#Linear algebra
255 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
- Do not ping the Moderators, unless someone is breaking the rules.
- Do not ping the Helper Moderators, unless there is a conflict between helpers.
- Do not ping other members randomly for help.
- Ask your question and show the work you've done so far. If you've posted a screenshot of a question, specify which part you need help with.
- Wait patiently for a helper to come along.
- If the Helper has answered your question, remember to thank them with the Mathematics Ranks bot and close the thread with:
+close
Feel free to nominate the person for helper of the week in #helper-nominations
If you're happy with the help you got here, and the server overall, you can contribute financially as well:
Hello @ripe stream, try visualizing it. Do a sketch of a plane and a vector outside of that plane. what would be the minimal distance.
The perpendicular line from the vector to the plane
But how do I even describe a plane mathematically
I would guess I have to find the distance between two points, the one at the end of the vector and one on the plane. But I can’t arbitrarily choose a random point
How would you describe a plane using a single vector ?
Idk
How could I describe it?
Maybe a vector perpendicular to the plane?
YES !
Really?
Yes
Not just one cross product
First I need to find two vectors on that plane right?
Yes !!
Ok so I guess r2-r1 and r3-r2 or something
Abstract
Ok
So now I work out the cross product between these vectors
And find a perpendicular vector n
Which I assume I have to make unitary?
Yeah
So n/|n|
With these three vectors?
Yes
With the Gramm Schmidt method?
Absolutely
Cause as you said, you're gonna be doing orthogonal projections.
Lolll Okk
So you wanna make your life simple
So where do I go on from here?
I’m stuck
I mean how has this helped with the exercise though?
I now have a perpendicular unitary vector
But how does that help me find the distance between the vector r and the plane?
Did you create you basis in the plane ? is it orthonormal ?
I didn’t do it yet I’m thinking how I can use this stuff
Wait lemme do it
Maybe it’ll help me
Is this an exercice or are you just challenging yourself ?
An exercise
@jade plaza how do I find the magnitude of n?
I'll be right back give me 5 (hungry)
Aighttt no problem take your timee
Can I draw something for you ?
Yeah sure
You're basically trying to find the green vector
which is the difference between the big red vector and the small one
What is the linear plane?
Your original plane doesn't go through the origin point (not linear)
So a linear plane is any plane that goes through the origin of the axes?
Noooo
It's parallel to your original plane, so that your basis works well
Now what you need to do is find the 2 red vectors
So what is the linear plane then?
Just a plane parallel to the original?
yes and that goes through the origin
Alright
So we basically consider a plane parallel to the original that goes through the origin
How can I find the big red vector?
And the green one?
I have to project r somehow, I get that
But how?
I only have a vector perpendicular to the plane
ok, so small red vector is r projected on your plane. That will be easy since you did your gram schmidt thing, so it's the normal component of r. That's clear ?
Hmm no not really lol sorry
Look at the small red vector ...
Yeah
If I find the projection of r I can find the red vector too
It's normal to your planes right ?
Perpendicular?
yes
Yeah it is
So if you express r in your beautifully orthonormal basis. the "normal" component of r is that vector
the small red one
Hmmm
Yeah
I drew the basis in blue
But first I have to make the basis
yeah but you can make that easily with gramm schmitt as you said
Yeah but which vectors do I use for my basis?
To use gramm Schmidt I have to have a basis already right?
I need three vectors b1,b2,b3 that are already a basis of E3 and then I make an orthonormal basis out of them
Well you have all your vectors expressed in a basis right ?
You have their coordinates so that's in a basis
So I’ll use the vectors r1 r2 and r3?
No wait
I’ll use n r2-r1 and r3-r2?
Alright
Anyway, whatever you take, your first vector needs to be n
Well n=(r2-r1)*(r3-r2)
that looks like a scalar my friend
I don’t have a cross product symbol sorry lol
in onrder to obtain n you need to solve :
n * (r2-r1) = 0
n * (r3-r2) = 0
That will give you n
cross product could work yeah
It could?
Would, sorry, I'm being a diva
No I mean like
It would actually work?
Cause I tried it and I don’t understand how to do it
Would I use a determinant?
