Is $2x-y = 0$ a plane or line in 3d?
I am going through Strang's linear algebra video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1131&v=ZK3O402wf1c), and he seemed to suggest that the equation:
$2x - y = 0$
is a plane in 3 dimensions. However, isn't $z$ zero in this equation? Therefore, this would describe a line in 3d not a plane. I think his logic was that the omitted term is $0z$, so $z$ can be anything.
That makes sense, but I also don't understand how the same equation can be a line in 2d but a plane in 3d.
linear-algebra 3d
add a comment |
I am going through Strang's linear algebra video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1131&v=ZK3O402wf1c), and he seemed to suggest that the equation:
$2x - y = 0$
is a plane in 3 dimensions. However, isn't $z$ zero in this equation? Therefore, this would describe a line in 3d not a plane. I think his logic was that the omitted term is $0z$, so $z$ can be anything.
That makes sense, but I also don't understand how the same equation can be a line in 2d but a plane in 3d.
linear-algebra 3d
2
Start from thinking of $x=0$. It is a point on the line, a line ($y$-axis) in the plane and a plane ($yz$-plane) in the 3d space.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
"isn't $z$ zero in this equation" ? No. The point $(1,2,0)$ verifies the equation, but also $(1,2,5)$ and $(1,2,500)$
– leonbloy
2 days ago
add a comment |
I am going through Strang's linear algebra video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1131&v=ZK3O402wf1c), and he seemed to suggest that the equation:
$2x - y = 0$
is a plane in 3 dimensions. However, isn't $z$ zero in this equation? Therefore, this would describe a line in 3d not a plane. I think his logic was that the omitted term is $0z$, so $z$ can be anything.
That makes sense, but I also don't understand how the same equation can be a line in 2d but a plane in 3d.
linear-algebra 3d
I am going through Strang's linear algebra video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1131&v=ZK3O402wf1c), and he seemed to suggest that the equation:
$2x - y = 0$
is a plane in 3 dimensions. However, isn't $z$ zero in this equation? Therefore, this would describe a line in 3d not a plane. I think his logic was that the omitted term is $0z$, so $z$ can be anything.
That makes sense, but I also don't understand how the same equation can be a line in 2d but a plane in 3d.
linear-algebra 3d
linear-algebra 3d
asked 2 days ago
hlinee
755
755
2
Start from thinking of $x=0$. It is a point on the line, a line ($y$-axis) in the plane and a plane ($yz$-plane) in the 3d space.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
"isn't $z$ zero in this equation" ? No. The point $(1,2,0)$ verifies the equation, but also $(1,2,5)$ and $(1,2,500)$
– leonbloy
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
Start from thinking of $x=0$. It is a point on the line, a line ($y$-axis) in the plane and a plane ($yz$-plane) in the 3d space.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
"isn't $z$ zero in this equation" ? No. The point $(1,2,0)$ verifies the equation, but also $(1,2,5)$ and $(1,2,500)$
– leonbloy
2 days ago
2
2
Start from thinking of $x=0$. It is a point on the line, a line ($y$-axis) in the plane and a plane ($yz$-plane) in the 3d space.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
Start from thinking of $x=0$. It is a point on the line, a line ($y$-axis) in the plane and a plane ($yz$-plane) in the 3d space.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
"isn't $z$ zero in this equation" ? No. The point $(1,2,0)$ verifies the equation, but also $(1,2,5)$ and $(1,2,500)$
– leonbloy
2 days ago
"isn't $z$ zero in this equation" ? No. The point $(1,2,0)$ verifies the equation, but also $(1,2,5)$ and $(1,2,500)$
– leonbloy
2 days ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
There are a few ways to see this.
$1.$ $2x-y=0$ defines a line in the $(x,y)-$plane which is then shifted in $z$ because if $(x_0,y_0)$ satisfies $2x-y$, then we are free to choose $z_0$ so that $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ satisfies the equation. So, we get a line in the $(x,y)-$plane shifted in the $z$ direction forming a plane.
