Shortest distance between two lines

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The shortest distance between the lines \( l_1 \) and \( l_2 \) is confirmed to be \( \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{14} \). The direction vector for \( l_1 \) is derived from its parametric form, while \( l_2 \) is expressed using two equations. The cross product of the direction vectors yields a normal vector, which is essential for calculating the distance. The discussion concludes that the discrepancy in the expected answer is likely due to a numerical error in the original problem statement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of parametric equations in 3D space
  • Knowledge of vector operations, including cross products
  • Familiarity with scalar products and their geometric interpretations
  • Basic proficiency in manipulating square roots and algebraic expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of distance between skew lines in 3D geometry
  • Learn about vector projections and their applications in distance calculations
  • Explore the properties of cross products in determining orthogonal vectors
  • Investigate common numerical errors in vector calculations and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are dealing with vector calculus and 3D geometry problems, particularly those focused on line equations and distance calculations.

Galadirith
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Hi guys this problem should be simple enough but I just can't get the correct answer. Well the question is:

Show that the shortest distance between the line (l_1) with equation

\frac{x+4}{3} = \frac{y-3}{2} = \frac{z+6}{5}

and the line (l_2) with equations

i. x -2y -z =0

ii. x -10y -3z =-7

is \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{14}

So my attempt

first find direction vector of l_1 so let's get parametric form:

\mu = \frac{x+4}{3} = \frac{y-3}{2} = \frac{z+6}{5}

x = 3\mu -4

y = 2\mu +3

z = 5\mu -6

which gives the parametric equation

\mathbf{r} = \left( \begin{array}{c} -4 \\ 3 \\ -6 \end{array} \right) + \mu \left( \begin{array}{c} 3 \\ 2 \\ 5 \end{array} \right)

so now to find the parametric equation of l_2:

x = t

using i.

t - 2y - z = 0

z = t - 2y

using ii.

t - 10y - 3(t - 2y) = -7

t - 10y -3t + 6y = -7

-2t - 4y = -7

y = \frac{7}{4} - \frac{1}{2}t

using i.

z = t - 2(\frac{7}{4} - \frac{1}{2}t)

z = t - \frac{7}{2} + t

z = 2t - \frac{7}{2}

so written in parametric vector form:

\mathbf{r} = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \frac{7}{4} \\ - \frac{7}{2} \end{array} \right) + t \left( \begin{array}{c} 2 \\ -1 \\ 4 \end{array} \right)

(obviously note the fact that I multiplied my direction vector x2 just to give integers)

so what is required is to project an arbitary vector from and point on l_1 to l_2 in the direction of the vector orthogonal to both the lines

so to find this vector will do the cross of the two direction vectors of the lines:

\left| \begin{array}{ccc} \mathbf{i} &amp; \mathbf{j} &amp; \mathbf{k} \\ 3 &amp; 2 &amp; 5 \\ 2 &amp; -1 &amp; 4 \end{array} \right| =<br /> \mathbf{i} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 2 &amp; 5 \\ -1 &amp; 4 \\ \end{array} \right|<br /> - \mathbf{j} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 5 \\ 2 &amp; 4 \\ \end{array} \right|<br /> + \mathbf{k} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 2 \\ 2 &amp; -1 \\ \end{array} \right| = <br /> \mathbf{i} (8 + 5) - \mathbf{j} (12 -10) + \mathbf{k} (-3 -4) = <br /> 13\mathbf{i} - 2\mathbf{j} -7\mathbf{k} = \mathbf{n}

Now to find a random vector \mathbf{R} between l_1 and l_2

for this I will simply use their starting vectors when their respective parameters are each 0:

\mathbf{R} = l_2(0) - l_1(0) \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 + 4 \\ \frac{7}{4} - 3 \\ - \frac{7}{2} + 6 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} 4 \\ -\frac{5}{4} \\ \frac{5}{2} \end{array} \right)

so the final step should be to take the scalar product of R and \mathbf{\hat{n}}:

\mathbf{R} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{169 + 4 + 49}} \left( \begin{array}{c} 4 \\ -\frac{5}{4} \\ \frac{5}{2} \end{array} \right) \cdot <br /> \left( \begin{array}{c} 13 \\ -2 \\ -7 \end{array} \right) = <br /> \frac{52 + \frac{5}{2} - \frac{35}{2}}{\sqrt{169 + 4 + 49}} =<br /> \frac{\left( \frac{104 + 5 - 35}{2} \right)}{\sqrt{222}} = <br /> \frac{37}{\sqrt{222}}

and that's it, and its not what they give that it should be, I have tried approaching it other ways but I always get the same answer, I am pretty sure I havnt made any numeral errors, and pretty sure i havnt made any conceptual errors, so I am really stumped, and help would be so appreciated guys, thanks allot :D
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get the exact same thing as you using two different methods. So unless you've made a typo transcribing the original problem, it looks as though the error is with whomever created the question.
 
Hi Galadirith! Hi gabbagabbahey! :smile:

Yes, I make it the same.

What is the given answer?

(222 = 37 x 6 … does that help?)
 
