Another way to write equation of the line passing through two points?
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I am trying to write equation of the line passing through two points pA={1, -3}
and pB={-33, -1}
in the form x+17 y+50=0
. I tried
{pA, pB} = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
u = pB - pA;
m = {x, y};
v = m - pA;
d = Det[{u, v}];
w = {Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]};
k = GCD[Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]];
If[w[[1]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[1]]] w/k,
If[w[[2]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[2]]] w/k]];
TraditionalForm[Expand[n.v]] == 0
I got
x+17 y+50==0
Is there another way to write it?
output-formatting geometry
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I am trying to write equation of the line passing through two points pA={1, -3}
and pB={-33, -1}
in the form x+17 y+50=0
. I tried
{pA, pB} = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
u = pB - pA;
m = {x, y};
v = m - pA;
d = Det[{u, v}];
w = {Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]};
k = GCD[Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]];
If[w[[1]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[1]]] w/k,
If[w[[2]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[2]]] w/k]];
TraditionalForm[Expand[n.v]] == 0
I got
x+17 y+50==0
Is there another way to write it?
output-formatting geometry
Write or solve?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
@Kuba Write the equation of the line passing through two points.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
Isn't17 x-y-20==0
already in that form?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Yes. My question is "is there another way to write the equation in that form?"
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
You can multiply sides by a constant but I fail to see how it is a Mathematica question.
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I am trying to write equation of the line passing through two points pA={1, -3}
and pB={-33, -1}
in the form x+17 y+50=0
. I tried
{pA, pB} = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
u = pB - pA;
m = {x, y};
v = m - pA;
d = Det[{u, v}];
w = {Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]};
k = GCD[Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]];
If[w[[1]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[1]]] w/k,
If[w[[2]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[2]]] w/k]];
TraditionalForm[Expand[n.v]] == 0
I got
x+17 y+50==0
Is there another way to write it?
output-formatting geometry
I am trying to write equation of the line passing through two points pA={1, -3}
and pB={-33, -1}
in the form x+17 y+50=0
. I tried
{pA, pB} = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
u = pB - pA;
m = {x, y};
v = m - pA;
d = Det[{u, v}];
w = {Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]};
k = GCD[Coefficient[d, x], Coefficient[d, y]];
If[w[[1]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[1]]] w/k,
If[w[[2]] != 0, n = Sign[w[[2]]] w/k]];
TraditionalForm[Expand[n.v]] == 0
I got
x+17 y+50==0
Is there another way to write it?
output-formatting geometry
output-formatting geometry
edited 2 days ago
asked 2 days ago
minhthien_2016
544310
544310
Write or solve?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
@Kuba Write the equation of the line passing through two points.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
Isn't17 x-y-20==0
already in that form?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Yes. My question is "is there another way to write the equation in that form?"
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
You can multiply sides by a constant but I fail to see how it is a Mathematica question.
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
Write or solve?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
@Kuba Write the equation of the line passing through two points.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
Isn't17 x-y-20==0
already in that form?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Yes. My question is "is there another way to write the equation in that form?"
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
You can multiply sides by a constant but I fail to see how it is a Mathematica question.
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Write or solve?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Write or solve?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
@Kuba Write the equation of the line passing through two points.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@Kuba Write the equation of the line passing through two points.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
1
Isn't
17 x-y-20==0
already in that form?– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Isn't
17 x-y-20==0
already in that form?– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Yes. My question is "is there another way to write the equation in that form?"
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Yes. My question is "is there another way to write the equation in that form?"
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
1
You can multiply sides by a constant but I fail to see how it is a Mathematica question.
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
You can multiply sides by a constant but I fail to see how it is a Mathematica question.
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Simplify[y - InterpolatingPolynomial[{pA, pB}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Also
Simplify[y - a x - b == 0 /. First@Solve[a # + b == #2 & @@@ {pA, pB}, {a, b}]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
And
Simplify @ Rationalize[y - Fit[{pA, pB}, {x, 1}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You may do as follows. Let us look for the equation in the form ax+by==1, where the parameters a and b are to be found.This will substitute the coordinates of the points pA and pB into this equations, thus, forming two equations with respect to a and b and solves the system:
eq = a*#[[1]] + b*#[[2]] == 1 &;
eq1=eq /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}
(* {a - 3 b == 1, -33 a - b == 1} *)
This will substitute the solution into the linear equation already in coordinates x and y:
eq[{x, y}] /. sol
(* -(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1 *)
This will plot the solution:
Show[{
ContourPlot[-(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1, {x, -34, 2}, {y, -4, 0}],
Graphics[{Red, PointSize[0.015], Point[#] & /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}}]
}]
yielding the following plot:
The original points are shown in red.