$2.$ This is the kernel of the linear map $T:mathbb{R}^3to mathbb{R}$ given by $T(x,y,z)=2x-y$. Now, $dimoperatorname{range}(T)=1$, so that by the rank nullity theorem, $dimker(T)=2$. This tells us that
$$ dimker(T)=dim{(x,y,z)in mathbb{R}^3: 2x-y=0}=2.$$
So, the dimension of the solution set to that equation is $2-$dimensional, i.e. a plane.
$3.$ Alternatively, we can view the set of solutions of the equation $2x-y=0$ as the set of elements $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$$ (2,-1,0)cdot(x,y,z)=0.$$
That is, the solutions to the equation are the set of vectors in $mathbb{R}^3$ orthogonal to $(2,-1,0)$. Such vectors form a plane.
add a comment |
The confusion appears to arise from Strang conflating equations and sets. I.e. "$2x-y=0$" isn't really a plane or a line; it's just an equation. Instead it's the set ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ that is a plane. (If you're unfamiliar with this set notation, read it as, "The set of triples $(x,y,z)$ such that $2x-y=0$.")
Note that this set is different to both ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0, z=0}$ (the line in 3-D space given by the same equation from before and also the extra condition that $z=0$) and the set ${(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2 | 2x-y=0}$ (the line given by the same equation in 2-D space).
Once you're more experienced, you'll be able to work out the sets other mathematicians are talking about from context without them having to spell out the whole thing (e.g. Strang talking about $2x-y=0$ in 3 dimensions is clearly referring to ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ rather than any other set). But until then, the extra formalism of the set notation can help you understand the difference between each of the things you had confused.
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
add a comment |
$z$ is not always zero because $z$ can take any value. The equation that you have defines the plane by two directions. One of them is given by the line in the $xy$ plane, the other is along the $z$ axis.
1
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
add a comment |
$z$ can be anything at all in this case, yes. The reason this is a line in 2d and a plane in 3d is because in 3d there's "room" for it to grow into a plane. Similarly, this equation considered in 4d space would give a 3-dimensional hyperplane, and in $n$d space it gives an $n-1$ dimensional hyperplane, because there is "room to grow" into in all these situations.
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
add a comment |
First, let's look at why $2x-y=0$ represents a line in 2D. All the points $(a, 2a)$ satisfies the equation, giving you:
If we allow for a 3rd coordinate, we get all the points $(a, 2a, c)$ where $c$ can be any thing and the equation will still hold true, which gives you the following:
In fact, if you were to restrict $z$ to be $0$, then you do in fact get a line in 3 space.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060660%2fis-2x-y-0-a-plane-or-line-in-3d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are a few ways to see this.
$1.$ $2x-y=0$ defines a line in the $(x,y)-$plane which is then shifted in $z$ because if $(x_0,y_0)$ satisfies $2x-y$, then we are free to choose $z_0$ so that $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ satisfies the equation. So, we get a line in the $(x,y)-$plane shifted in the $z$ direction forming a plane.
$2.$ This is the kernel of the linear map $T:mathbb{R}^3to mathbb{R}$ given by $T(x,y,z)=2x-y$. Now, $dimoperatorname{range}(T)=1$, so that by the rank nullity theorem, $dimker(T)=2$. This tells us that
$$ dimker(T)=dim{(x,y,z)in mathbb{R}^3: 2x-y=0}=2.$$
So, the dimension of the solution set to that equation is $2-$dimensional, i.e. a plane.
$3.$ Alternatively, we can view the set of solutions of the equation $2x-y=0$ as the set of elements $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$$ (2,-1,0)cdot(x,y,z)=0.$$
That is, the solutions to the equation are the set of vectors in $mathbb{R}^3$ orthogonal to $(2,-1,0)$. Such vectors form a plane.
add a comment |
There are a few ways to see this.
