WHAT we do: look only at the denominators, ignore the point.
WHY: in symmetric form the numbers under the fractions are exactly the components of the direction arrow; the numerators only tell us a point the line passes through, which does not affect orientation.
b=(2,−3,5)
(The point (4,−1,0) is irrelevant to any angle question.)
Recall Solution L1.2
Test: perpendicular ⟺ dot product =0.
(a)1⋅0+0⋅1+0⋅0=0 → perpendicular ✅
(b)1⋅1+1⋅1+0=2=0 → not perpendicular (in fact identical directions, angle 0∘).
Look at figure below: (a) is the x-axis vs the y-axis — a clean right angle.
Direction cosines are already unit arrows (their length is 1), so the denominator equals 1 — we just take the dot product (see Direction cosines and direction ratios).
cosθ=21⋅0+21⋅21+0⋅21=21=21θ=cos−121=60∘
Perpendicular ⇒ dot product =0 (with nonzero lengths, only the numerator must vanish; cos90∘=0).
2k+k(−2)+3(4)=0⇒2k−2k+12=0⇒12=0.
This is impossible — the k-terms cancel, leaving 12=0.
Conclusion: there is no value of k that makes them perpendicular. The x- and y-contributions always cancel, so the dot product is stuck at 12 regardless of k. Recognising "no solution" is the whole point of this level.
Recall Solution L3.2
Cross productb1×b2: for two identical vectors this is the zero vector (0,0,0), because there's no plane spanned.
sinθ=∣b1∣∣b2∣∣b1×b2∣=30=0⇒θ=0∘.Why sin is the sharper tool here: near θ=0∘, cosθ is flat (its graph is nearly horizontal), so a tiny rounding error in the dot product barely moves the angle — small errors hide. But sinθ changes steeply near 0∘, so it magnifies and exposes any deviation. Use sin (cross product) to detect near-parallel; use cos (dot) to detect near-perpendicular.
Recall Solution L3.3
b1=(2,−4,6), b2=(−1,2,−3).
Check proportionality:−12=2−4=−36=−2. All equal ⇒ b1=−2b2: same direction line (just scaled and reversed).
Angle: parallel lines make angle 0∘. Confirm with the formula:
cosθ=4+16+361+4+9∣2(−1)+(−4)(2)+6(−3)∣=5614∣−2−8−18∣=78428=2828=1.
The modulus rescued us: even though b1=−2b2 points "backwards," ∣cosθ∣=1 still reports 0∘ (same line), not 180∘.
Cross product (see Cross product of vectors):
b1×b2=2⋅1−2⋅22⋅2−1⋅11⋅2−2⋅2=−23−2.∣b1×b2∣=4+9+4=17.sinθ=3⋅317=917≈0.4581⇒θ≈27.3∘.Cross-check with cosine:cosθ=9∣8∣=98. Test the identity sin2+cos2=1:
(917)2+(98)2=8117+64=8181=1.✅
Both routes give θ≈27.3∘ — the two tools agree, as they must.
Recall Solution L4.2
WHY the cross product:b1×b2 is by construction perpendicular to both inputs — exactly the arrow we need.
d=(1,0,1)×(0,1,−1)=0(−1)−1(1)1(0)−1(−1)1(1)−0(0)=(−1,1,1).Angle with (1,1,1):cosθ=1+1+11+1+1∣−1+1+1∣=31.θ=cos−131≈70.5∘.
Direction vectors: diagonal b1=(1,1,1), edge b2=(1,0,0).
Dot:1(1)+1(0)+1(0)=1.
Magnitudes:3 and 1.
cosθ=3⋅1∣1∣=31≈0.5774⇒θ≈54.7∘.
This is the famous "cube-diagonal angle." See the figure: the red diagonal leans ≈54.7∘ off each edge.
Recall Solution L5.2
Set upcos60∘=21:
1+1+p21+1+0∣1(1)+1(−1)+p(0)∣=2+p2⋅2∣0∣=0.
The numerator is always 0 (the first two components cancel and p multiplies zero). So cosθ=0 for every p, meaning the angle is always 90∘, never 60∘.
Conclusion:no value of p gives 60∘. The two lines are perpendicular for all p — a structural fact the algebra reveals instantly.
Recall Solution L5.3
u,v:cosθ=1⋅2∣1∣=21⇒θ=45∘.u,w:cosθ=1⋅3∣1∣=31⇒θ≈54.7∘.v,w:cosθ=2⋅3∣1+1+0∣=62≈0.8165⇒θ≈35.3∘.Most spread apart: the pair (u,w) at ≈54.7∘ — the widest of the three.