Two vectors with the same normal surface projection and the same normal surface cross product, are equal?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I have to vectors $mathbf a$ and $mathbf b$, that fulfill the following conditions:



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)cdot mathbf n=mathbf 0$



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)times mathbf n=mathbf 0$



being $mathbf n$ a unit surface normal.



My question is, is $mathbf a = mathbf b$ ?



I have confirmed this by doing the cross product in a reference frame for which its first direction is coincident with the surface normal. Since both the dot and cross products are invariant under reference frame transformations, the results should be confirmed for all coordinate systems. Is this reasoning ok?






geometry vectors cross-product







share|cite|improve this question





















  • A slick one-liner proof: $$ mathbfa=(mathbfacdotmathbfn)mathbfn-(mathbfatimesmathbfn)timesmathbfn=dots=mathbfb $$
    – user10354138
    20 mins ago















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I have to vectors $mathbf a$ and $mathbf b$, that fulfill the following conditions:



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)cdot mathbf n=mathbf 0$



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)times mathbf n=mathbf 0$



being $mathbf n$ a unit surface normal.



My question is, is $mathbf a = mathbf b$ ?



I have confirmed this by doing the cross product in a reference frame for which its first direction is coincident with the surface normal. Since both the dot and cross products are invariant under reference frame transformations, the results should be confirmed for all coordinate systems. Is this reasoning ok?






geometry vectors cross-product







share|cite|improve this question





















  • A slick one-liner proof: $$ mathbfa=(mathbfacdotmathbfn)mathbfn-(mathbfatimesmathbfn)timesmathbfn=dots=mathbfb $$
    – user10354138
    20 mins ago













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I have to vectors $mathbf a$ and $mathbf b$, that fulfill the following conditions:



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)cdot mathbf n=mathbf 0$



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)times mathbf n=mathbf 0$



being $mathbf n$ a unit surface normal.



My question is, is $mathbf a = mathbf b$ ?



I have confirmed this by doing the cross product in a reference frame for which its first direction is coincident with the surface normal. Since both the dot and cross products are invariant under reference frame transformations, the results should be confirmed for all coordinate systems. Is this reasoning ok?






geometry vectors cross-product







share|cite|improve this question













I have to vectors $mathbf a$ and $mathbf b$, that fulfill the following conditions:



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)cdot mathbf n=mathbf 0$



$(mathbf a-mathbf b)times mathbf n=mathbf 0$



being $mathbf n$ a unit surface normal.



My question is, is $mathbf a = mathbf b$ ?



I have confirmed this by doing the cross product in a reference frame for which its first direction is coincident with the surface normal. Since both the dot and cross products are invariant under reference frame transformations, the results should be confirmed for all coordinate systems. Is this reasoning ok?






geometry vectors cross-product




geometry vectors cross-product






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 56 mins ago









nodarkside

205




205











  • A slick one-liner proof: $$ mathbfa=(mathbfacdotmathbfn)mathbfn-(mathbfatimesmathbfn)timesmathbfn=dots=mathbfb $$
    – user10354138
    20 mins ago

















  • A slick one-liner proof: $$ mathbfa=(mathbfacdotmathbfn)mathbfn-(mathbfatimesmathbfn)timesmathbfn=dots=mathbfb $$
    – user10354138
    20 mins ago
















A slick one-liner proof: $$ mathbfa=(mathbfacdotmathbfn)mathbfn-(mathbfatimesmathbfn)timesmathbfn=dots=mathbfb $$
– user10354138
20 mins ago





A slick one-liner proof: $$ mathbfa=(mathbfacdotmathbfn)mathbfn-(mathbfatimesmathbfn)timesmathbfn=dots=mathbfb $$
– user10354138
20 mins ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Yes it is correct, indeed we have that



  • $(vec a-vec b)times vec n=vec 0 implies vec a-vec b$ is a multiple of $vec n$ that is $vec a-vec b=kvec n$

  • $(vec a-vec b)cdot vec n=0 implies vec a-vec b$ is orthogonal to $vec n$ that is $kvec ncdot vec n=0 implies k=0$

therefore



$$vec a-vec b=vec 0 implies vec a=vec b$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks very much @gimusi !
    – nodarkside
    45 mins ago










  • @nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
    – gimusi
    44 mins ago

















up vote
3
down vote













You could also do this using the fact that $vecv cdot vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert costheta$ and $vecv times vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert sintheta$. In your case this leads to
beginalign*
(veca - vecb) cdot vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert costheta &= 0 \
(veca - vecb) times vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert sintheta &= 0
endalign*
From here, it is safe to cancel the $lvertvecnrvert$, as it is unit normal. We cannot safely cancel out the $costheta$ or $sintheta$ because these may be $0$, but notice that if $sintheta$ = 0, then $costheta neq 0$ and vice versa. Thus, we are left to the conclusion that $lvert veca - vecb rvert = 0$, so $veca = vecb$.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

















  • Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
    – nodarkside
    7 mins ago










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2924137%2ftwo-vectors-with-the-same-normal-surface-projection-and-the-same-normal-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Yes it is correct, indeed we have that



  • $(vec a-vec b)times vec n=vec 0 implies vec a-vec b$ is a multiple of $vec n$ that is $vec a-vec b=kvec n$

  • $(vec a-vec b)cdot vec n=0 implies vec a-vec b$ is orthogonal to $vec n$ that is $kvec ncdot vec n=0 implies k=0$

therefore



$$vec a-vec b=vec 0 implies vec a=vec b$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks very much @gimusi !
    – nodarkside
    45 mins ago