Hi guys, thanks for the replies, yeh the question at the beginning of my post is exactly as the question is worded (doubley checked :D), although I did simply add the l_i[/tex]&#039;s and the i. and ii. oviously though that was purly so I could reference them in my solution. Yeh so I am completely stumped, as posted the answer is actually in the question, so you have to show that that is correct so tiny-tim the given answer is \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{14}.<br /> <br /> And tiny yeh I noticed that to but if you go that root youll end with something like \sqrt{37} / \sqrt{6} or manipulate it differently but still not really ovious in any way how there could be an error to get there answer. I suppose pehaps:<br /> <br /> \frac{37}{\sqrt{222}} = \frac{\sqrt{37}}{\sqrt{6}} = \sqrt{\frac{74}{12}} = \sqrt{\frac{74}{3 \times 4}} = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\frac{74}{3}}<br /> <br /> and em 74/3 = aprox. 24, sort of 14, ha now I am just trying to see where they went wrong:D<br /> <br /> It has to be an error they made then, as the answer is quite precise and not of a form you would get from straight from computing the scalar product (ie you would have to manipulate your answer from a scalar product to get it into a form where you have a surd in the numerator, in most cases at least) I would quess that they wrote the question down wrong, I can imagine that if I change 1 or 2 of the values for on of the equations defining the lines I would get their answer.<br /> <br /> Thanks so much guys, I can rest now knowing the brains of PF come to the same conclusion as me, thanks a lot :D really appreciated
 
Hi Galadirith! :smile:
Galadirith said:
… so tiny-tim the given answer is \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{14}.

ok :rolleyes: … let's work this backwards :wink:

(√14)/2 = 7/√14,

and the only place that √14 can come from is the magnitude of n

Now 14 = 9 + 4 + 1, so n is probably in the direction (±3,±2,±1), not necessarily in that order

So if we change the cross-product …
Galadirith said:
\left| \begin{array}{ccc} \mathbf{i} &amp; \mathbf{j} &amp; \mathbf{k} \\ 3 &amp; 2 &amp; 5 \\ 2 &amp; -1 &amp; 4 \end{array} \right| =<br /> \mathbf{i} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 2 &amp; 5 \\ -1 &amp; 4 \\ \end{array} \right|<br /> - \mathbf{j} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 5 \\ 2 &amp; 4 \\ \end{array} \right|<br /> + \mathbf{k} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 2 \\ 2 &amp; -1 \\ \end{array} \right| = <br /> \mathbf{i} (8 + 5) - \mathbf{j} (12 -10) + \mathbf{k} (-3 -4) = <br /> 13\mathbf{i} - 2\mathbf{j} -7\mathbf{k} = \mathbf{n}

(nice LaTeX, btw! :smile:)

by replacing the -1 by 1, we get

\left| \begin{array}{ccc} \mathbf{i} &amp; \mathbf{j} &amp; \mathbf{k} \\ 3 &amp; 2 &amp; 5 \\ 2 &amp; 1 &amp; 4 \end{array} \right| =<br /> \mathbf{i} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 2 &amp; 5 \\ 1 &amp; 4 \\ \end{array} \right|<br /> - \mathbf{j} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 5 \\ 2 &amp; 4 \\ \end{array} \right|<br /> + \mathbf{k} \left| \begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 2 \\ 2 &amp; 1 \\ \end{array} \right| = <br /> \mathbf{i} (8 - 5) - \mathbf{j} (12 -10) + \mathbf{k} (3 -4) = <br /> 3\mathbf{i} - 2\mathbf{j} -\mathbf{k} = \mathbf{n}

… I'll leave the rest to you! :biggrin:
 
Oh tiny-tim wow that's some insane back tracking :D. Thanks for that so yeh it was a numeral error on their part, thanks tiny-tim, I don't know how you noticed that error even working backwards that was awesome :D, can I ask how did you see that?

PS: thanks for the comment about the LaTex :D got to love LaTex
 
easy, man …

Hi Galadirith! :smile:
Galadirith said:
Oh tiny-tim wow that's some insane back tracking :D. Thanks for that so yeh it was a numeral error on their part, thanks tiny-tim, I don't know how you noticed that error even working backwards that was awesome :D, can I ask how did you see that?

easy :biggrin: … the question only has whole numbers, so the only place the √ can come from is the magnitude …

then 14 as a sum of squares is obviously 3,2,1 :wink:

then just compare 3,2,1 with 13,2,7 …

there's only going to be two mistakes, so assume the 2 is ok …

and there you are! o:)
PS: thanks for the comment about the LaTex :D got to love LaTex

Now you got to learn smilies :-p

gotta love :!) LaTex​

:wink: smilies are your friends! :smile:
 
Thanks tiny-tim :smile:, I don't want to take you time at all but really do want to understand how you came to that, I actually got all the first bit from you previous post to do with the \sqrt{14} but you then lost me at
there's only going to be two mistakes, so assume the 2 is ok …
Im not quite sure what you meant by "two mistakes" and the "2". What I am assuming is that you compared the actual vector that was correctly computed with the 3 2 1 components that you reasoned from the \sqrt{14}, you see that both contain 2, so the j component is correct so the only values that should be changed are the j components of the two direction vector of the two lines do to how one evaluates the determinant of a matrix ... oh ha, I think I have just answered my own question!

ooooooh the 2 your referring to is the two in M_{2,2} of the matrix and I quess you thought that the error they made would simply be a simple error i.e. a change of sign :biggrin: I see you thought process there I suppose the first part is more logic but the second is more mathematical intuition :wink:, I suppose for me I could have just tried all the possible combinations of ±2 and ±1 of the column of the matrix (only 4 so not exactly exhaustive) , lol, thanks again tiny-tim
 
Galadirith said:
oh ha, I think I have just answered my own question!

:smile: :smile:
we get a lot of that! :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
892
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K