Vectors (1 Viewer)

mathsbrain

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
146
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Does anyone have any vectors worksheet they can share, i don't have anything to practice with other than the textbook(which i guess is the only thing most of us has at the moment...), so was wondering if people from selective schools can share some useful harder questions
 

Pedro123

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
90
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
If you would like some hard questions, you should look at a lot of geometric proofs and try to prove it with vectors, i.e. prove in an isosceles triangle, the angle bisector of the angle made by the 2 equal sides is perpendicular to the unequal side, and it bisects it. It sounds easy, but most geometric proofs can be quite tricky only using vectors (so only use dot product and basic vector laws)
 

mathsbrain

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
146
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
If you would like some hard questions, you should look at a lot of geometric proofs and try to prove it with vectors, i.e. prove in an isosceles triangle, the angle bisector of the angle made by the 2 equal sides is perpendicular to the unequal side, and it bisects it. It sounds easy, but most geometric proofs can be quite tricky only using vectors (so only use dot product and basic vector laws)
hmm just tried it lol and had no idea how to start...
 

ultra908

Active Member
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
124
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
Also vectors are a part of the British A-Levels and the Victorian VCE, I've found some A-Levels qs on equations of lines/planes and they're quite similar to 4u textbook qs so they might be handy.
 

mathsbrain

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
146
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Also vectors are a part of the British A-Levels and the Victorian VCE, I've found some A-Levels qs on equations of lines/planes and they're quite similar to 4u textbook qs so they might be handy.
Do we just find them just online?
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,385
hmm just tried it lol and had no idea how to start...
One approach is to use vectors on an Argand diagram. For example:

Let and be two vectors such that and .

(i) Show that bisects

(ii) Find in terms of and

(iii) Show that is purely imaginary

(iv) Let OZ and AB meet at M. Using the above, show that is an isosceles triangle where OM bisects angle AOB, , and M is the midpoint of AB.

A much simpler approach is as follows:

Let be a vector in the Argand diagram such that . Let . By finding the dot product of and , prove that AOB is an isosceles triangle and that the bisector of angle AOB is the perpendicular bisector of AB.
 

HeroWise

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
353
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
Let the position vectors be and where and the ancle bisector as
This stands that,
also that:
since ,
Hence perpendicular.
 
Last edited:

Pedro123

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2019
Messages
90
Gender
Male
HSC
2021
Let the position vectors be and where and the ancle bisector as
This stands that,
also that:
since ,
Hence perpendicular.
How does that work? I think you are missing the step where you say that a and b are not the same, so a-b cannot be 0, and since c= Mag(b)mag(c)*cos(theta)/B, the only possible value that can make that 0 is when cos(theta)=0, meaning it is perpendicular. See video for an answer (How I solved it):
 
Last edited:

HeroWise

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
353
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
1584840255372.png



a-b is the base... That proof i did was fine, I did state they were position vectors. And if u can assume its a median why not just use properties of rhombus and use complex like CM_Tutor, you will just get it out instantly then lol
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,385
Let the position vectors be and where and the ancle bisector as
HeroWise, I don't follow the definition of . You don't actually need to find , beyond letting letting the angle between and be so that the angle between and and between and are both . However, if you do want to state it, it is for some constant . This is because the unit vectors in the directions of and , when added, represent the diagonal of a rhombus and so must bisect the angles at the vertices through which it passes.

Your method does establish that and thus that , as you stated, which does make perpendicular to , proving that the vector bisecting the apex angle of an isosceles triangle is perpendicular to the position vector for its base.
 

HeroWise

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
353
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
Oh i just wanted to reach the conclusion with the last paragraph quickly. I constructed that vector as an arbitrary vector that will act as a bisector. Didnt want to use the fact that its half a rhombus and in essence that is the way the complex method I was referring to would've been established. The other reason I did not put it as the form you referred to above was because i just wished to prove that the vector c was perpendicular. Didnt need any other stuff for it so didn't go with the definition you have provided above; so the proof
should be sufficient to say the very least.
 

CM_Tutor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,385
Oh i just wanted to reach the conclusion with the last paragraph quickly. I constructed that vector as an arbitrary vector that will act as a bisector. Didnt want to use the fact that its half a rhombus and in essence that is the way the complex method I was referring to would've been established. The other reason I did not put it as the form you referred to above was because i just wished to prove that the vector c was perpendicular. Didnt need any other stuff for it so didn't go with the definition you have provided above; so the proof
should be sufficient to say the very least.
It is possible to simply skip defining explicitly, and even if I were to do so, I would not offer an ambiguous definition of as you have done. It simply invites questions as to why that definition was chosen and whether the that you have defined actually has the properties that you claim. In this situation, it is odd to define by means of a dot product as it means that is not a unique vector as there is more than one that satisfies your definition. Under your definition, must satisfy and have an angle between it and as - but there are two vectors that fit these criteria and only one of them is the bisector that you seek.

It is sufficient to provide a limited defition: that is a vector that bisects the angles between and , so that the angle between and and the angle between and are the same (i.e. ) and thus that the angle between and is subject to the requirements that and .

In other words, by simply naming and defining it as having the properties of a bisector, your proof that the dot product follows quickly and without distraction. As a marker, I would have to stop and consider whether your is actually valid, and the definition itself is not used for the proof in any event so it isn't actually needed.
 

HeroWise

Active Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
353
Gender
Male
HSC
2020
Let the position vectors be and where and the ancle bisector as
This stands that,
also that:
since ,
Hence perpendicular.
Im dumb, i can type set as u can see haha. I meant: "and the angle bisector as "

So sorry did it in a hurry, but the maths should be write afterwards
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top