This is one of several possible ways.
Have fun!
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The equation of a planar line going through two points $ P_1(x_1,y_1) $ and $ P_2(x_2,y_2) $ (e.g. cf this for reference) is
$$
begin{vmatrix}
x & y\
x_2-x_1 & y_2-y_1
end{vmatrix}
=
begin{vmatrix}
x_1 & y_1\
x_2 & y_2
end{vmatrix}.
$$
So there is the piece of codes below:
Clear[eq, pts]
eq = Simplify[Det[{{x, y}, -Subtract @@ #}] == Det[#]] &;
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
eq[pts]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Or
eq2 = Simplify[Det[{-1, 1} Differences[Prepend[#, {x, y}]]] == 0] &;
Ifpts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the forma x + b y + c==0
,a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort ofeq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Another way :Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
With RegionMember:
Simplify[RegionMember[InfiniteLine[{{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}], {x, y}],
Element[x | y, Reals]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Knowing that the coefficients are components of a vector perpendicular to the difference of the two points, I think the most convenient command to obtain the equation is
perp = Cross[pB - pA];
perp.{x, y} == perp.pA // Simplify
50 + x + 17 y == 0
The last step before Simplify
is
-2 x - 34 y == 100
so you can see that the simplification brought all terms to one side, factored out the greatest common divisor and fixed the signs.
To Mathematica the sums "50 + x + 17y" and "x + 17y + 50" are exactly the same expression, but if you want to order linear terms before constants in the displayed form, you may consider using TraditionalForm
(with the added benefit of using a "normal" equality sign while remaining copy-and-pastable):
% // TraditionalForm
$x+17 y+50=0$
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Although this might be more a math question, the ingenious answers have taught me a lot about MMA. Thanks to all contributors. I can add an answer based on my high school Analytical Geometry classes. The mnemonic two-point form of the equation of a straight line through A(x1,y1) and B(x2,y2) is
Using the coordinates for pA and pB given in the question:
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
y2 - y1) == (x - x1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
However the more 'symmetrical form' of the equation leads to an answer that is mathematically identical, but is not in the required form. Does anybody know how to force MMA to yield the required form?
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
x - x1) == (y2 - y1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
I think, we can write in the formSimplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the forma x + b y + c = 0
.
– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Simplify[y - InterpolatingPolynomial[{pA, pB}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Also
Simplify[y - a x - b == 0 /. First@Solve[a # + b == #2 & @@@ {pA, pB}, {a, b}]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
And
Simplify @ Rationalize[y - Fit[{pA, pB}, {x, 1}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Simplify[y - InterpolatingPolynomial[{pA, pB}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Also
Simplify[y - a x - b == 0 /. First@Solve[a # + b == #2 & @@@ {pA, pB}, {a, b}]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
And
Simplify @ Rationalize[y - Fit[{pA, pB}, {x, 1}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
Simplify[y - InterpolatingPolynomial[{pA, pB}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Also
Simplify[y - a x - b == 0 /. First@Solve[a # + b == #2 & @@@ {pA, pB}, {a, b}]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
And
Simplify @ Rationalize[y - Fit[{pA, pB}, {x, 1}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Simplify[y - InterpolatingPolynomial[{pA, pB}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Also
Simplify[y - a x - b == 0 /. First@Solve[a # + b == #2 & @@@ {pA, pB}, {a, b}]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
And
Simplify @ Rationalize[y - Fit[{pA, pB}, {x, 1}, x] == 0]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
kglr
171k8194399
171k8194399
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You may do as follows. Let us look for the equation in the form ax+by==1, where the parameters a and b are to be found.This will substitute the coordinates of the points pA and pB into this equations, thus, forming two equations with respect to a and b and solves the system:
eq = a*#[[1]] + b*#[[2]] == 1 &;
eq1=eq /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}
(* {a - 3 b == 1, -33 a - b == 1} *)
This will substitute the solution into the linear equation already in coordinates x and y:
eq[{x, y}] /. sol
(* -(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1 *)
This will plot the solution:
Show[{
ContourPlot[-(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1, {x, -34, 2}, {y, -4, 0}],
Graphics[{Red, PointSize[0.015], Point[#] & /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}}]
}]
yielding the following plot:
The original points are shown in red.
This is one of several possible ways.
Have fun!
