Proving That Planes Are Parallel | Physics Forums

• Insights Blog -- Browse All Articles -- Physics Articles Math Articles Education Articles Bio/Chem/Tech Articles
• Forums General Math Calculus Differential Equations Topology and Analysis Linear and Abstract Algebra Differential Geometry Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
• Trending

Log in Register What's new

• General Math
• Calculus
• Differential Equations
• Topology and Analysis
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
• Differential Geometry
• Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
• MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX

Menu Log in Register Navigation More options Style variation System Light Dark Contact us Close Menu You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

• Forums
• Mathematics
• Linear and Abstract Algebra

Proving that planes are parallel

• Context: Undergrad
• Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
• Start date Start date Oct 1, 2012
• Tags Tags Parallel Planes

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which two planes in ℝ³ can be proven to be parallel, focusing on both geometric and algebraic definitions. Participants explore various methods to establish parallelism using the equations of the planes and their normal vectors.

Discussion Character

• Technical explanation
• Conceptual clarification
• Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

• One participant seeks to understand how the geometric definition of parallel planes translates into algebraic terms, specifically through their equations.
• Several participants suggest constructing the normal vectors of the planes and using the cross product to determine if they are parallel.
• Another participant introduces projective geometry and geometric algebra to discuss the conditions under which two subspaces (planes) are parallel, proposing a theorem related to their intersection.
• A participant mentions that if two planes are parallel, their corresponding linear equations are linearly dependent, implying a relationship between their normal vectors.
• Another participant elaborates on the conditions for the equations of the planes to indicate parallelism, including cases where the equations are scalar multiples of each other.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to connect geometric and algebraic definitions of parallel planes. While some agree on the use of normal vectors and linear dependence, others question how these definitions relate to the geometric interpretation of parallelism.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of parallelism and the implications of linear dependence in the context of the equations of the planes. The discussion does not reach a consensus on a unified proof connecting the various definitions.

Bipolarity Messages 773 Reaction score 2 In ℝ^{3}, how would I go about proving that two planes are parallel, given their equations? I know what the "word" parallel means, in the sense that two planes are always equidistant from one another, so that they must either never intersect, or that they must intersect at every point on their graphs. But how does this translate to an algebraic, or vector definition of parallel planes, given the equations for both planes? Say the equation for plane 1 is a_{1}x + b_{1}y + c_{1}z = d_{1} and the equation for plane 2 is a_{2}x + b_{2}y + c_{2}z = d_{2}. Under what conditions would they be paralle, given the geometric definitions of parallel I have just given? Or are my definitions just incorrect? BiP Physics news on Phys.org

• Light-based Ising computer runs at room temperature and stays stable for hours
• Researchers demonstrate organic crystal emitting red light from UV and green from near-infrared
• Broken inversion symmetry lets 3D crystals mimic 2D Ising superconductivity

Muphrid Messages 834 Reaction score 2 Construct the planes' normal vectors a_1 \hat x + b_1 \hat y + c_1 \hat z for the first plane and similarly for the second. If the vectors are parallel, the cross product must zero. Bipolarity Messages 773 Reaction score 2

Muphrid said: Construct the planes' normal vectors a_1 \hat x + b_1 \hat y + c_1 \hat z for the first plane and similarly for the second. If the vectors are parallel, the cross product must zero.

I see, but how does this follow from the geometric definition I posted? BiP Muphrid Messages 834 Reaction score 2 If the planes are parallel, the vectors normal to them are parallel. The cross product can then be used as a test of whether the vectors are parallel. Bipolarity Messages 773 Reaction score 2

Muphrid said: If the planes are parallel, the vectors normal to them are parallel. The cross product can then be used as a test of whether the vectors are parallel.

