1
$\begingroup$

I need to find the equations for the line which passes through the point $(-5,3)$ and is perpendicular to the line $<3+t,-5-2t>$.

I know I can get the direction vector $<1,-2>$ out of the line equation. If I needed a parallel line I would just use the direction vector and the given point to construct a vector parametric equation for the line.

But, I am not sure what it means for two lines to be perpendicular with respect to their direction vector. My textbook (Stewart's Calculus 5th edition) does not define this, and I don't have any other calculus references for the course.

My intuition is to find the vector that is orthogonal to the direction vector, but I'm not sure if this is correct.

I set my direction vector as $\vec{a}$ and said $\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b} = \vec{0}$, and solving this using the dot production definition gives me $\vec{b} = <-1,2>$. Is this the vector I use to define the perpendicular line?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

You are correct that you should find a vector that is orthogonal to $<1, -2>$, however the vector you calculated as $\vec{b}$ does not seem to satisfy that requirement:

$$ \vec{a}\cdot\vec{b} = (1)(-1) + (-2)(2) = -5 \neq 0 $$

One $\vec{b}$ that satisfies the requirement would be $<1, 1/2>$, since we would have

$$ \vec{a}\cdot\vec{b} = (1)(1) + (-2)(1/2) = 1 - 1 = 0 $$ as desired. You can then use that vector (or any scalar multiple of it) as the direction vector for your line.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So, if I my knowledge of high school plane geometry is correct, two lines are perpendicular if their slopes are negative reciprocals. So, in 3D, I see that principle still applies: I can take the negative reciprocal of each component in the direction vector and get the perpendicular direction vector? $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2019 at 1:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For one thing, it's important to note that we're still talking about 2D here: the line you gave above is only on a plane. To answer your question, not quite. If you try that here, you'd get $<-1, 1/2>$ which is not orthogonal to $<1, -2>$. However, you can switch the entries and flip the sign on one: $<2, 1>$ is orthogonal to $<1, -2>$. $\endgroup$
    – Alex
    Jan 30, 2019 at 1:37
  • $\begingroup$ So, if I find any one orthogonal vector, will all of the scalar multiples of that vector be orthogonal to the original direction as well? I notice that $<2,1>$ is equal to $2*<1,1/2>$. I think I've constructed a rough proof that this is true but I wanted to double check in case I made a mathematical mistake. $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2019 at 1:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that's true. Think about it geometrically: two vectors on the plane are orthogonal if there is a right angle between them. Making any vector $c$ times longer (i.e. multiplying it by scalar $c$) does not change its direction, so it won't change the angle. $\endgroup$
    – Alex
    Jan 30, 2019 at 16:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.