What is the key to teaching determinants with the volume of a parallelepiped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jbreezy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Volume
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the volume of a parallelepiped defined by specific vertices in three-dimensional space, using the concept of the triple scalar product. The original poster presents their attempts and expresses uncertainty about their approach and understanding of the geometric relationships between the vertices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the appropriate vectors to use for calculating the volume, with some suggesting a focus on translating vectors to the origin. Questions arise about the meaning of "neighboring vertices" and the implications for vector selection. The original poster attempts to clarify their understanding of the vectors involved and their relationships.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing guidance on vector selection and clarifying the concept of neighboring vertices. Some participants have expressed confidence in their calculations, while others continue to seek clarification on geometric interpretations and the implications of their drawings.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted difficulty in visualizing the geometric arrangement of the vertices, which may affect the understanding of the problem. The original poster's attempts at drawing the configuration are acknowledged, and there is a discussion about the potential confusion arising from diagonal versus edge vectors.

Jbreezy
Messages
582
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A corner,A , of a parallelepiped ABCDEFGH, has position vector <3,7,4> and the points B,G,D that are neighboring vertices A of have position vectors< 2,9,7>, < 5,10,10> ,< 4,11,9 > , respectively. Find the volume of the parallelepiped in cubic units

Homework Equations



Triple scalar product in general a cross b dot c

The Attempt at a Solution


OK, so I know what to do but I don't know if I did the right things. First I tried to draw it this was kind of hard because I'm not so good at orientating my axes so I can see what I'm looking at.
I want..I think
(g-d) cross ( a -b) dot (b-d)

OK I did

(g-d) = < 5,10,10> -< 4,11,9 > = < 1 ,-1, 1>
(a - b) = <3,7,4> -< 2,9,7> = < 1,-2,-3>
(g-d) cross (a - b) = < 5, 4, -1>
Then, dot this with vector ( b - d) = < 2,9,7> - <4,11,9> = <-2,-2,-2>
< 5, 4, -1> dot <-2,-2,-2> = 39 cubic units?


I feel like if I did this wrong it is because of my drawing maybe. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jbreezy said:
(g-d) cross ( a -b) dot (b-d)
That does seem an odd choice. Try thinking in terms of translating all the vectors to make one of the vertices the origin (A, say).
 
There is a reason why you are given the corner A first, then the other three points!

The three edges, terminating at A, are the vectors B- A, D- A, and G- A.
 
The three edges, terminating at A, are the vectors B- A, D- A, and G- A.

How do you know this ?

Since I can't draw if you pause this video about 39 seconds in. If you look at the diagram if you did G-A you would be subtracting across diagonally? I see how you are saying A was given first but how do I know that G-A isn't across the parallelepiped diagonally? thx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess to rephrase my question is G-A is a vector diagonally across the parallelepiped you can't use this as the length because it will actually be longer then needed?
 
Jbreezy said:
I guess to rephrase my question is G-A is a vector diagonally across the parallelepiped you can't use this as the length because it will actually be longer then needed?
No. G-A is the displacement vector between A and G.

The key is that you stated that A and G are neighboring vertices.
 
Look, This is my drawing. I know G-A is the displacement vector. I do not know what is meant by neighboring vertices. Look at my drawing and forget about how crappy it is it serves its purpose :)
I'm given A,B,G,D
If I want the volume I A-B I need some the length of say A-E or B-F. A to G is a diagonal it is not the same length as A to E which I need. I have the height which is B to D. The diagonal is throwing me off.
 

Attachments

Jbreezy said:
I do not know what is meant by neighboring vertices.
Then that's your problem. It means there is an edge of the object connecting A to each. I.e. AB., AD and AG are edges of the shape.
 
Did you look at my drawing is it correct?
 
  • #10
'Neighboring vertices' means that each vertex which is a neighbor to vertex A has no other vertex between A and it. You know, your neighbor lives next door, not across town.
 
  • #11
Jbreezy said:
Did you look at my drawing is it correct?

It came out blank for me.
 
  • #12
OK, So I worked something out I think.
a = < 3,7,4>
b = <2,9,7>
g = <5,10,10>
d = < 4,11,9>

So ,
a' = b-a = <2,9,7>-< 3,7,4> = < -1, 2 ,3>
b' = g-a = <5,10,10> - < 3,7,4> = < 2,3,6>
c' = d -a = < 4,11,9> - < 3,7,4> = <1,4,5>

Then,

( b' cross c') dot a' = volume

( b' cross c') = <-9,-4,5>
Now dot with a'
<-9,-4,5> dot < -1, 2 ,3> = 9 - 8 + 15 = 16

So volume is 16 cubic units?
Thanks.
 
  • #13
Looks right.
 
  • #14
Jbreezy said:
How do you know this ?

Since I can't draw if you pause this video about 39 seconds in. If you look at the diagram if you did G-A you would be subtracting across diagonally? I see how you are saying A was given first but how do I know that G-A isn't across the parallelepiped diagonally? thx

YOU said that "points B,G,D that are neighboring vertices A". Diagionally opposite points are not "neighboring"..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
This is a fine site and there are so much riches that if you don't grab something when it appears you may never find it again. I have searched and never found again this one:

- roughly early last year there was a post from someone saying the volume of a paralellipiped was the key! I am not sure now what it was the key to - whether just determinants or to linear algebra. That this volume was the way to teach determinants - to make them intuitive and easy, which frankly they are not (is it just me?) and could very well do with being made. I don't know whether this was just an once off opinion and maybe the way the poster teaches them, or whether he had some supporting material developed.

OK, as a journeyman math user I can work out the volume of the ppped with conrners (x1, y1, z1) , 2, 3 without too much difficulty. Given that, I can see how it illustrates the idea of linear dependence. But the formula, if not difficult, is to me anything but self-evident, like most of deterninant theory or linear algebra.

If that poster is here or anyone remembers the post, and if this idea was ever elaborated it would be useful to at least one person to hear again.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K