1. ## perpendicular lines proof

two lines have equations y=m(1)x + c(1) and y = m(2)x + c(2), and m(1)m(2) = -1, proove that the lines are perpendicular.
im aware that this is supposed to be an extension question but still i dont know what to use in order to proove this, seeing that m(1)m(2) = -1 is apparently not enough. can somebody help with a clear proof on how to do this?

2. Originally Posted by furor celtica
two lines have equations y=m(1)x + c(1) and y = m(2)x + c(2), and m(1)m(2) = -1, proove that the lines are perpendicular.
im aware that this is supposed to be an extension question but still i dont know what to use in order to proove this, seeing that m(1)m(2) = -1 is apparently not enough. can somebody help with a clear proof on how to do this?
Hmm. I am not sure if this would cut it. Let $\displaystyle \vec{v}_1,\vec{v}_2$ be vectors lying on the individual lines. We have that $\displaystyle \vec{v}_1\cdot\vec{v}_2=0$ since $\displaystyle \vec{v}_1=(x,m_1x),\vec{v}_2=(y,m_2y)$ and thus we get $\displaystyle \vec{v}_1\cdot\vec{v}_2=xy+m_1m_2xy=xy+-xy=0$. Try to extend that. Does that seem feasible?

3. vectors are not involved in this section! i dont think that this method would pass, and (more importantly) i dont understand it. i'd need something pretty clear.

4. Originally Posted by furor celtica
vectors are not involved in this section! i dont think that this method would pass, and (more importantly) i dont understand it. i'd need something pretty clear.
Ok. Well then this situation begs the question: what does perp. mean?

5. that the gradient of the lines, when multiplied, are equal to -1! thats how it is always conventionally defined, and that is why i am at a loss to prove it once this statement is no longer conclusive.

6. could the pythagorean theorem help in this case?

7. Originally Posted by furor celtica
two lines have equations y=m(1)x + c(1) and y = m(2)x + c(2), and m(1)m(2) = -1, proove that the lines are perpendicular.
im aware that this is supposed to be an extension question but still i dont know what to use in order to proove this, seeing that m(1)m(2) = -1 is apparently not enough. can somebody help with a clear proof on how to do this?
Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math