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You may do as follows. Let us look for the equation in the form ax+by==1, where the parameters a and b are to be found.This will substitute the coordinates of the points pA and pB into this equations, thus, forming two equations with respect to a and b and solves the system:
eq = a*#[[1]] + b*#[[2]] == 1 &;
eq1=eq /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}
(* {a - 3 b == 1, -33 a - b == 1} *)
This will substitute the solution into the linear equation already in coordinates x and y:
eq[{x, y}] /. sol
(* -(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1 *)
This will plot the solution:
Show[{
ContourPlot[-(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1, {x, -34, 2}, {y, -4, 0}],
Graphics[{Red, PointSize[0.015], Point[#] & /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}}]
}]
yielding the following plot:
The original points are shown in red.
This is one of several possible ways.
Have fun!
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You may do as follows. Let us look for the equation in the form ax+by==1, where the parameters a and b are to be found.This will substitute the coordinates of the points pA and pB into this equations, thus, forming two equations with respect to a and b and solves the system:
eq = a*#[[1]] + b*#[[2]] == 1 &;
eq1=eq /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}
(* {a - 3 b == 1, -33 a - b == 1} *)
This will substitute the solution into the linear equation already in coordinates x and y:
eq[{x, y}] /. sol
(* -(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1 *)
This will plot the solution:
Show[{
ContourPlot[-(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1, {x, -34, 2}, {y, -4, 0}],
Graphics[{Red, PointSize[0.015], Point[#] & /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}}]
}]
yielding the following plot:
The original points are shown in red.
This is one of several possible ways.
Have fun!
You may do as follows. Let us look for the equation in the form ax+by==1, where the parameters a and b are to be found.This will substitute the coordinates of the points pA and pB into this equations, thus, forming two equations with respect to a and b and solves the system:
eq = a*#[[1]] + b*#[[2]] == 1 &;
eq1=eq /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}
(* {a - 3 b == 1, -33 a - b == 1} *)
This will substitute the solution into the linear equation already in coordinates x and y:
eq[{x, y}] /. sol
(* -(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1 *)
This will plot the solution:
Show[{
ContourPlot[-(x/50) - (17 y)/50 == 1, {x, -34, 2}, {y, -4, 0}],
Graphics[{Red, PointSize[0.015], Point[#] & /@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}}]
}]
yielding the following plot:
The original points are shown in red.
This is one of several possible ways.
Have fun!
answered 2 days ago
Alexei Boulbitch
21.1k2369
21.1k2369
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The equation of a planar line going through two points $ P_1(x_1,y_1) $ and $ P_2(x_2,y_2) $ (e.g. cf this for reference) is
$$
begin{vmatrix}
x & y\
x_2-x_1 & y_2-y_1
end{vmatrix}
=
begin{vmatrix}
x_1 & y_1\
x_2 & y_2
end{vmatrix}.
$$
So there is the piece of codes below:
Clear[eq, pts]
eq = Simplify[Det[{{x, y}, -Subtract @@ #}] == Det[#]] &;
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
eq[pts]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Or
eq2 = Simplify[Det[{-1, 1} Differences[Prepend[#, {x, y}]]] == 0] &;
Ifpts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the forma x + b y + c==0
,a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort ofeq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Another way :Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The equation of a planar line going through two points $ P_1(x_1,y_1) $ and $ P_2(x_2,y_2) $ (e.g. cf this for reference) is
$$
begin{vmatrix}
x & y\
x_2-x_1 & y_2-y_1
end{vmatrix}
=
begin{vmatrix}
x_1 & y_1\
x_2 & y_2
end{vmatrix}.
$$
So there is the piece of codes below:
Clear[eq, pts]
eq = Simplify[Det[{{x, y}, -Subtract @@ #}] == Det[#]] &;
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
eq[pts]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Or
eq2 = Simplify[Det[{-1, 1} Differences[Prepend[#, {x, y}]]] == 0] &;
Ifpts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the forma x + b y + c==0
,a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort ofeq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Another way :Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The equation of a planar line going through two points $ P_1(x_1,y_1) $ and $ P_2(x_2,y_2) $ (e.g. cf this for reference) is
$$
begin{vmatrix}
x & y\
x_2-x_1 & y_2-y_1
end{vmatrix}
=
begin{vmatrix}
x_1 & y_1\
x_2 & y_2
end{vmatrix}.
