The Student Room Group

Maths C4 - Vectors... Help???

So I've made a little start on this chapter but have found myself stuck already!!

How do I do the last bit of this Example question after I have equated the coefficients?? I don't really understand how it goes from the 3rd from bottom line to the 2nd from bottom line of the workings :frown:

C4 Vectors Exa9.png

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Philip-flop
So I've made a little start on this chapter but have found myself stuck already!!

How do I do the last bit of this Example question after I have equated the coefficients?? I don't really understand how it goes from the 3rd from bottom line to the 2nd from bottom line of the workings :frown:



You equate coefficients in the same as as you'd equate coefficients of something like x2+2x+1=Ax2+Bx+Cx^2+2x+1=Ax^2+Bx+C except here you are comparing the coefficients of the direction vectors a\mathbf{a} and b\mathbf{b}
Original post by RDKGames
You equate coefficients in the same as as you'd equate coefficients of something like x2+2x+1=Ax2+Bx+Cx^2+2x+1=Ax^2+Bx+C except here you are comparing the coefficients of the direction vectors a\mathbf{a} and b\mathbf{b}


Yeah I think I understand the part where I compare coefficients but I dont really know the eliminating part which gives the 2nd from bottom line.

Is it simply a case of using simultaneous equations where...
=(k1) -\land = (k-1) times both sides by -1 to give... =(1k) \land = (1-k)

Sub this into... (3k+1)=4 (3k+1) = 4 \land
which gives... (3k+1)=4(1k) (3k+1) = 4(1-k)

then solve for k from there?


Sorry I'm not sure what the correct symbol is so I have used \land instead :frown:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Philip-flop
Yeah I think I understand the part where I compare coefficients but I dont really know the eliminating part which gives the 2nd from bottom line.

Is it simply a case of using simultaneous equations where...
=(k1) -\land = (k-1) times both sides by -1 to give... =(1k) \land = (1-k)

Sub this into... (3k+1)=4 (3k+1) = 4 \land
which gives... (3k+1)=4(1k) (3k+1) = 4(1-k)

then solve for k from there?


Sorry I'm not sure what the correct symbol is so I have used \land instead :frown:


Yeah thats what is being done here. Also the symbol is lambda.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 4
If k1=λ k-1=-\lambda then 4λ=4(k1) 4\lambda = -4(k-1) by just multiplying both sides by 4.
Now we have also that 3k+1=4λ 3k+1=4\lambda so you can substitute 4λ 4\lambda with 4(k1) -4(k-1) which gives 3k+1=4(k1) 3k+1=-4(k-1) .
Original post by RDKGames
Yeah thats what is being done here. Also the symbol is lambda.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Thank you!!

So in a way, lambda λ \lambda is used to describe scalars that are parallel and proportional to each other, right?

Original post by B_9710
If k1=λ k-1=-\lambda then 4λ=4(k1) 4\lambda = -4(k-1) by just multiplying both sides by 4.
Now we have also that 3k+1=4λ 3k+1=4\lambda so you can substitute 4λ 4\lambda with 4(k1) -4(k-1) which gives 3k+1=4(k1) 3k+1=-4(k-1) .

Oh yeah. I didn't spot I could do it that way too! Thank you :smile:
Original post by Philip-flop
Thank you!!

So in a way, lambda λ \lambda is used to describe scalars that are parallel and proportional to each other, right?


Lambda is just a scalar variable which scales vectors by changing their magnitudes. It doesnt make sense when you say "used to describe scalars that are parallel and proportional" because scalars have no direction so how can they be parallel...?
Original post by RDKGames
Lambda is just a scalar variable which scales vectors by changing their magnitudes. It doesnt make sense when you say "used to describe scalars that are parallel and proportional" because scalars have no direction so how can they be parallel...?

Yeah your explanation makes more sense than mine! Thank you!! I had trouble putting it into words but had a brief understanding.

So, lambda is a scalar variable which scales vectors by changing their magnitude. And the vectors have to be parallel too for them to have a related lambda? Sorry if I sound silly right now! :frown:
Original post by Philip-flop
Yeah your explanation makes more sense than mine! Thank you!! I had trouble putting it into words but had a brief understanding.

