Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Hey all!
    Ive just been getting a bit confused lately as to why the gradient of a normal to a line is -1/m? Why is it not just -m? this is probably really easy but its just been confusing me so much!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeRStudent)
    Hey all!
    Ive just been getting a bit confused lately as to why the gradient of a normal to a line is -1/m? Why is it not just -m? this is probably really easy but its just been confusing me so much!
    Suppose you have two lines in vector format and assume they meet.
    Move the meeting point to the origin let one line be column vector a b which gives grad b/a using dot product let the other vector have column vector (x y)
    ax+by=0 from product thing then you easily see the relation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsmaths)
    Suppose you have two lines in vector format and assume they meet.
    Move the meeting point to the origin let one line be column vector a b which gives grad b/a using dot product let the other vector have column vector (x y)
    ax+by=0 from product thing then you easily see the relation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm sorry I dont quite follow, could you explain this a bit more thoroughly?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeRStudent)
    I'm sorry I dont quite follow, could you explain this a bit more thoroughly?
    Do you understand upto the ax+by bit?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, suppose you have a line y=xtanu and a line y=xtan(u+pi/2), these two lines will be perpendicular.

    expanding tan(u+pi/2) gives you cosu/(-sinu)=-cotu

    hence tanu*-cotu=-1
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Okay I'm not entirely sure but I feel like what you're looking for is a lot more basic than the answers given

    Basically
    say m1= gradient of the tangent
    And m2= gradient of the normal

    M1 x M2 = -1
    M2 = -1 / m1

    (normal is perpendicular to the tangent)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    Okay I'm not entirely sure but I feel like what you're looking for is a lot more basic than the answers given

    Basically
    say m1= gradient of the tangent
    And m2= gradient of the normal

    M1 x M2 = -1
    M2 = -1 / m1

    (normal is perpendicular to the tangent)
    But why do they equal -1?

    And as a note for the above I don'it understand any of that im sorry!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Are you familiar with the idea that if we have a line of gradient m then the angle it makes with the positive x-axis (i.e the x-axis moving rightwards) is \arctan (m)?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeRStudent)
    Hey all!
    Ive just been getting a bit confused lately as to why the gradient of a normal to a line is -1/m? Why is it not just -m? this is probably really easy but its just been confusing me so much!
    I'm guessing you're looking for a more intuitive answer? Here's a rather dodgy picture. The idea is to rotate the triangle by 90 degrees. Drawing not to scale
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Inspired by Blazy's picture I made my attempt at explaining this.Let you have a look at a detailed explanation in the attached doc.

    (Original post by Blazy)
    I'm guessing you're looking for a more intuitive answer? Here's a rather dodgy picture. The idea is to rotate the triangle by 90 degrees. Drawing not to scale
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf EXPLANATION ATTEMPT.pdf (734.8 KB, 66 views)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeRStudent)
    Hey all!
    Ive just been getting a bit confused lately as to why the gradient of a normal to a line is -1/m? Why is it not just -m? this is probably really easy but its just been confusing me so much!
    The normal is perpendicular to the line. The gradient of the normal is therefore the negative reciprocal of the gradient of the line. If tge gradient of the line is m, the gradient if the normal must be -1/m

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matrix123)
    The normal is perpendicular to the line. The gradient of the normal is therefore the negative reciprocal of the gradient of the line. If tge gradient of the line is m, the gradient if the normal must be -1/m

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The gradient of the normal is perpendicular to the tangent.

    He's asking why does the perpendicularity of the normal and tangent mean that the gradient of the normal is "therefore" the negative reciprocal of the gradient of the tangent. It's quite a good question, actually. :-)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Then we could talk about Rotation Matrix and the transformation this matrix impose to a vector's coordinates, bearing in mind that we talk about 90 degrees rotation. But this gets more complicated, doesn't it?
    (Original post by Zacken)
    The gradient of the normal is perpendicular to the tangent.

    He's asking why does the perpendicularity of the normal and tangent mean that the gradient of the normal is "therefore" the negative reciprocal of the gradient of the tangent. It's quite a good question, actually. :-)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    To get a more intuitive idea try this.
    Get a piece of quadrille (5mm squared paper) and draw a line from any point to any other.
    Lets say from beginning to end is 6 across and 7 up.
    From the end draw a line that is 7 across and 6 down.
    The two lines will be at right angles.

    Try the same trick for a number of examples. Maybe this will help.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by depymak)
    Then we could talk about Rotation Matrix and the transformation this matrix impose to a vector's coordinates, bearing in mind that we talk about 90 degrees rotation. But this gets more complicated, doesn't it?
    Ooh, that's a nice method as well. I hadn't thought of that. But, yeah - you can always gett more complicated, in fact - once you start working with more than one variable you need to start considering level sets and perpendicularity there is quite insane. :lol:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeRStudent)
    Hey all!
    Ive just been getting a bit confused lately as to why the gradient of a normal to a line is -1/m? Why is it not just -m? this is probably really easy but its just been confusing me so much!
    It's hard to show this without a diagram (I may do one later) but the usual way to demonstrate it is to construct two similar triangles (or even just congruent ..) representing gradients at the point of intersection of the lines. You will find that the gradient of one line is the reciprocal of the other as the rise of the first becomes the run of the other, and vice versa.

    The -ve sign comes from the fact that, for one line, as the run increases (i.e. goes in the +ve x direction), the rise decreases (i.e. goes in the -ve y direction).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    The gradient of the normal is perpendicular to the tangent.

    He's asking why does the perpendicularity of the normal and tangent mean that the gradient of the normal is "therefore" the negative reciprocal of the gradient of the tangent. It's quite a good question, actually. :-)
    Ohhh thanks for correcting me:five:

    Yes, it certainly does sound interesting. Just out of interest, how would you answer that as simply as possible? (Please bear in mind I'm a GCSE student)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matrix123)
    Ohhh thanks for correcting me:five:

    Yes, it certainly does sound interesting. Just out of interest, how would you answer that as simply as possible? (Please bear in mind I'm a GCSE student)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's a nice picture a few posts up that uses triangles to explain it. Basically, you kind of rotate the triangle and measure the gradient as ratios of sides of triangles and it all works out. The picture should elucidate it all!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    There's a nice picture a few posts up that uses triangles to explain it. Basically, you kind of rotate the triangle and measure the gradient as ratios of sides of triangles and it all works out. The picture should elucidate it all!
    Ohhh I get it now! It took me a while but that is amazing! Thanks so much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matrix123)
    Ohhh I get it now! It took me a while but that is amazing! Thanks so much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yay! Glad it makes sense!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 22, 2016
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.