  • @nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
    – gimusi
    44 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Yes it is correct, indeed we have that



  • $(vec a-vec b)times vec n=vec 0 implies vec a-vec b$ is a multiple of $vec n$ that is $vec a-vec b=kvec n$

  • $(vec a-vec b)cdot vec n=0 implies vec a-vec b$ is orthogonal to $vec n$ that is $kvec ncdot vec n=0 implies k=0$

therefore



$$vec a-vec b=vec 0 implies vec a=vec b$$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • Thanks very much @gimusi !
    – nodarkside
    45 mins ago










  • @nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
    – gimusi
    44 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






Yes it is correct, indeed we have that



  • $(vec a-vec b)times vec n=vec 0 implies vec a-vec b$ is a multiple of $vec n$ that is $vec a-vec b=kvec n$

  • $(vec a-vec b)cdot vec n=0 implies vec a-vec b$ is orthogonal to $vec n$ that is $kvec ncdot vec n=0 implies k=0$

therefore



$$vec a-vec b=vec 0 implies vec a=vec b$$






share|cite|improve this answer












Yes it is correct, indeed we have that



  • $(vec a-vec b)times vec n=vec 0 implies vec a-vec b$ is a multiple of $vec n$ that is $vec a-vec b=kvec n$

  • $(vec a-vec b)cdot vec n=0 implies vec a-vec b$ is orthogonal to $vec n$ that is $kvec ncdot vec n=0 implies k=0$

therefore



$$vec a-vec b=vec 0 implies vec a=vec b$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 52 mins ago









gimusi

73.9k73889




73.9k73889











  • Thanks very much @gimusi !
    – nodarkside
    45 mins ago










  • @nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
    – gimusi
    44 mins ago
















  • Thanks very much @gimusi !
    – nodarkside
    45 mins ago










  • @nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
    – gimusi
    44 mins ago















Thanks very much @gimusi !
– nodarkside
45 mins ago




Thanks very much @gimusi !
– nodarkside
45 mins ago












@nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
– gimusi
44 mins ago




@nodarkside You are welcome! Bye
– gimusi
44 mins ago










up vote
3
down vote













You could also do this using the fact that $vecv cdot vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert costheta$ and $vecv times vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert sintheta$. In your case this leads to
beginalign*
(veca - vecb) cdot vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert costheta &= 0 \
(veca - vecb) times vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert sintheta &= 0
endalign*
From here, it is safe to cancel the $lvertvecnrvert$, as it is unit normal. We cannot safely cancel out the $costheta$ or $sintheta$ because these may be $0$, but notice that if $sintheta$ = 0, then $costheta neq 0$ and vice versa. Thus, we are left to the conclusion that $lvert veca - vecb rvert = 0$, so $veca = vecb$.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

















  • Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
    – nodarkside
    7 mins ago














up vote
3
down vote













You could also do this using the fact that $vecv cdot vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert costheta$ and $vecv times vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert sintheta$. In your case this leads to
beginalign*
(veca - vecb) cdot vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert costheta &= 0 \
(veca - vecb) times vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert sintheta &= 0
endalign*
From here, it is safe to cancel the $lvertvecnrvert$, as it is unit normal. We cannot safely cancel out the $costheta$ or $sintheta$ because these may be $0$, but notice that if $sintheta$ = 0, then $costheta neq 0$ and vice versa. Thus, we are left to the conclusion that $lvert veca - vecb rvert = 0$, so $veca = vecb$.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

















  • Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
    – nodarkside
    7 mins ago












up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









You could also do this using the fact that $vecv cdot vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert costheta$ and $vecv times vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert sintheta$. In your case this leads to
beginalign*
(veca - vecb) cdot vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert costheta &= 0 \
(veca - vecb) times vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert sintheta &= 0
endalign*
From here, it is safe to cancel the $lvertvecnrvert$, as it is unit normal. We cannot safely cancel out the $costheta$ or $sintheta$ because these may be $0$, but notice that if $sintheta$ = 0, then $costheta neq 0$ and vice versa. Thus, we are left to the conclusion that $lvert veca - vecb rvert = 0$, so $veca = vecb$.






share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









You could also do this using the fact that $vecv cdot vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert costheta$ and $vecv times vecw = vertvecvrvert lvert vecw rvert sintheta$. In your case this leads to
beginalign*
(veca - vecb) cdot vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert costheta &= 0 \
(veca - vecb) times vecn = lvertveca - vecbrvert lvertvecnrvert sintheta &= 0
endalign*
From here, it is safe to cancel the $lvertvecnrvert$, as it is unit normal. We cannot safely cancel out the $costheta$ or $sintheta$ because these may be $0$, but notice that if $sintheta$ = 0, then $costheta neq 0$ and vice versa. Thus, we are left to the conclusion that $lvert veca - vecb rvert = 0$, so $veca = vecb$.







share|cite|improve this answer










New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 29 mins ago





















New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 42 mins ago









Alerra

1605




1605




New contributor




Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Alerra is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
    – nodarkside
    7 mins ago
















  • Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
    – nodarkside
    7 mins ago















Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
– nodarkside
7 mins ago




Thanks very much @Alerra! This proof is also very useful.
– nodarkside
7 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2924137%2ftwo-vectors-with-the-same-normal-surface-projection-and-the-same-normal-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more