Find a parabola touches the line $y=x$ and $y=-x$ at $A(3,3)$ and $B(1,-1)$
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
If a parabola touches the line $y=x$ and $y=-x$ at $A(3,3)$ and $B(1,-1)$, then find the focus, axis of the parabola and its directrix.
What I thought: Since the 2 tangents are perpendicular,the origin must lie on the directrix and the line joining A and B is a focal chord. Don't know how to proceed from here..
conic-sections
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
If a parabola touches the line $y=x$ and $y=-x$ at $A(3,3)$ and $B(1,-1)$, then find the focus, axis of the parabola and its directrix.
What I thought: Since the 2 tangents are perpendicular,the origin must lie on the directrix and the line joining A and B is a focal chord. Don't know how to proceed from here..
conic-sections
perpedicular to focal chord a line passing through origin will become axis of parabola. perpedicular distance from origin to focal chord will be one fourth of semi latus ractum
– maveric
yesterday
the tangents intersect at the directrix not the vertex of the parabola.What you say is true if the origin is the vertex but actually it is the directix where they intersect
– Gesskay
yesterday
This parabola inclined respect to $x$-axis, so perhaps considering general form $Ax^2+By^2+Cxy+Dx+Ey+F=0$ be helpful here!
– Nosrati
yesterday
@Gesskay. yes it should be 1/2 of latus ractum.
– maveric
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
If a parabola touches the line $y=x$ and $y=-x$ at $A(3,3)$ and $B(1,-1)$, then find the focus, axis of the parabola and its directrix.
What I thought: Since the 2 tangents are perpendicular,the origin must lie on the directrix and the line joining A and B is a focal chord. Don't know how to proceed from here..
conic-sections
If a parabola touches the line $y=x$ and $y=-x$ at $A(3,3)$ and $B(1,-1)$, then find the focus, axis of the parabola and its directrix.
What I thought: Since the 2 tangents are perpendicular,the origin must lie on the directrix and the line joining A and B is a focal chord. Don't know how to proceed from here..
conic-sections
conic-sections
edited yesterday
Nosrati
25.6k62252
25.6k62252
asked yesterday
Gesskay
32
32
perpedicular to focal chord a line passing through origin will become axis of parabola. perpedicular distance from origin to focal chord will be one fourth of semi latus ractum
– maveric
yesterday
the tangents intersect at the directrix not the vertex of the parabola.What you say is true if the origin is the vertex but actually it is the directix where they intersect
– Gesskay
yesterday
This parabola inclined respect to $x$-axis, so perhaps considering general form $Ax^2+By^2+Cxy+Dx+Ey+F=0$ be helpful here!
– Nosrati
yesterday
@Gesskay. yes it should be 1/2 of latus ractum.
– maveric
yesterday
add a comment |
perpedicular to focal chord a line passing through origin will become axis of parabola. perpedicular distance from origin to focal chord will be one fourth of semi latus ractum
– maveric
yesterday
the tangents intersect at the directrix not the vertex of the parabola.What you say is true if the origin is the vertex but actually it is the directix where they intersect
– Gesskay
yesterday
This parabola inclined respect to $x$-axis, so perhaps considering general form $Ax^2+By^2+Cxy+Dx+Ey+F=0$ be helpful here!
– Nosrati
yesterday
@Gesskay. yes it should be 1/2 of latus ractum.
– maveric
yesterday
perpedicular to focal chord a line passing through origin will become axis of parabola. perpedicular distance from origin to focal chord will be one fourth of semi latus ractum
– maveric
yesterday
perpedicular to focal chord a line passing through origin will become axis of parabola. perpedicular distance from origin to focal chord will be one fourth of semi latus ractum
– maveric
yesterday
the tangents intersect at the directrix not the vertex of the parabola.What you say is true if the origin is the vertex but actually it is the directix where they intersect
– Gesskay
yesterday
the tangents intersect at the directrix not the vertex of the parabola.What you say is true if the origin is the vertex but actually it is the directix where they intersect
– Gesskay
yesterday
This parabola inclined respect to $x$-axis, so perhaps considering general form $Ax^2+By^2+Cxy+Dx+Ey+F=0$ be helpful here!
– Nosrati
yesterday
This parabola inclined respect to $x$-axis, so perhaps considering general form $Ax^2+By^2+Cxy+Dx+Ey+F=0$ be helpful here!
– Nosrati
yesterday
@Gesskay. yes it should be 1/2 of latus ractum.
– maveric
yesterday
@Gesskay. yes it should be 1/2 of latus ractum.
– maveric
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The most general form of a parabola is $$Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
where $$B^2 = 4AC tag{1}$$.