So, lambda is a scalar variable which scales vectors by changing their magnitude. And the vectors have to be parallel too for them to have a related lambda? Sorry if I sound silly right now! :frown:


No, the scalar has nothing to do with dependency on two vectors being parallel or not, any vector can have its size changed by a vector regardless whether it is parallel to another vector or not. The only use for scalars here is that they change the magnitude, as previously mentioned, so you can use this to travel from some point A to some point B on whatever vector v by adding on λv\lambda \mathbf{v} onto the point A.
Reply 9
Original post by Philip-flop
Yeah your explanation makes more sense than mine! Thank you!! I had trouble putting it into words but had a brief understanding.

So, lambda is a scalar variable which scales vectors by changing their magnitude. And the vectors have to be parallel too for them to have a related lambda? Sorry if I sound silly right now! :frown:

λ\lambda isn't anything special - it just represents a scalar variable.

So if you have a vector a\mathbf{a} then λa\lambda \mathbf{a} could be 2a2 \mathbf{a} or 3.1a-3.1\boldsymbol{a} etc, depending on the value of λ\lambda.

You can use any letter really as long as you don't underline it so it represents a scalar. λ\lambda and μ\mu are quite common.

It is the case that a scalar λ\lambda multiplied by a vector a\mathbf{a} will give you a new vector λa\lambda \mathbf{a}, which is parallel to a\mathbf{a} but whose magnitude has changed by a factor of λ\lambda.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RDKGames
No, the scalar has nothing to do with dependency on two vectors being parallel or not, any vector can have its size changed by a vector regardless whether it is parallel to another vector or not. The only use for scalars here is that they change the magnitude, as previously mentioned, so you can use this to travel from some point A to some point B on whatever vector v by adding on λv\lambda \mathbf{v} onto the point A.


Ohhhh I see!! So lambda is literally a variable that just changes the magnitude of a vector. Thank yoooooou! Sorry for going round in circles a bit :colondollar:

Original post by notnek
λ\lambda isn't anything special - it just represents a scalar variable.

So if you have a vector a\mathbf{a} then λa\lambda \mathbf{a} could be 2a2 \mathbf{a} or 3.1a-3.1\boldsymbol{a} etc, depending on the value of λ\lambda.

You can use any letter really as long as you don't underline it so it represents a scalar. λ\lambda and μ\mu are quite common.

It is the case that a scalar λ\lambda multiplied by a vector a\mathbf{a} will give you a new vector λa\lambda \mathbf{a}, which is parallel to a\mathbf{a} but whose magnitude has changed by a factor of λ\lambda.


Wait so... λa \lambda a will give a new vector that is parallel to the original vector a a ??
Reply 11
Original post by Philip-flop

Wait so... λa \lambda a will give a new vector that is parallel to the original vector a a ??

Yes e.g. 2a2\mathbf{a} is parallel to a\mathbf{a}:

Original post by notnek
Yes e.g. 2a2\mathbf{a} is parallel to a\mathbf{a}:


Thanks @notnek that made it so much easier to visualise :smile:
Stupid question of the day...
What is a position vector?? Are these vectors that are from O the origin?

C4 Vectors Exa10.png

Like with this example. why is OP the position vector of P?
Reply 14
Original post by Philip-flop
Stupid question of the day...
What is a position vector?? Are these vectors that are from O the origin?

C4 Vectors Exa10.png

Like with this example. why is OP the position vector of P?


Not a stupid question, and yes.

The position vector of a point P(x,y) P(x,y) is the vector from the origin O O to the point P P .
Can someone explain perpendicular and parallel vectors to me?...

Perpendicular and Parallel Vectors.png

I've read this little section multiple times but I don't think I completely understand. Obviously I know that if there are two lines perpendicular to each other that there will be an angle of 90 degrees, but the rest of it I'm not so sure about :frown:
Reply 16
Original post by Philip-flop
Can someone explain perpendicular and parallel vectors to me?...

