Porisma

Worked solution

Separate plane angles, intersections and orthogonal directions

Planes Π1,Π2\Pi_1,\Pi_2 are r⋅(2,4,1)=10\mathbf r\cdot(2,4,1)=10, r⋅(1,3,1)=8\mathbf r\cdot(1,3,1)=8.

(i) Find their acute angle. marks

(ii) Obtain a vector equation of their intersection line l1l_1. marks

Another line l2l_2 is (x−2)/6=(7−z)/3(x-2)/6=(7-z)/3, y=m, where m is real.

(iii) If Π1 and l2 intersect at (6,m,5), find m. marks

(iv) Show l1 and l2 are perpendicular for all m. marks

[2010/DHS/II/4(modified)]

CJC · Review problems · Question 4

Answer

Angle 0.162rad or 9.3°; l1:r=(−1,3,0)+λ(1/2,−1/2,1)l_1:r=(-1,3,0)+\lambda(1/2,-1/2,1); (iii)m=−7/4; orthogonal directions for all m, but intersection only at m=−2/5.

(i) Compare the plane normals

The normals have dot product 15 and magnitudes√21,√11. Thus α=cos⁡−1[15/(2111)]=0.162\alpha=\cos^{-1}[15/(\sqrt{21}\sqrt{11})]=0.162 rad(3s.f.), or 9.3°(1d.p.). This acute normal angle is the acute angle between planes.

How did this part go?

(ii) Solve both plane equations

2x+4y+z=102x+4y+z=10 and x+3y+z=8x+3y+z=8 give x=−1+z/2x=-1+z/2, y=3−z/2y=3-z/2. Taking z as a free parameter yields l1:r=(−1,3,0)+λ(1/2,−1/2,1)l_1:\mathbf r=(-1,3,0)+\lambda(1/2,-1/2,1), λ real.

How did this part go?

(iii) Substitute the supplied intersection point

2(6)+4m+5=102(6)+4m+5=10 gives m=−7/4. The point also satisfies l2 since (6−2)/6=(7−5)/3=2/3(6-2)/6=(7-5)/3=2/3.

How did this part go?

(iv) Prove the orthogonal-direction statement

Writing the common ratio of l2 as μ gives l2:r=(2,m,7)+μ(6,0,−3)l_2:\mathbf r=(2,m,7)+\mu(6,0,-3). The direction dot product is (1/2,−1/2,1)⋅(6,0,−3)=3−3=0(1/2,-1/2,1)\cdot(6,0,-3)=3-3=0, independent of m. Thus their directions are orthogonal for all m, as intended by the printed proof.

How did this part go?

(iv) Qualify a spatial intersection interpretation

The two lines intersect only when μ=1/15, λ=34/5 and m=−2/5, found by matching x,z then y. For other m they are skew, despite the orthogonal directions. Therefore “perpendicular for all m” must be read as the angle between directions, not as intersecting at a right angle for every m.

How did this part go?

Common mistakes

The source wording in(iv) does not ensure the lines meet.

Solution notes

All four asks and printed working retained. The source all-m perpendicular claim is qualified: direction orthogonality is valid, but intersection occurs only for m=−2/5. No source figure.

Read the hint