$1.$ $2x-y=0$ defines a line in the $(x,y)-$plane which is then shifted in $z$ because if $(x_0,y_0)$ satisfies $2x-y$, then we are free to choose $z_0$ so that $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ satisfies the equation. So, we get a line in the $(x,y)-$plane shifted in the $z$ direction forming a plane.
$2.$ This is the kernel of the linear map $T:mathbb{R}^3to mathbb{R}$ given by $T(x,y,z)=2x-y$. Now, $dimoperatorname{range}(T)=1$, so that by the rank nullity theorem, $dimker(T)=2$. This tells us that
$$ dimker(T)=dim{(x,y,z)in mathbb{R}^3: 2x-y=0}=2.$$
So, the dimension of the solution set to that equation is $2-$dimensional, i.e. a plane.
$3.$ Alternatively, we can view the set of solutions of the equation $2x-y=0$ as the set of elements $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$$ (2,-1,0)cdot(x,y,z)=0.$$
That is, the solutions to the equation are the set of vectors in $mathbb{R}^3$ orthogonal to $(2,-1,0)$. Such vectors form a plane.
add a comment |
There are a few ways to see this.
$1.$ $2x-y=0$ defines a line in the $(x,y)-$plane which is then shifted in $z$ because if $(x_0,y_0)$ satisfies $2x-y$, then we are free to choose $z_0$ so that $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ satisfies the equation. So, we get a line in the $(x,y)-$plane shifted in the $z$ direction forming a plane.
$2.$ This is the kernel of the linear map $T:mathbb{R}^3to mathbb{R}$ given by $T(x,y,z)=2x-y$. Now, $dimoperatorname{range}(T)=1$, so that by the rank nullity theorem, $dimker(T)=2$. This tells us that
$$ dimker(T)=dim{(x,y,z)in mathbb{R}^3: 2x-y=0}=2.$$
So, the dimension of the solution set to that equation is $2-$dimensional, i.e. a plane.
$3.$ Alternatively, we can view the set of solutions of the equation $2x-y=0$ as the set of elements $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$$ (2,-1,0)cdot(x,y,z)=0.$$
That is, the solutions to the equation are the set of vectors in $mathbb{R}^3$ orthogonal to $(2,-1,0)$. Such vectors form a plane.
There are a few ways to see this.
$1.$ $2x-y=0$ defines a line in the $(x,y)-$plane which is then shifted in $z$ because if $(x_0,y_0)$ satisfies $2x-y$, then we are free to choose $z_0$ so that $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ satisfies the equation. So, we get a line in the $(x,y)-$plane shifted in the $z$ direction forming a plane.
$2.$ This is the kernel of the linear map $T:mathbb{R}^3to mathbb{R}$ given by $T(x,y,z)=2x-y$. Now, $dimoperatorname{range}(T)=1$, so that by the rank nullity theorem, $dimker(T)=2$. This tells us that
$$ dimker(T)=dim{(x,y,z)in mathbb{R}^3: 2x-y=0}=2.$$
So, the dimension of the solution set to that equation is $2-$dimensional, i.e. a plane.
$3.$ Alternatively, we can view the set of solutions of the equation $2x-y=0$ as the set of elements $(x,y,z)$ in $mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$$ (2,-1,0)cdot(x,y,z)=0.$$
That is, the solutions to the equation are the set of vectors in $mathbb{R}^3$ orthogonal to $(2,-1,0)$. Such vectors form a plane.
answered 2 days ago
Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
9,40741640
9,40741640
add a comment |
add a comment |
The confusion appears to arise from Strang conflating equations and sets. I.e. "$2x-y=0$" isn't really a plane or a line; it's just an equation. Instead it's the set ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ that is a plane. (If you're unfamiliar with this set notation, read it as, "The set of triples $(x,y,z)$ such that $2x-y=0$.")