Perpendicular and Parallel Vectors.png

I've read this little section multiple times but I don't think I completely understand. Obviously I know that if there are two lines perpendicular to each other that there will be an angle of 90 degrees, but the rest of it I'm not so sure about :frown:

Try writing out the dot product formula for parallel lines θ=0\theta = 0 and perpendicular lines θ=90\theta = 90.

Then use the fact that cos(0)=1\cos (0) = 1 and cos(90)=0\cos (90) = 0.

Please post your working if you're still unsure.
Original post by Philip-flop
Can someone explain perpendicular and parallel vectors to me?...

Perpendicular and Parallel Vectors.png

I've read this little section multiple times but I don't think I completely understand. Obviously I know that if there are two lines perpendicular to each other that there will be an angle of 90 degrees, but the rest of it I'm not so sure about :frown:


Firstly, are you happy about where and how we get ab=abcos(θ)\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}=\lvert \mathbf{a}\lvert \lvert \mathbf{b} \lvert \cos(\theta) ?

Secondly, if two vectors are parallel then the angle between them is always 0 so plugging this into the equation gives you the shown relation.

Dunno but maybe watching this video can help since that relation is derived towards the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuIhXo39_k
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by notnek
Try writing out the dot product formula for parallel lines θ=0\theta = 0 and perpendicular lines θ=90\theta = 90.

Then use the fact that cos(0)=1\cos (0) = 1 and cos(90)=0\cos (90) = 0.

Please post your working if you're still unsure.

Thank you @notnek!! I understand perpendicular vectors a lot more now! But I'm still a bit "iffy" with parallel vectors.

So for parallel vectors there will be no angle between them so if
Unparseable latex formula:

\theta = 0^\circa

then cos(0)=1 cos(0 ^\circ ) =1

because using the scalar product...
cos(θ)=a.bab cos(\theta) = \frac{a.b}{|a||b|}

cos(0)=1 cos(0^\circ) = 1

This shows that...
a.bab=1 \frac{a.b}{|a||b|} = 1 , when θ=0 \theta = 0^\circ

Meaning...
a.b=ab a.b = |a||b|

Original post by RDKGames
Firstly, are you happy about where and how we get ab=abcos(θ)\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}=\lvert \mathbf{a}\lvert \lvert \mathbf{b} \lvert \cos(\theta) ?

Secondly, if two vectors are parallel then the angle between them is always 0 so plugging this into the equation gives you the shown relation.

Dunno but maybe watching this video can help since that relation is derived towards the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuIhXo39_k

I know the scalar product but proving how it's derived is another matter!

I know that a.b a.b is the product of the x, y, and/or z coordinates of the vectors a and b
and that ab |a||b| is the magnitude/modulus/length of vectors a and b multiplied by each other.

But as you can see my knowledge is still very limited.

Thanks for the link, I will watch that video now :smile:
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 19
Original post by Philip-flop
Thank you @notnek!! I understand perpendicular vectors a lot more now! But I'm still a bit "iffy" with parallel vectors.

So for parallel vectors there will be no angle between them so if
Unparseable latex formula:

\theta = 0^\circa

then cos(0)=1 cos(0 ^\circ ) =1

because using the scalar product...
cos(θ)=a.bab cos(\theta) = \frac{a.b}{|a||b|}

cos(0)=1 cos(0^\circ) = 1

This shows that...
a.bab=1 \frac{a.b}{|a||b|} = 1 , when θ=0 \theta = 0^\circ

Meaning...
a.b=ab a.b = |a||b|

You say you are iffy but what you wrote is correct. Can you explain what you're unsure about?

To summarise, the important thing is that you remember these:

When a\mathbf{a} and b\mathbf{b} are perpendicular, ab=0\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b} = 0

When a\mathbf{a} and b\mathbf{b} are parallel, ab=ab\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b} = |\mathbf{a}| |\mathbf{b}|

These results come from the scalar/dot product formula where θ=90\theta = 90 and θ=0\theta = 0

For C4 you don't need to know how the scalar product formula is derived. You just need to be able to use the formula and use the results above that come from the formula.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest