1

The points on the plane are: (400, 0, 3), (-50, 500, 7) and (-200, -100, 5) So the vector equation in question is: $$ r = 400i - 3k + \lambda (-225i + 250j + 2k) + \mu(-300i - 50j + k) $$ After this, what I have done is equate $ x $ to its component, so: $$ -225\lambda - 300\mu = x - 400 $$ $$ 250\lambda - 50\mu = y $$ $$ 2\lambda + \mu = z + 3 $$

Then I used equation 3 to find that $ \mu = z + 3 -2\lambda $, then substituted that into equation 2 to get: $$ 250\lambda - 50(z + 3 -2\lambda) = y $$ $$ 250\lambda - 50z - 150 + 100\lambda = y $$ $$ 350\lambda = y + 50z + 150 $$ $$ \lambda = \frac{1}{350}(y + 50z + 150) $$

Then I substituted this into equation 1, since we haven't touched that yet when solving this set of simultaneous equations: $$ -225\lambda - 300\mu = x - 400 $$ $$ -225[\frac{1}{350}(y + 50z + 150)] - 300(z + 3 -2\lambda) = x - 400 $$ $$ -\frac{9}{14}y - \frac{225}{7}z - \frac{675}{7} - 300z - 900 + 600\lambda = x - 400 $$ $$ -\frac{9}{14}y - \frac{2325}{7}z - \frac{6975}{7} + 600[\frac{1}{350}(y + 50z + 150)] = x - 400 $$ $$ -\frac{9}{14}y - \frac{2325}{7}z - \frac{6975}{7} +\frac{12}{7}y + \frac{600}{7}z + \frac{1800}{7} = x - 400 $$ $$ -x +\frac{15}{14}y - \frac{1725}{7}z - \frac{5175}{7} = - 400 $$ $$ -x +\frac{15}{14}y - \frac{1725}{7}z = \frac{2375}{7} $$ $$ -14x + 15y - 3450z = -4750 $$ $$ 14x - 15y + 3450z = 4750 $$

This is my final answer, but the actual answer is $ 14x - 15y + 3450z = 15950 $. Can someone help me through where I went wrong or if my method is wrong, any tips and guidance and hints would be appreciated a lot as I am self-studying this.

2 Answers2

2

Hint:

To find the Cartesian equation of a plane given its parametric form:

$$ \mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r_0} + \lambda \mathbf{d_1} + \mu \mathbf{d_2} $$

one follows these key steps:

Step 1: Find the Normal Vector of the Plane

  • The normal vector $ \mathbf{n} $ to the plane is perpendicular to both direction vectors $ \mathbf{d_1} $ and $ \mathbf{d_2} $.
  • Compute the cross product $ \mathbf{d_1} \times \mathbf{d_2} $ to obtain this normal vector.

Step 2: Use the Plane Equation Formula

The general equation of a plane is:

$$ n_1(x - x_0) + n_2(y - y_0) + n_3(z - z_0) = 0 $$

where:

  • $ (x_0, y_0, z_0) $ is the given point on the plane ($ \mathbf{r_0} $),
  • $ (n_1, n_2, n_3) $ are the components of the normal vector.

Step 3: Substitute the Values

  • Replace $ (x_0, y_0, z_0) $ with the coordinates of $ \mathbf{r_0} = (400, 0, -3) $.
  • Use the computed normal vector $ (n_1, n_2, n_3) $ to form the equation.

Step 4: Expand and Simplify

  • Expand the equation to get it in standard Cartesian form:
    $$ Ax + By + Cz + D = 0 $$
  • Where $ A, B, C $ come from the normal vector and $ D $ is obtained from substituting $ (x_0, y_0, z_0) $.

Details are left to you. I hope it helps.

  • Ok, thank you for your answer. However, this is a question from a textbook and the cross product is the exercise after this one. So basically, I haven't learn the cross product yet, and so we are expected to find the Cartesian equation of the plane without using the cross product. Do you have a method such as that? – ThankYouForFlyingRyanair Feb 04 '25 at 04:06
  • This method is much more easier than the one I follow, and now that I have learnt how to compute the vector/cross product, I for sure will be using this method. Thank you! – ThankYouForFlyingRyanair Feb 04 '25 at 11:43
  • 1
    @ThankYouForFlyingRyanair Tou are welcome. I am happy to be helpful for you. Good luck to your studies! – Dimitrios ANAGNOSTOU Feb 04 '25 at 11:51
0

I think important to know that such a problem can be easily solved with an algebraic method coping only with points, i.e., without needing to transform the issue into a vector issue (even if the vector approach is highly valuable because it gives a geometrical understanding of the question).

