If A and B are two vectors such that A + B is perpendicular to B and A + 2 B is perpendicular to A , which of the following is correct?
Clarification:
The vectors
A
and
B
are both non-zero.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
You found a necessary condition for these 2 vectors. Do non-zero vectors that satisfy the conditions exist?
Nice solution +1 bro.
I did it by using the formula for angle b/w the resultant & any vector using tan¤ !! I applied it to both cases & then Equated the results ! Nice ques.! Btw, in which class u r?
Log in to reply
Ahah thanks! I am in 11th presently.
Log in to reply
Ok me 2 ! We r even in the same institution of kendriya vidyalaya.. but ur really much better than me bro.! U might have definitely rocked in your board exams!! Have u been using brilliant from 10th. Class?
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Tiwari – Oh nice you are from KV. Well the boards were easy hope the result is will be good. Yeah I've been using brilliant from 10th. How was your boards?
FYI The conclusion is about the magnitude, and not the vector directions. I've edited the options to reflect that.
Log in to reply
Thanks sir, I was not able to put the modulus sign.
Log in to reply
Yea, we prevent using "|" in the answer choices for technical reasons, so I used "\vert" instead.
Note: You should mention that the vectors are non-zero, in order to perform the division.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – I don't think that's necessary; the result is still true if one of the vectors is zero, and his proof still works: it's always ok to take square roots of ∣ A ∣ 2 = 2 ∣ B ∣ 2 .
Log in to reply
@Patrick Corn – I agree that the result is still true. My conditional was "in order to perform the division". If the "combining both results" step was written instead as 2 ∣ B ∣ 2 = − 2 A ⋅ B = ∣ A ∣ 2 , then we didn't need to divide by ∣ B ∣ 2 as in the proof.
Of course, if we wanted to do the division, we can take ∣ B ∣ = 0 as an edge case, and then figure out what happens in that scenario. As it turns out A ⊥ A which implies that A = 0 and hence the equation still applies.
An example satisfying the conditions: A = (-1, 1) and B = (1, 0). So A + B = (0, 1) and A + 2B = (1, 1)
From Cosine rule and Pythagoras theorem,
( ∣ A + B ∣ ) 2 = ∣ A ∣ 2 + ∣ B ∣ 2 + 2 ∣ A ∣ ∣ B ∣ cos θ = ∣ A ∣ 2 − ∣ B ∣ 2
So, ∣ B ∣ = − ∣ A ∣ cos θ --(1)
( ∣ A + 2 B ∣ ) 2 = ∣ A ∣ 2 + ∣ 2 B ∣ 2 + 2 ∣ A ∣ ∣ 2 B ∣ cos θ = ∣ 2 B ∣ 2 − ∣ A ∣ 2
So, ∣ A ∣ = − 2 ∣ B ∣ cos θ
or, ∣ A ∣ = 2 ∣ A ∣ cos 2 θ [From (1)]
or, cos θ = ± 2 1
Hence, ∣ A ∣ = 2 ∣ B ∣ (as magnitude is positive)
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We know that if two vectors are perpendicular, their dot product is 0 . Thus we have;
( A + B ) ⋅ B A ⋅ B + B ⋅ B A ⋅ B = 0 = 0 = − ∣ B ∣ 2
Similarly we have;
( A + 2 B ) ⋅ A A ⋅ A + 2 B ⋅ A 2 B ⋅ A = 0 = 0 = − ∣ A ∣ 2
Now, combining both the results, we get;
A ⋅ B 2 B ⋅ A 2 ∣ B ∣ = ∣ B ∣ 2 ∣ A ∣ 2 = ∣ A ∣