Vectors that constitute the diagonals of this parallelogram

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a mechanics problem involving vectors that define the sides of a parallelogram. Participants are tasked with determining the vectors that constitute the diagonals of the parallelogram formed by the vectors (4,0) and (0,4), and demonstrating that these diagonals intersect at right angles using vector properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the addition of vectors to find the diagonals, with some suggesting that one diagonal is (4,4). Others question the components of the second diagonal and propose different representations, such as (4,-4) or (-4,4). There is also discussion on the general method for calculating diagonals in any vector-defined parallelogram.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, sharing their reasoning and questioning assumptions about the diagonals. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between the vectors and their diagonals, but there is no explicit consensus on a final answer.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the parallelogram defined by the given vectors is a square, which may influence their reasoning about the diagonals. There is an emphasis on understanding the properties of vector addition and subtraction in the context of this problem.

nick227
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
this is for my mechanics course, but its just dealing with vectors. sorry if this is in the wrong place.

Homework Statement



The problem is:
You are given two vectors (4,0) and (0,4) that form the sides of a parallelogram. Determine the vectors that constitute the diagonals of this parallelogram and show by means of vector properties that they intersect each other at right angles.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I'm assuming that you start at the origin for the vectors. Then you would add the vectors, so the diagonals would be (4,4). I'm not sure if both diagonals would be (4,4).
Once I have the diagonals, I think that you would take the dot product and if it equals 0, then that would prove that they intersect at right angles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nick227 said:

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm assuming that you start at the origin for the vectors. Then you would add the vectors, so the diagonals would be (4,4). I'm not sure if both diagonals would be (4,4).
Once I have the diagonals, I think that you would take the dot product and if it equals 0, then that would prove that they intersect at right angles.

In fact, your parallelogram is a square. You are correct both in saying that one diagonal is < 4,4 > and that *both* are not.

Think about the diagonals (or even draw a picture) and consider what the components for that other diagonal would have to be.
 
the other diagonal... one end is at (0,4) and the other end is as (4,0) so then would the diagonal be <4,-4>?
 
nick227 said:
the other diagonal... one end is at (0,4) and the other end is as (4,0) so then would the diagonal be <4,-4>?

That would be one way of writing it; I was thinking of <-4,4>, which is really just the vector of the same length in the opposite direction.

The point is: if we call one of the vectors defining one set of parallel sides of the parallelogram a and the vector defining the other set of parallel sides b, how could we calculate the vectors representing the two diagonals?
 
dynamicsolo said:
That would be one way of writing it; I was thinking of <-4,4>, which is really just the vector of the same length in the opposite direction.

The point is: if we call one of the vectors defining one set of parallel sides of the parallelogram a and the vector defining the other set of parallel sides b, how could we calculate the vectors representing the two diagonals?

the vectors representing the two diagonals would be a-b, right?
 
nick227 said:
the vectors representing the two diagonals would be a-b, right?

Well, the second one you came up with is, and the first one was a+b. Notice that the order doesn't really matter. Reversing the order of which vectors you called a and b does nothing to a+b and only reverses the direction of a-b, which just "puts the arrowhead on the other end of the diagonal".

To sum up, our vectors were <0,4> and <4,0>, so the diagonals of the parallelogram they define are <4,4> *and* <-4,4> or <4,-4>. There is absolutely nothing special about this method that limits it to the square we were given; it applies to any vector-defined parallelogram.
 
Last edited:
dynamicsolo said:
Well, the second one you came up with is, and the first one was a+b. Notice that the order doesn't really matter. Reversing the order of which vectors you called a and b does nothing to a+b and only reverses the direction of a-b, which just "puts the arrowhead on the other end of the diagonal".

To sum up, our vectors were <0,4> and <4,0>, so the diagonals of the parallelogram they define are <4,4> *and* <-4,4> or <4,-4>. There is absolutely nothing special about this method that limits it to the square we were given; it applies to any vector-defined parallelogram.

yah, it makes sense. I got the problem done, thanks for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
63
Views
9K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K