It would, the cross product is always perpendicular to the original vectors
you take n = (x, y, z) and you solve
But what are you computing?? you told me this was all conceptual ?
Yeah it is
That’s why idk what to compute
I would assume I have to express r1 r2 and r3 as through random coordinates
Forget computing we can do examples later if you want, you can pick any set of vectors and try
Let's finish the proof for now
Yeah Okk sorry
Ok, so small red vector clear ??
wtf are you trying to find ?
😄 we're just conceptualizing
To determine n, there are 2 :
- Either you use the cross product (like you said)
- or you use 2 scalar products (like I said)
Both work
In case I misled you, these are scalar products
Yeah yeah
Ok so now how do we go on😭
I’m sorry I’m so confused with this exercise
so where do you want to pick this up ?
Ok let’s say we have the orthonormal basis in terms of the vectors n,r1-r2,r3-r2
How exactly do I project r now?
Lets call them n, u1, u2
Okk
n being the normal component to the planes
Yep
the small red vector is just the n-component of vector r right ?
Yeah understood
perfect
now the big red vector. how do you think we can get it ?
hint, it's also a normal component of a vector we know
Look at the draft
Sorry I just noticed, shouldn’t the n component of r have the opposite direction than it has?
Yes, that’s why I put a minus, big red - small red
Oh kkkk
Can’t think of which
R u saying it’s the n component or r1+r2+r3?
It could
But just take any point on the plane and it would work
so either r1, r2, r3
So it’s the n component of any of these?
Oh yeah that makes sense
I added r1 and r2 to make it clear
with the right basis, they will all have the same vertical component
Alright so as I understand the green vector is the n component of r1 (or r2 or r3) minus the n component of r
yes
How can we express the n component of r?
come again ?
Like, what does the n component of r equal?
Isn’t it r-projection of r?
yes but you can just express r (as a vector) in the new basis
as you're gonna do with r1 btw ...
There are other ways
for example, if you don't want to go though the whole gramm schmidt, you can just focus on the normal vector and do projections
you'd be projecting (r2-r) projected along n
Why?
I don’t understand that
yes dot
Big red = r . n
But make sure to have a unitary vector n !!
Yepp
Yeah I guess gramm schmidt was a bit overkill
So then I find the magnitude of the green vector and that’s it?
Yeah now that I think about it it’d be a nightmare lol
But this works perfectly
Calculus?
yes
So basically ... let me draw it
So once you find the equation of the plane
You have the coordinates of the point N (basically the vector r)
You can express the coordinates of a generic point M belonging to the plane
Then you can express vector MN, and distance MN²
MN² is going to be a function of (x,y,z)
You'd have to minimize that function meaning :
- First derivative = 0
- Second derivative > 0
And solve
Wdym by equation of the plane?
M (x,y,z) belonging to the plane should verify :
n . (OM + r1) = 0
OM (x,y,z), so that's gonna give you three equations ...
Once you have those you're gonna want to minimize OM
Why n(OM+r1)=0
It's gonna be long if we do it now 😄
In Euclidean space, the distance from a point to a plane is the distance between a given point and its orthogonal projection on the plane, the perpendicular distance to the nearest point on the plane.
It can be found starting with a change of variables that moves the origin to coincide with the given point then finding the point on the shifted p...
Yeah ur right its better to leave it I gotta go to sleep lol
Actually you gotta check if the formula is in your syllabus, cause if that's the case, we don't need all this hassle
Nah I don’t think it is
Cause this is a linear algebra class and we don’t even focus on planes so idek why this was an exercise to begin with
I hope you understood well the first 2 proofs
I think I did I’m gonna think about it tomorrow as well
If I can give you an advice, when you feel stuck in algebra :
- Either draw to visualize
- or keep going with logical implications until you stumble on an insight
Thank you
I appreciate your help very much
Tysm!!!!
You’re very welcome. Have a good night
Please thank the helpers who assisted you by clicking the buttons below. You can thank each helper only once. Once you're done, click "Close Post" to close this thread.
Thank you for your feedback! ShakiGras has been awarded 1
. They now have 2
. They have 3
daily left for today.