anonymous
  • anonymous
vectors again and again
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
chestercat
  • chestercat
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
use vector to find the point that lies two thirds of the way from point P(4,3,0) to Q(1,-3,3)
Psymon
  • Psymon
Use points P and Q to make a component vector. Find the magnitude of this vector. Then multply the magnitude of the vector by the appropriate amount so that the magnitude is 2/3 of the original.
anonymous
  • anonymous
ok so it will be <-3,-6,3> then magnitude would be 3sqrt(2)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
now i am confused
anonymous
  • anonymous
3 sqrt(6) ****
Psymon
  • Psymon
\[\sqrt{9+36+9}= \sqrt{54}=3\sqrt{6} \]Lol, you corrected it.
anonymous
  • anonymous
haha i noticed that error after
Psymon
  • Psymon
So now all we need to do is multiply this magnitude by 2/3.
anonymous
  • anonymous
2 sqrt(6)
Psymon
  • Psymon
I guess I was looking at the question. That is the distance from the point P to the point 2/3 of the way there. I guess I thought the question was different at first.
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh so you know how to solve it?
Psymon
  • Psymon
Guess not x_x I didnt read the question well enough. I could probably figure it out, but the others out there would knwo what to do immediately where I have to think, haha.
anonymous
  • anonymous
haha ok
Psymon
  • Psymon
Yeah, I have an answer, but who knows, lol.
anonymous
  • anonymous
i know the answer but not the way
Psymon
  • Psymon
If you got the answer, then id like to see. I wanna see how miserably far off I am xDD
anonymous
  • anonymous
(2,-1,2) is the answer but i don't know how to get there
Psymon
  • Psymon
Yeah, thats what I got x_x My way worked but I doubt its the proper method xD
anonymous
  • anonymous
not to worry, help me how you got there
Psymon
  • Psymon
Yeah, sure. Well, I did what we did at first, found the component vector of <-3.-6,3> I realized thattheres no reason to find the magnitude, all we need to do is multiply these 3 points by 2/3. So this gives us <-2, -4, 2>. Now this helps us get 2/3 of the distance, but we're still not at the spot of our original vector. In order to get back, I added back onto to our vector what I took away in order to get the component vector. We did <1-4, -3-3, 3-0> So instead I added back 4, added back 3, added back 0. That way Im now lined up with where I was lined up originally. So added those figures to the 2/3 vector I have, I do <-2 + 4, -4 + 3, 2 + 0>, which gets us <2, -1, 2> Not the best method, but it worked x_x
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
drawing wud help visualize
Psymon
  • Psymon
|dw:1378185395072:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
thats the oly method thats simple enough i guess, basically we just did this here :- OP + 2/3 PQ O is the origin
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378185557539:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
draw 2/3 PQ also put the initial point at origin
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378185679578:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
next, add OP and 2/3 PQ using parallelogram law
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
that gives geometrically the required point
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378185732167:dw|
Psymon
  • Psymon
|dw:1378185626689:dw|
anonymous
  • anonymous
guys tbh, i am so confused, how do you know that op + 2/3 pq = the point 2/3 from p towards q
Psymon
  • Psymon
|dw:1378185801120:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
if you're clear till here, that is, getting the vector 2/3 PQ, and OP. then the question is, why adding these wud give the point 2/3 from p towards q, right ? |dw:1378185874435:dw|
Psymon
  • Psymon
Actually, the reason I know is because of the running around we were doing with the magnitude business. Once we saw that 2/3 of the magnitude was just 2sqrt(6), I actually tested multiplying each point by 2/3 instead. Then I checked the magnitude of what I multiplied by 2/3 and found out I got the same magnitude anyway. So knowing that all I needed to do to get 2/3 of the distance was multiplied the points by 2/3, I went and used the component vector of <-3,-6,3> to do that. Of course once I get 2/3 of that vector I still have to put it back where I found it by returning it to its initial position xD
anonymous
  • anonymous
yes @ganeshie8 and 2/3 of PQ is i think you both are on same route somewhere...i am the one who is not getting you both
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
i get you, you're not seeing why the final point of OP+2/3PQ falls on PQ vector. let me ask you a q, how you wud add OP and 2/3 PQ ?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
lets add them head to tail... if parallelogram method is bit unclear hear..
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
|dw:1378186282030:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
to add head to tail, we put that 2/3PQ vector at the tail of OP
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378186311626:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
so.. ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
|dw:1378186363788:dw|
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
thats right, the resultant vector is not in the direction of PQ. but who cares about that ? we found the point thats 2/3 away from P in the direction PQ eh ?
Psymon
  • Psymon
Well, I think I can show you how I stumbled upon my reasoning. Remember, first we found our component vector of <-3,-6,3> Then we found the magnitude of that, which was 3sqrt(6). Once we multiplied this result by 3, we got a magnitude (length) that was 2/3 of that by multiplying by 2/3 to get 2sqrt(6). So we know the distance between the point P and the point we want will be 2sqrt(6) distance away. Randomly, just to check, I took our component vector and multiplied each point by 2/3 first, just to see if Id get the same result. So multiplying the component vector by 2/3 gave me <-2, -4, 2> So just to check the magnitudeof that: \[\sqrt{4 + 4 + 16}= \sqrt{24}= 2\sqrt{6}! \] Because of this experimenting, I saw that all I had to do to get a point that was 2/3 of the distance along the line was multiply the points by 2/3. So that's exactly what I did. Multiplying the component vector by 2/3 gave me that vector <-2, -4, 2> Okay, awesome. Problem is now im centered at the origin and I need to go back to point P. Well, I moved from point P to the origin by subtracing 4, 3, and 0. So this time I added back 4, 3, and 0. Adding 4, 3, and 0 gave me the point <2, -1, 2> I know this is long, but I thought maybe explaining my whole thought process would help >.<
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh ya i gatchyu
Psymon
  • Psymon
Okies, cool :P If you got either of us then good xD
anonymous
  • anonymous
alright so the answer in easy way would be op + 2/3 pq which would get me 2/3 of pq
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
... which would get me 2/3 of pq from p good :)
anonymous
  • anonymous
alright ty...you both deserve medals but i can give only one...why don't you guys share it
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
actully you deserve one too.. :) my wording above is also incorrect. ive corrected below :- alright so the answer in easy way would be op + 2/3 pq which would get me \(\text{the point that lies}\) 2/3 of pq from p
anonymous
  • anonymous
haha gotcha ty

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.