$$
So there is the piece of codes below:
Clear[eq, pts]
eq = Simplify[Det[{{x, y}, -Subtract @@ #}] == Det[#]] &;
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
eq[pts]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Or
eq2 = Simplify[Det[{-1, 1} Differences[Prepend[#, {x, y}]]] == 0] &;
The equation of a planar line going through two points $ P_1(x_1,y_1) $ and $ P_2(x_2,y_2) $ (e.g. cf this for reference) is
$$
begin{vmatrix}
x & y\
x_2-x_1 & y_2-y_1
end{vmatrix}
=
begin{vmatrix}
x_1 & y_1\
x_2 & y_2
end{vmatrix}.
$$
So there is the piece of codes below:
Clear[eq, pts]
eq = Simplify[Det[{{x, y}, -Subtract @@ #}] == Det[#]] &;
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}};
eq[pts]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
Or
eq2 = Simplify[Det[{-1, 1} Differences[Prepend[#, {x, y}]]] == 0] &;
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
3,4631927
3,4631927
Ifpts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the forma x + b y + c==0
,a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort ofeq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Another way :Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Ifpts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the forma x + b y + c==0
,a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort ofeq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Another way :Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
If
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form 9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput 9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the form a x + b y + c==0
, a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
If
pts = {{1, -3}, {-33, 150}}
How can I get the form 9 x+2 y-3=0
. Your code ouput 9 x+2 y==3
Allways in the form a x + b y + c==0
, a>0, if
a=0, then
b >0`.– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort of
eq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
@minhthien_2016 Sort of
eq[pts] /. a_ == b_ :> a - b == 0
, though I think it just a minor issue.– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Thank you very much.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
Another way :
Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
Another way :
Det[{{x - #1[[1]], y - #1[[2]]}, {x - #2[[1]], y - #2[[2]]}}] == 0 & @@ {{1, -3}, {-33, -1}} // Simplify
– Sigis K
yesterday
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
@SigisK Yes, it is.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
With RegionMember:
Simplify[RegionMember[InfiniteLine[{{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}], {x, y}],
Element[x | y, Reals]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
With RegionMember:
Simplify[RegionMember[InfiniteLine[{{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}], {x, y}],
Element[x | y, Reals]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
With RegionMember:
Simplify[RegionMember[InfiniteLine[{{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}], {x, y}],
Element[x | y, Reals]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
With RegionMember:
Simplify[RegionMember[InfiniteLine[{{1, -3}, {-33, -1}}], {x, y}],
Element[x | y, Reals]]
50 + x + 17 y == 0
answered 2 days ago
halmir
10.1k2443
10.1k2443
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Knowing that the coefficients are components of a vector perpendicular to the difference of the two points, I think the most convenient command to obtain the equation is
perp = Cross[pB - pA];
perp.{x, y} == perp.pA // Simplify
50 + x + 17 y == 0
The last step before Simplify
is
-2 x - 34 y == 100
so you can see that the simplification brought all terms to one side, factored out the greatest common divisor and fixed the signs.
To Mathematica the sums "50 + x + 17y" and "x + 17y + 50" are exactly the same expression, but if you want to order linear terms before constants in the displayed form, you may consider using TraditionalForm
(with the added benefit of using a "normal" equality sign while remaining copy-and-pastable):
% // TraditionalForm
$x+17 y+50=0$
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Knowing that the coefficients are components of a vector perpendicular to the difference of the two points, I think the most convenient command to obtain the equation is
perp = Cross[pB - pA];
perp.{x, y} == perp.pA // Simplify
50 + x + 17 y == 0
The last step before Simplify
is
-2 x - 34 y == 100
so you can see that the simplification brought all terms to one side, factored out the greatest common divisor and fixed the signs.
To Mathematica the sums "50 + x + 17y" and "x + 17y + 50" are exactly the same expression, but if you want to order linear terms before constants in the displayed form, you may consider using TraditionalForm
(with the added benefit of using a "normal" equality sign while remaining copy-and-pastable):
% // TraditionalForm
$x+17 y+50=0$
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Knowing that the coefficients are components of a vector perpendicular to the difference of the two points, I think the most convenient command to obtain the equation is
perp = Cross[pB - pA];
perp.{x, y} == perp.pA // Simplify
50 + x + 17 y == 0
The last step before Simplify
is
-2 x - 34 y == 100
so you can see that the simplification brought all terms to one side, factored out the greatest common divisor and fixed the signs.
