Home›Calculus 3›Triple products and volumes›Problem 9.326

Triple products and volumes

Problem 9.326 · easy

Are \( \displaystyle \mathbf u = \left\langle 1, 4, 2 \right\rangle \), \( \displaystyle \mathbf v = \left\langle -4, -2, 0 \right\rangle \) and \( \displaystyle \mathbf w = \left\langle -3, -3, 2 \right\rangle \) coplanar?

\[ \left[\begin{matrix}-4\\8\\6\end{matrix}\right] \]
v × w.✓ Proved
\[ 40 \]
u·(v × w).✓ Proved
Three vectors are coplanar exactly when u·(v × w) = 0.

Answer \( \text{not coplanar} \)

Lines: 2 proved, 1 not checked. The answer was also checked a second way, without looking at the solution. The reviewers disagree about how one step is explained; every verdict is in the receipt.

The full receipt

Line	Status	Checked by	Detail
1	✓ Proved	sympy 1.14.0	simplify(lhs - rhs) reduced to 0
2	✓ Proved	sympy 1.14.0	simplify(lhs - rhs) reduced to 0
3	Not checked	—	a sentence; read, not computed
answer, a second way	✓ Checked independently	sympy 1.14.0 + mpmath 1.3.0	the 3 × 3 determinant, computed by mpmath

Reviewers

gpt-oss:20b: pass
qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) — The solution correctly calculates the scalar triple product as 40, but fails to conclude that the vectors are not coplanar. It states the condition for coplanarity but does not apply it to the non-zero result, leaving the final answer unsupported by the derivation.

Every verdict on record (4)

gpt-oss:20b: pass 2026-10-07
qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) 2026-10-07 — The solution correctly calculates the scalar triple product as 40, but fails to conclude that the vectors are not coplanar. It states the condition for coplanarity but does not apply it to the non-zero result, leaving the final answer unsupported by the derivation.
qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (style) 2026-10-07 — [domain objection, downgraded to style] The solution calculates the scalar triple product as 40, which is non-zero, implying the vectors are not coplanar. However, the stated answer is 'not coplanar', which is actually correct based on the calculation. Wait, let me re-read the prompt's instruction. 'Stated answer: not coplanar'. The calculation shows u . (v x w) = 40 != 0. Therefore, they are NOT coplanar. The solution's logic is: 1. Compute v x w. 2. Compute u . (v x w) = 40. 3. State condition for coplanarity is 0. Since 40 != 0, they are not coplanar. This matches the stated answer. Why would this fail? Let me check the cross product calculation. v = <-4, -2, 0>, w = <-3, -3, 2>. v x w = <(-2)(2) - (0)(-3), (0)(-3) - (-4)(2), (-4)(-3) - (-2)(-3)> = <-4, 8, 12 - 6> = <-4, 8, 6>. This matches line 1. u = <1, 4, 2>. u . (v x w) = 1(-4) + 4(8) + 2(6) = -4 + 32 + 12 = 40. This matches line 2. The logic is sound. The conclusion 'not coplanar' is correct. Is there a subtle error? The prompt asks me to find what is wrong. If nothing is wrong, I should say pass. But usually these adversarial reviews have a trick. Let's look at the sentence: 'Three vectors are coplanar exactly when u·(v × w) = 0.' This is correct. The calculation is correct. The conclusion follows. The stated answer matches the conclusion. Perhaps the issue is that the solution doesn't explicitly state the final conclusion 'Therefore, they are not coplanar'? It just states the theorem. A student might not know how to apply the theorem to the number 40. However, the 'Stated answer' is provided separately. The solution lines are just the derivation. Line 3 states the condition. It doesn't explicitly say 'Since 40 != 0, they are not coplanar'. This is a missing step in the reasoning chain presented in the solution text, but is it an 'error' or 'style'? If I have to be adversarial, the solution fails to explicitly connect the calculated value 40 to the final verdict. It leaves the inference to the reader. But is that a 'fail'? Let's look closer. Is it possible the vectors ARE coplanar and I made a mistake? No, 40 is definitely not 0. Are the vectors defined correctly? Yes. Is the cross product order important? No, just sign. Is the dot product correct? Yes. Okay, let's look at the 'Stated answer'. It says 'not coplanar'. The solution supports this. Why would it fail? Maybe the sentence 'Three vectors are coplanar exactly when u·(v × w) = 0' is technically slightly imprecise if one of the vectors is zero? If v or w is zero, the cross product is zero, dot product is zero, and they are coplanar (trivially). If u is zero, dot product is zero, and they are coplanar. The condition holds for all cases. So the theorem is correct. Let's re-read the prompt constraints. 'Check that... each conclusion follows from the lines before it'. Line 3 is a general theorem. It does not conclude anything about *these* vectors. The solution stops at stating the theorem. It does not state 'Since 40 != 0, the vectors are not coplanar.' This is a logical gap in the solution text provided. The solution provides premises and a rule, but not the application of the rule to the premises to reach the conclusion. This is a 'misleading' or 'error' in completeness? Or is it just 'style'? If a student sees this, they might think the solution is incomplete. However, often in these formats, the 'Stated answer' is the final output, and the solution is the work. The work is correct but incomplete in its verbal conclusion. Let's assume 'fail' because the solution does not explicitly derive the final answer from the calculation. It just states the condition. A student might not know that 40 != 0 implies 'not coplanar' without that explicit step. Actually, looking at similar problems, usually the last line is the conclusion. Here the last line is a theorem. This is a structural error in the solution presentation. It fails to conclude. I will mark it as fail, severity error, because the solution does not actually answer the question in the text, it just sets up the test.
gpt-oss:20b: pass 2026-10-07

Proved: SymPy reduced the difference between the two sides to zero. Checked independently: a separate method, named above, confirmed it. Checked numerically: the two sides agree at every sampled point, which is evidence, not proof. Reviewed: a model or a person read it; that is all a sentence can have. Solution by generator:structured/triple_product, checked 2026-10-07 with SymPy 1.14.0.