[VECTORS] Got the answer, lack visual understanding

  • Thread starter Thread starter aeromat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors Visual
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the relationship between a line and a plane in three-dimensional space, specifically focusing on the condition for parallelism. The original poster presents a line and asserts its parallelism to a given plane defined by the equation 4x + y - z - 10 = 0, while expressing difficulty in visualizing why the direction vector of the line must be perpendicular to the normal vector of the plane.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the visual implications of the condition that a line's direction vector must be perpendicular to the plane's normal vector. Some participants provide examples to illustrate this relationship, using simple vectors and planes to clarify the concept.

Discussion Status

The discussion is progressing with participants offering insights and examples to aid in visualization. The original poster expresses improved understanding following the explanations provided, indicating that the dialogue is productive and clarifying key concepts.

Contextual Notes

The original poster's inquiry is framed within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the depth of exploration into the topic. The focus remains on visual understanding rather than mathematical derivation or solution finding.

aeromat
Messages
113
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Which of the following lines is parallel to the plane 4x + y - z - 10 = 0?

ii)
x = -3t
y= -5 +2t
z = -10t

This is parallel, I confirmed it.



The Attempt at a Solution



I already know that this line is parallel to the plane.
I know that if that "If this line is parallel to the plane then its direction vector must be perpendicular to the plane's normal vector". But I don't see how this is true visually. I drew it out and I still don't understand why that condition must be met
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you asking for help visualizing the statement you have in quotations?

Think of something simple such as the xy-plane. Let's say you have a vector that's simply (1,0,0), so some unit vector pointing in the x-direction. Obviously it's parallel to the xy-plane right? Next you want to think about what the plane's normal vector is. Well, the xy-plane's normal vector must point in the z-direction. So your normal vector points in the z-direction (that is, a vector like (0,0,1) ), the parallel to the plane vector (1,0,0) points in the x-direction. So hopefully it's fairly obvious that those two vectors are perpendicular.

You can generalize it a little bit and say you don't need something in the x-direction alone. Any vector with no z-component will be perpendicular to that normal vector who only has a z-component.
 
I understand better now, thank you. And yes, the visualization was for the post-message in quotations.
 
Any vector that is in the plane is certainly perpendicular to the normal vector.

And any line that is parallel to the plane is parallel to a vector in the plane.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K