g: 4y + x - 15 = 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monoxdifly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Mirror
AI Thread Summary
The reflection of point B(3, -1) across line g results in point B'(5, 7). The equation of line g is given as 4y + x - 15 = 0, but calculations show that the correct line should be 4y + x - 16 = 0, which is not listed among the options. The midpoint of the two points is (4, 3), and the slope of the line perpendicular to BB' is -1/4. There is a suggestion that option A may contain a typo, as the derived equation closely resembles it.
Monoxdifly
MHB
Messages
288
Reaction score
0
The point B(3, -1) is reflected by the line g and results in B'(5, 7). The equation of line g is ...
A. 4y + x - 15 = 0
B. 4y + x - 9 = 0
C. 4y + x + 15 = 0
D. 4y - x - 15 = 0
E. 4y - x - 9 = 0

Since I didn't know how to approach the problem in a formal, textbook way, I tried to get... creative. The point of reflection must be exactly in the middle of (3, -1) and (5, 7), that is, (4, 3). Since the mirror must be a line perpendicular to BB' (which has the slope 4) and going through (4, 3), the slope of the mirror is $$-\frac{1}{4}$$ and I substituted it in the $$y-y_1=m(x-x_1)$$ equation. This is what I got:
$$y-3=-\frac{1}{4}(x-4)$$
4(y - 3) = -(x - 4)
4y - 12 = -x + 4
4y + x - 12 - 4 = 0
4y + x - 16 = 0 which is not in any of the options, but really close to the option A. Can we just assume that the option A was a typo? Or did I make a mistake somewhere?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What I would do is observe that the line must pass through the midpoint of the two given points, and be perpendicular to the line through the two given points.The midpoint is:

$$\left(\frac{3+5}{2},\frac{-1+7}{2}\right)=(4,3)$$

The slope is:

$$m=-\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta y}=-\frac{5-3}{7+1}=-\frac{1}{4}$$

Thus, our line is:

$$y-3=-\frac{1}{4}(x-4)$$

Or:

$$4y-12=-x+4$$

Or:

$$4y+x-16=0$$

I agree with your answer. :)
 
Isn't that basically what I did?
 
Monoxdifly said:
Isn't that basically what I did?

Yes...it's just easier for me to work the problem and then compare results.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top