Here is the method, based on a (classical) co-planarity criteria for 4 points $A,B,C,D$ is as follows :

$$\det\pmatrix{x_A&y_A&z_A&\color{red}{1}\\x_B&y_B&z_C&\color{red}{1}\\x_C&y_C&z_C&\color{red}{1}\\x_D&y_D&z_D&\color{red}{1}}=0$$

In our issue, we have three given points $A,B,C$ ; the fourth point $D$ is the generic point $(x,y,z)$ of the looked-for plane. Therefore, its equation is :

$$\det\pmatrix{400&0&3&\color{red}{1}\\-50&500&7&\color{red}{1}\\-200&-100&5&\color{red}{1}\\x&y&z&\color{red}{1}}=0$$

It remains to expand it, for example with a Laplace extension wrt the last line by hand (which means the computation four $3 \times 3$ determinants).

An alternative is to let a Computer Algebra System do this kind of tedious (and prone to errors) work for you.

See below a SAGE program for this purpose that you can run easily ; SAGE is an easily usable public domain software : just type https://sagecell.sagemath.org/ ; an edit window opens ; copy-paste this program into this window, then press button "Evaluate" :

 var('x y z')
 M=matrix([[400, 0, 3,1],
           [-50, 500, 7,1],
           [-200, -100, 5,1],
           [x,y,z,1]])
 d=M.determinant()
 print(d)

result : -1400x + 1500y - 345000*z + 1595000

(please note the unimportant $-100$ factor)

Jean Marie
  • 88,997
  • Is finding the 4 x 4 determinant the same way as finding 4 3 x 3 determinants? Like expansion by first column gives you 4 different 3 x 3 determinants? – ThankYouForFlyingRyanair Feb 04 '25 at 15:01
  • 1
    Taking the the cross product is the most efficient way: no software needed. We get $(\vec r-\vec p)\cdot (\vec u\times\vec v)=0$. – John Douma Feb 04 '25 at 15:16
  • 1
    @JohnDouma but what you are saying is simply computing the $4\times 4$-determinant by subtracting one of the first 3 rows from all the others and then expanding along the 4th column, so it cannot really be said to be more efficient. – krm2233 Feb 04 '25 at 16:57
  • 1
    @ThankYouForFlyingRyanair Answer : yes to your question ; this expansion (sometimes called Laplace expansion) can be done wrt any column or any row. Taking the last row, you will understand that the coefficients of $x,y,z$ are, in a natural way, the coefficients of a cross product. – Jean Marie Feb 04 '25 at 17:27
  • See for example here for a proof. – Jean Marie Feb 04 '25 at 17:31
  • @krm2233 No. That is not what I am saying. To get the plane, we take the dot product or $(x-x_0, y-y_0, z-z_0)$ with the vector that is normal to the two spanning vectors. That does not require a determinant. It doesn't even require that we know what a determinant is. – John Douma Feb 04 '25 at 21:04
  • I have attempted to improve my answer. – Jean Marie Feb 04 '25 at 22:33
  • @JohnDouma I wasn't making any claim about what definitions you needed to know, only about efficiency. Indeed if one takes efficiency to be measured by the number of arithmetical operations needed, your method using the scalar triple product describes one way to compute the determinant, hence it provides an upper bound for the efficiency of the determinant approach. – krm2233 Feb 05 '25 at 02:52
  • Yes, efficiency is much more important, even though this method is easy, it takes way too long. The vector product method is easier to use in finding the Cartesian form of the vector equation. – ThankYouForFlyingRyanair Feb 05 '25 at 05:13
  • "way too long"? I don't want to polemicate, but using the Sarrus expansion of $3 \times 3$ determinant, I am able to do the whole calculation of the 4 determinants by hand within less than 5 minutes. – Jean Marie Feb 05 '25 at 13:27