Yes ok, but how does that follow from the fact that they must either never intersect or they must intersect at every point on their graphs if they are parallel? The two definitions are quite distinct, and I am looking for a proof that they are definitions of the same thing, that is that satisfying one of the definitions automatically satisfies the other. BiP Muphrid Messages 834 Reaction score 2 Let me resort to some projective geometry and geometric algebra then. Consider a projective 2d space. This has a third "projection" dimension with unit vector e_0 (to go with e_1, e_2). Vectors in this space can be taken to represent points, and typically they're of the form e_0 + x^1 e_1 + x^2 e_2. Any scalar multiple of this vector is taken to represent the same 2d point. (This is why it's called "homogeneous" coordinates.) To imagine the above, consider a 3d space with a plane offset 1 unit above the origin. Where vectors intersect this plane sets the true 2d coordinates of a given point, and clearly multiplying any such vector by a scalar will not change this point of intersection. Now, consider two vectors p and q and the 2d subspace that they span. This subspace should intersect the projective plane in a line, and we get the familiar result from geometry that two points are all that's needed to describe a line. Let me denote this line with the following: p \wedge q. Now let's consider two other vectors r, s, which form the line r \wedge s. Remember that even though both these objects represent lines in real space, in the projective space they are 2d subspaces through the origin. If these lines are parallel, then the 2d subspaces they define should intersect only at the origin or they intersect everywhere (if the lines are coincident). If not, then the 2d subspaces share a common 1d subspace (a common vector). Since vectors = points, then if we can find the common vector, then we can find the point of intersection. The common elements between two subspaces is called the meet of the subspaces, and this is where I think we can connect to your geometric definition: Theorem: Two non-identical subspaces are parallel if and only if the meet of those subspaces is only the origin. Two identical subspaces are always parallel. I've introduces this notion based solely on lines, but I think it should be straightforward to extend to planes (if more difficult to visualize in projective space). Now, what is the meet between two projected lines? This is where the "geometric algebra" part really comes in. That formalism gives us the power to use a "commutator product" between subspaces that acts like an exclusive or. Between two projected lines, if they have a common vector, the commutator product of the lines will give us a 2d subspace that is orthogonal to that common line, which can then be found by duality. The process for planes in a real 3d space is similar. I know that this may seem like a lot more overhead than you were looking for--projective geometry is a bit strange. But if you're interested, I can go into more detail and prove things more rigorously, where here I've only tried to be persuasive. chiro Homework Helper Messages 4,817 Reaction score 134 Hey BiPolarity. Remember if two planes are parallel, the linear equations that describe them are linearly dependent. If you have two normal vectors that are scalar multiples of each other, then can you use the basic formula of linear independence to show that there are non-zero constants for this to hold? (Recall: a set of vectors are linearly independent if a linear combination equalling zero implies all coeffecients are also zero). Erland Science Advisor Messages 771 Reaction score 151 Suppose we have two planes with equations a_{1}x + b_{1}y + c_{1}z = d_{1} and a_{2}x + b_{2}y + c_{2}z = d_{2}. (We assume here that a_1, b_1,c_1 are not all 0, for then the solution set of the first equation alone is all the space, if d_1=0, and empty otherwise. Similarly for the second equation.) Now, if a_1=a_2, b_1=b_2, c_1=c_2, or if we can obtain this by multiplying one of the equations with a nonzero constant (which does not change the solution set), then the equations can have no common solution, and hence the planes do not intersect, so they are parallell, unless also d_1=d_2, in which case the equations are identical and the planes coincide. In every other case, solving the equation system gives a one-parameter solution, where one of the variables can be choosen freely. This means that the planes intersect along a line.

Similar threads

Undergrad Three equations of planes, dimension should be 1?

• Oct 11, 2020 · Replies 10 · Oct 11, 2020

Replies 10 Views 2K Undergrad Manipulation of 2nd, 3rd & 4th order tensor using Index notation

• Feb 18, 2022 · Replies 5 · Feb 21, 2022

Replies 5 Views 2K Graduate Anti-dual numbers and what are their properties?

• Jun 7, 2022 · Replies 1 · Jun 7, 2022

Replies 1 Views 2K Undergrad Line of intersection of two planes

• Oct 20, 2014 · Replies 2 · Oct 20, 2014

Replies 2 Views 2K Electric field due to charges between 2 parallel infinite planes

• Sep 22, 2025 · Replies 9 · Sep 24, 2025

Replies 9 Views 1K High School Existence of parallels in axiomatic plane geometries

• Jan 19, 2020 · Replies 36 · Feb 11, 2020

2 Replies 36 Views 6K MHB Find Equation of Plane Perpendicular to Line $l(t)$

• Feb 26, 2016 · Replies 1 · Feb 26, 2016

Replies 1 Views 2K Undergrad Multiplying three vector operators

• Jan 9, 2023 · Replies 3 · Jan 9, 2023

Replies 3 Views 1K Writing a vector parallel and normal to a unit vector ##\hat n##

• Jun 27, 2025 · Replies 26 · Jul 8, 2025

Replies 26 Views 2K Undergrad Why equating two planes does not provide solutions?

• Oct 19, 2014 · Replies 8 · Oct 22, 2014

Replies 8 Views 2K

• Forums
• Mathematics
• Linear and Abstract Algebra

Hot Threads

• 

  Undergrad About the existence of Hamel basis for vector spaces

  • Started by cianfa72
  • Sep 17, 2025
  • Replies: 32
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
• M

  Undergrad How to define a vector field?

  • Started by Mike_bb
  • Nov 25, 2025
  • Replies: 23
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
• G

  Graduate Confusion about the Moyal-Weyl twist

  • Started by gasgas
  • Dec 22, 2025
  • Replies: 4
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
• 

  Undergrad 2 interpretations of bra-ket expression: equal, & isomorphic, but...

  • Started by nomadreid
  • Jan 14, 2026
  • Replies: 10
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
• G

  Undergrad Non-orthogonal bases

  • Started by geordief
  • Sep 18, 2025
  • Replies: 12
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra

Recent Insights

• 

  Insights Thinking Outside The Box Versus Knowing What’s In The Box

  • Started by Greg Bernhardt
  • Oct 13, 2025
  • Replies: 26
  • Other Physics Topics
• 

  Insights Why Entangled Photon-Polarization Qubits Violate Bell’s Inequality

  • Started by Greg Bernhardt
  • Sep 29, 2025
  • Replies: 28
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
• 

  Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect

  • Started by Greg Bernhardt
  • Sep 2, 2025
  • Replies: 22
  • Quantum Physics
• 

  Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight

  • Started by Greg Bernhardt
  • Sep 2, 2025
  • Replies: 33
  • General Math
• 

  Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight

  • Started by Greg Bernhardt
  • Sep 2, 2025
  • Replies: 1
  • Special and General Relativity
• P

  Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers

  • Started by PAllen
  • Jul 20, 2025
  • Replies: 7
  • General Math

Back Top