In class we tried to find the distance from to the plane of equation .

There are several ways of doing this. For example:

Fix a point on the plane . Any point will do, say .

Find a vector perpendicular to the . For example, .

[Again, if a plane has equation then is perpendiculart to it.

For example, is parallel to the plane , which we can rewrite as , which is the equation of the set of points perpendicular to the vector . This is to say, the plane is perpendicular to the vector . Since the plane : is parallel to , is also perpendicular to .

Another way of reaching the same conclusion is to rewrite in the form for some appropriate vector . There are many choices of and they all work; all we need is that , i.e., that is in the original plane. For example, the point belongs to the plane : , so we can rewrite the equation of as , which is equivalent to saying that But this means that the vector is perpendicular to the vector , which is an arbitrary vector in the direction of the plane.]

Let’s continue with the problem of finding the distance from to :

Consider the projection of the vector in the direction of . Clearly, the distance from to is the length of .

Recall that .

Then and the distance is .

In detail, so and , so .

Notice that (as discussed in class) the distance from a point to the line in the direction of that goes through a point is given by , while (by the above) the distance from a point to a plane containing a point and perpendicular to a vector is given by . While the expressions are similar, one involves a cross product and the other a dot product. This is because in one case we express the distance in terms of the sine of an angle , and in the other, in terms of its cosine or, what is the same, in terms of the sine of . (Drawing a diagram may help you clarify the situation.)

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm and is filed under 275: Calculus III. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to 275- Distance from a point to a plane

The only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Throughout the question, we only consider primes of the form $3k+1$. A reference for cubic reciprocity is Ireland & Rosen's A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. How can I count the relative density of those $p$ (of the form $3k+1$) such that the equation $2=3x^3$ has no solutions modulo $p$? Really, even pointers on how to say anything […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Let $s$ be the supremum of the $\mu$-measures of members of $\mathcal G$. By definition of supremum, for each $n$, there is $G_n\in\mathcal G$ with $\mu(G_n)>s-1/n$. Letting $G=\bigcup_n G_n$, then $G\in \mathcal G$ since $\mathcal G$ is closed under countable unions, and $\mu(G)=s$, since it is at least $\sup_n\mu(G_n)$ but it is at most $s$ (by definiti […]

The result you are trying to prove is false. For example, if $a=\omega+1$ and $b=\omega+\omega$, then $a+b=\omega\cdot 3>b$. Here is what is true: first, the key result you should establish (by induction) is that An ordinal $\alpha>0$ has the property that for all $\beta

Very briefly: Yes, there are several programs being developed that can be understood as pursuing new axioms for set theory. For the question itself of whether pursuing new axioms is a reasonably line of inquiry, see the following (in particular, the paper by John Steel): MR1814122 (2002a:03007). Feferman, Solomon; Friedman, Harvey M.; Maddy, Penelope; Steel, […]

This is a very interesting question and the subject of current research in set theory. There are, however, some caveats. Say that a set of reals is $\aleph_1$-dense if and only if it meets each interval in exactly $\aleph_1$-many points. It is easy to see that such sets exist, have size $\aleph_1$, and in fact, if $A$ is $\aleph_1$-dense, then between any tw […]

Have we gotten our Homework 2 assigned yet?

Hi William,

HW 2 is posted now under syllabus.

Thanks a bunch