How is the dot product used to find perpendicular lines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter qazxsw11111
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion Vectors
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on using the dot product to determine perpendicular lines in vector mathematics. It clarifies that the dot product of two vectors is zero only when the vectors are perpendicular, not parallel. The confusion arises from the examples in a textbook that utilize the directional vector of a line rather than its equation to find the foot of the perpendicular from a point. Participants emphasize that the dot product is only applicable to vectors, not equations. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly applying the concept of perpendicularity in vector analysis.
qazxsw11111
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone! So I was looking at vectors and there is this topic which teaches you about using the dot product to find perpendicular lines.

In the sense where AB // CD, AB.CD=0 right?

However, the examples given in the book only uses the directional vector.

E.g. You are given this line l1. Then you need to find the foot of the perpendicular from a point P to l1. So the example use the fact that F (foot of perpendicular) lies on l1 (which l1 vector parametric equation is given) to get the equation of OF and subsequently PF. However, they dot multiplied the PF with the direction vector of l1 and not the equation of l1 which is what I initially thought of.

I know I am misunderstanding something but not sure what it is.

Thank you so much for any clarifications given.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
qazxsw11111 said:
Hi everyone! So I was looking at vectors and there is this topic which teaches you about using the dot product to find perpendicular lines.

In the sense where AB // CD, AB.CD=0 right?
NO! If AB is parallel to CD then AB.CD is equal to the product of the lengths of AB and CD. AB.CD= 0 if AB and CD are perpendicular not parallel.

However, the examples given in the book only uses the directional vector.

E.g. You are given this line l1. Then you need to find the foot of the perpendicular from a point P to l1. So the example use the fact that F (foot of perpendicular) lies on l1 (which l1 vector parametric equation is given) to get the equation of OF and subsequently PF. However, they dot multiplied the PF with the direction vector of l1 and not the equation of l1 which is what I initially thought of.
What do you mean by the dot product of lines anyway?

I know I am misunderstanding something but not sure what it is.

Thank you so much for any clarifications given.
I don't understand what your misunderstanding is! You seem to be complaining that they do not take the dot product of a vector with an equation which would make no sense at all. The dot product is defined only for vectors. Those are the only things you can take the dot product of!
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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