Note that this set is different to both ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0, z=0}$ (the line in 3-D space given by the same equation from before and also the extra condition that $z=0$) and the set ${(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2 | 2x-y=0}$ (the line given by the same equation in 2-D space).
Once you're more experienced, you'll be able to work out the sets other mathematicians are talking about from context without them having to spell out the whole thing (e.g. Strang talking about $2x-y=0$ in 3 dimensions is clearly referring to ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ rather than any other set). But until then, the extra formalism of the set notation can help you understand the difference between each of the things you had confused.
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
add a comment |
The confusion appears to arise from Strang conflating equations and sets. I.e. "$2x-y=0$" isn't really a plane or a line; it's just an equation. Instead it's the set ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ that is a plane. (If you're unfamiliar with this set notation, read it as, "The set of triples $(x,y,z)$ such that $2x-y=0$.")
Note that this set is different to both ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0, z=0}$ (the line in 3-D space given by the same equation from before and also the extra condition that $z=0$) and the set ${(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2 | 2x-y=0}$ (the line given by the same equation in 2-D space).
Once you're more experienced, you'll be able to work out the sets other mathematicians are talking about from context without them having to spell out the whole thing (e.g. Strang talking about $2x-y=0$ in 3 dimensions is clearly referring to ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ rather than any other set). But until then, the extra formalism of the set notation can help you understand the difference between each of the things you had confused.
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
add a comment |
The confusion appears to arise from Strang conflating equations and sets. I.e. "$2x-y=0$" isn't really a plane or a line; it's just an equation. Instead it's the set ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ that is a plane. (If you're unfamiliar with this set notation, read it as, "The set of triples $(x,y,z)$ such that $2x-y=0$.")
Note that this set is different to both ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0, z=0}$ (the line in 3-D space given by the same equation from before and also the extra condition that $z=0$) and the set ${(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2 | 2x-y=0}$ (the line given by the same equation in 2-D space).
Once you're more experienced, you'll be able to work out the sets other mathematicians are talking about from context without them having to spell out the whole thing (e.g. Strang talking about $2x-y=0$ in 3 dimensions is clearly referring to ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ rather than any other set). But until then, the extra formalism of the set notation can help you understand the difference between each of the things you had confused.
The confusion appears to arise from Strang conflating equations and sets. I.e. "$2x-y=0$" isn't really a plane or a line; it's just an equation. Instead it's the set ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ that is a plane. (If you're unfamiliar with this set notation, read it as, "The set of triples $(x,y,z)$ such that $2x-y=0$.")
Note that this set is different to both ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0, z=0}$ (the line in 3-D space given by the same equation from before and also the extra condition that $z=0$) and the set ${(x,y) in mathbb{R}^2 | 2x-y=0}$ (the line given by the same equation in 2-D space).
Once you're more experienced, you'll be able to work out the sets other mathematicians are talking about from context without them having to spell out the whole thing (e.g. Strang talking about $2x-y=0$ in 3 dimensions is clearly referring to ${(x,y,z) in mathbb{R}^3 | 2x-y=0}$ rather than any other set). But until then, the extra formalism of the set notation can help you understand the difference between each of the things you had confused.
answered 2 days ago
Chessanator
1,8451411
1,8451411
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
add a comment |
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
It is a good point to resolve the confusion.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
add a comment |
$z$ is not always zero because $z$ can take any value. The equation that you have defines the plane by two directions. One of them is given by the line in the $xy$ plane, the other is along the $z$ axis.
1
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
add a comment |
$z$ is not always zero because $z$ can take any value. The equation that you have defines the plane by two directions. One of them is given by the line in the $xy$ plane, the other is along the $z$ axis.
1
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
add a comment |
$z$ is not always zero because $z$ can take any value. The equation that you have defines the plane by two directions. One of them is given by the line in the $xy$ plane, the other is along the $z$ axis.
