On Wed, Nov 27, 2024, Daniel Roe via AMBER wrote:
>Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, but getting a plane
>perpendicular to a vector doesn't make sense. You need at least 3
>points to define a plane.
Just to butt in here: I think Jing wants the plane in order to project
another vector onto it. In that case, the phrase "plane perpendicular to a
vector" could be replaced with "plane perpendicular to a vector and
containing the origin of the vector."
The math involved in getting the projection is clearly described in many
places. Try a web search on "projecting a vector onto a plane".
....good luck...dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Wed Nov 27 2024 - 08:00:02 PST