To Mathematica the sums "50 + x + 17y" and "x + 17y + 50" are exactly the same expression, but if you want to order linear terms before constants in the displayed form, you may consider using TraditionalForm
(with the added benefit of using a "normal" equality sign while remaining copy-and-pastable):
% // TraditionalForm
$x+17 y+50=0$
Knowing that the coefficients are components of a vector perpendicular to the difference of the two points, I think the most convenient command to obtain the equation is
perp = Cross[pB - pA];
perp.{x, y} == perp.pA // Simplify
50 + x + 17 y == 0
The last step before Simplify
is
-2 x - 34 y == 100
so you can see that the simplification brought all terms to one side, factored out the greatest common divisor and fixed the signs.
To Mathematica the sums "50 + x + 17y" and "x + 17y + 50" are exactly the same expression, but if you want to order linear terms before constants in the displayed form, you may consider using TraditionalForm
(with the added benefit of using a "normal" equality sign while remaining copy-and-pastable):
% // TraditionalForm
$x+17 y+50=0$
answered 2 days ago
The Vee
1,393916
1,393916
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
Ad sign of the x coefficient: I don't know of any trick simpler than multiply the result by –1 if you don't like it.
– The Vee
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Although this might be more a math question, the ingenious answers have taught me a lot about MMA. Thanks to all contributors. I can add an answer based on my high school Analytical Geometry classes. The mnemonic two-point form of the equation of a straight line through A(x1,y1) and B(x2,y2) is
Using the coordinates for pA and pB given in the question:
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
y2 - y1) == (x - x1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
However the more 'symmetrical form' of the equation leads to an answer that is mathematically identical, but is not in the required form. Does anybody know how to force MMA to yield the required form?
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
x - x1) == (y2 - y1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
I think, we can write in the formSimplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the forma x + b y + c = 0
.
– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Although this might be more a math question, the ingenious answers have taught me a lot about MMA. Thanks to all contributors. I can add an answer based on my high school Analytical Geometry classes. The mnemonic two-point form of the equation of a straight line through A(x1,y1) and B(x2,y2) is
Using the coordinates for pA and pB given in the question:
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
y2 - y1) == (x - x1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
However the more 'symmetrical form' of the equation leads to an answer that is mathematically identical, but is not in the required form. Does anybody know how to force MMA to yield the required form?
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
x - x1) == (y2 - y1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
I think, we can write in the formSimplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the forma x + b y + c = 0
.
– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Although this might be more a math question, the ingenious answers have taught me a lot about MMA. Thanks to all contributors. I can add an answer based on my high school Analytical Geometry classes. The mnemonic two-point form of the equation of a straight line through A(x1,y1) and B(x2,y2) is
Using the coordinates for pA and pB given in the question:
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
y2 - y1) == (x - x1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
However the more 'symmetrical form' of the equation leads to an answer that is mathematically identical, but is not in the required form. Does anybody know how to force MMA to yield the required form?
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
x - x1) == (y2 - y1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
Although this might be more a math question, the ingenious answers have taught me a lot about MMA. Thanks to all contributors. I can add an answer based on my high school Analytical Geometry classes. The mnemonic two-point form of the equation of a straight line through A(x1,y1) and B(x2,y2) is
Using the coordinates for pA and pB given in the question:
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
y2 - y1) == (x - x1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
However the more 'symmetrical form' of the equation leads to an answer that is mathematically identical, but is not in the required form. Does anybody know how to force MMA to yield the required form?
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)/(
x - x1) == (y2 - y1)/(x2 - x1)] // TraditionalForm
gives
answered yesterday
Gommaire
1664
1664
I think, we can write in the formSimplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the forma x + b y + c = 0
.
– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
add a comment |
I think, we can write in the formSimplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the forma x + b y + c = 0
.
– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
I think, we can write in the form
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
I think, we can write in the form
Simplify@With[{x1 = 1, y1 = -3, x2 = -33, y2 = -1}, (y - y1)* (x2 - x1) - (x - x1)*(y2 - y1) == 0] // TraditionalForm
– minhthien_2016
21 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the form
a x + b y + c = 0
.– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
My way is almost write the equations in the form
a x + b y + c = 0
.– minhthien_2016
20 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f186285%2fanother-way-to-write-equation-of-the-line-passing-through-two-points%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Write or solve?
– Kuba♦
2 days ago
@Kuba Write the equation of the line passing through two points.
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
Isn't
17 x-y-20==0
already in that form?– Kuba♦
2 days ago
Yes. My question is "is there another way to write the equation in that form?"
– minhthien_2016
2 days ago
1
You can multiply sides by a constant but I fail to see how it is a Mathematica question.
– Kuba♦
2 days ago