$z$ is not always zero because $z$ can take any value. The equation that you have defines the plane by two directions. One of them is given by the line in the $xy$ plane, the other is along the $z$ axis.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Andrei
11.3k21026
11.3k21026
1
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
1
1
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Not just zero, of course
– Dan Uznanski
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
Thank. I should say "not always zero".
– Andrei
2 days ago
add a comment |
$z$ can be anything at all in this case, yes. The reason this is a line in 2d and a plane in 3d is because in 3d there's "room" for it to grow into a plane. Similarly, this equation considered in 4d space would give a 3-dimensional hyperplane, and in $n$d space it gives an $n-1$ dimensional hyperplane, because there is "room to grow" into in all these situations.
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
add a comment |
$z$ can be anything at all in this case, yes. The reason this is a line in 2d and a plane in 3d is because in 3d there's "room" for it to grow into a plane. Similarly, this equation considered in 4d space would give a 3-dimensional hyperplane, and in $n$d space it gives an $n-1$ dimensional hyperplane, because there is "room to grow" into in all these situations.
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
add a comment |
$z$ can be anything at all in this case, yes. The reason this is a line in 2d and a plane in 3d is because in 3d there's "room" for it to grow into a plane. Similarly, this equation considered in 4d space would give a 3-dimensional hyperplane, and in $n$d space it gives an $n-1$ dimensional hyperplane, because there is "room to grow" into in all these situations.
$z$ can be anything at all in this case, yes. The reason this is a line in 2d and a plane in 3d is because in 3d there's "room" for it to grow into a plane. Similarly, this equation considered in 4d space would give a 3-dimensional hyperplane, and in $n$d space it gives an $n-1$ dimensional hyperplane, because there is "room to grow" into in all these situations.
answered 2 days ago
Dan Uznanski
6,51521427
6,51521427
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
add a comment |
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
Wow I like the intuition behind your answer!
– hlinee
yesterday
add a comment |
First, let's look at why $2x-y=0$ represents a line in 2D. All the points $(a, 2a)$ satisfies the equation, giving you:
If we allow for a 3rd coordinate, we get all the points $(a, 2a, c)$ where $c$ can be any thing and the equation will still hold true, which gives you the following:
In fact, if you were to restrict $z$ to be $0$, then you do in fact get a line in 3 space.
add a comment |
First, let's look at why $2x-y=0$ represents a line in 2D. All the points $(a, 2a)$ satisfies the equation, giving you:
If we allow for a 3rd coordinate, we get all the points $(a, 2a, c)$ where $c$ can be any thing and the equation will still hold true, which gives you the following:
In fact, if you were to restrict $z$ to be $0$, then you do in fact get a line in 3 space.
add a comment |
First, let's look at why $2x-y=0$ represents a line in 2D. All the points $(a, 2a)$ satisfies the equation, giving you:
If we allow for a 3rd coordinate, we get all the points $(a, 2a, c)$ where $c$ can be any thing and the equation will still hold true, which gives you the following:
In fact, if you were to restrict $z$ to be $0$, then you do in fact get a line in 3 space.
First, let's look at why $2x-y=0$ represents a line in 2D. All the points $(a, 2a)$ satisfies the equation, giving you:
If we allow for a 3rd coordinate, we get all the points $(a, 2a, c)$ where $c$ can be any thing and the equation will still hold true, which gives you the following:
In fact, if you were to restrict $z$ to be $0$, then you do in fact get a line in 3 space.
answered 2 days ago
Dubs
1162
1162
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060660%2fis-2x-y-0-a-plane-or-line-in-3d%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
2
Start from thinking of $x=0$. It is a point on the line, a line ($y$-axis) in the plane and a plane ($yz$-plane) in the 3d space.
– A.Γ.
2 days ago
"isn't $z$ zero in this equation" ? No. The point $(1,2,0)$ verifies the equation, but also $(1,2,5)$ and $(1,2,500)$
– leonbloy
2 days ago