Letting $(x,y)=(3,3)$, we get $$9A + 9B + 9C + 3D + 3E + F = 0 tag{2}$$
Letting $(x,y)=(1, -1)$, we get $$A - B + C + D - E + F = 0 tag{3}$$
begin{align}
Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0
&implies 2Ax + By + Bxy' + 2Cyy' + D + Ey' = 0 \
&implies (Bx + 2Cy + E)y' + (2Ax + By + D) = 0
end{align}
Letting $(x,y,y') = (3,3,1)$, we get $(3B + 6C + E) + (6A + 3B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$6A + 6B + 6C + D + E = 0 tag{4}$$
Letting $(x,y,y') = (1,-1,-1)$, we get $-(B - 2C + E) + (2A - B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$2A - 2B + 2C + D - E = 0tag{5}$$
Solving equations $(1)$ through $(5)$ and letting $A=1$, we get
$$(A,B,C,D,E,F) = (1, -4, 4, -12, 6, 9)$$
So, the equation of the parabola becomes
$$x^2 - 4xy + 4y^2 - 12x + 6y + 9 = 0$$
Added because of something that I found out later.
If $A=0$, then $B^2=4AC$ implies $B=0$ and the equation becomes $Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$.
If $A ne 0$, then $A < 0$ implies
$$(-A)x^2 +(-B)xy + (-C)y^2 + (-D)x + (-E)y + (-F) = 0$$
and $B^2=4AC iff (-B)^2 = 4(-A)(-C)$
So we may as well assume that $A = a^2 > 0$. Then
begin{align}
Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(4Ax^2 + 4ABxy + B^2y^2) \
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(2Ax+By)^2 \
&= (ax+by)^2 \
end{align}
where $b = dfrac{B}{2a}$.
So we can write the most general form of a parabola as $$(ax + by)^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
We can now argue much as I did above and get the same answer without being annoyed by the nonlinear equation $B^2 = 4AC$.
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let’s continue with the geometric construction that you started.
Construct the parallelogram $AOBC$. The diagonal $OC$ is parallel to the parabola’s axis. We know that perpendicular tangents meet on the directrix, which is perpendicular to the parabola’s axis, so we now know its directrix $d$. Construct circles centered on $A$ and $B$ and tangent to $d$. Their intersection is the parabola’s focus. You can simply divide $overline{AB}$ proportionally to find this point: $F = {r_BA+r_ABover r_B+r_A}$. You can then use the point-point and point-line distance formulas to obtain a Cartesian equation for the parabola.
The construction in the preceding paragraph took advantage of the perpendicularity of the two tangents, but it’s quite easy to obtain a Cartesian equation of a parabola from any pair of points $P_0$ and $P_2$ on it and the tangents at those points: Let $P_1$ be the intersection of the tangents. A Bézier parameterization of the parabola is then $(1-t)^2P_0+2t(1-t)P_1+t^2P_2$. Eliminating $t$ gets you a Cartesian equation for it. In this case, the tangents intersect at the origin, so we have the parameterization $$x = 3(1-t)^2+t^2 = 4t^2-6t+3 \ y=3(1-t)^2-t^2 = 2t^2-6t+3.$$ Eliminating $t$ produces the equation $$x^2-4xy+4y^2-12x+6y+9=0.$$
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The most general form of a parabola is $$Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
where $$B^2 = 4AC tag{1}$$.
Letting $(x,y)=(3,3)$, we get $$9A + 9B + 9C + 3D + 3E + F = 0 tag{2}$$
Letting $(x,y)=(1, -1)$, we get $$A - B + C + D - E + F = 0 tag{3}$$
begin{align}
Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0
&implies 2Ax + By + Bxy' + 2Cyy' + D + Ey' = 0 \
&implies (Bx + 2Cy + E)y' + (2Ax + By + D) = 0
end{align}
Letting $(x,y,y') = (3,3,1)$, we get $(3B + 6C + E) + (6A + 3B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$6A + 6B + 6C + D + E = 0 tag{4}$$
Letting $(x,y,y') = (1,-1,-1)$, we get $-(B - 2C + E) + (2A - B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$2A - 2B + 2C + D - E = 0tag{5}$$
Solving equations $(1)$ through $(5)$ and letting $A=1$, we get
$$(A,B,C,D,E,F) = (1, -4, 4, -12, 6, 9)$$
So, the equation of the parabola becomes
$$x^2 - 4xy + 4y^2 - 12x + 6y + 9 = 0$$
Added because of something that I found out later.
If $A=0$, then $B^2=4AC$ implies $B=0$ and the equation becomes $Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$.
If $A ne 0$, then $A < 0$ implies
$$(-A)x^2 +(-B)xy + (-C)y^2 + (-D)x + (-E)y + (-F) = 0$$
and $B^2=4AC iff (-B)^2 = 4(-A)(-C)$
So we may as well assume that $A = a^2 > 0$. Then
begin{align}
Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(4Ax^2 + 4ABxy + B^2y^2) \
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(2Ax+By)^2 \
&= (ax+by)^2 \
end{align}
where $b = dfrac{B}{2a}$.
So we can write the most general form of a parabola as $$(ax + by)^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
We can now argue much as I did above and get the same answer without being annoyed by the nonlinear equation $B^2 = 4AC$.
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The most general form of a parabola is $$Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
where $$B^2 = 4AC tag{1}$$.
Letting $(x,y)=(3,3)$, we get $$9A + 9B + 9C + 3D + 3E + F = 0 tag{2}$$
Letting $(x,y)=(1, -1)$, we get $$A - B + C + D - E + F = 0 tag{3}$$
begin{align}
Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0
&implies 2Ax + By + Bxy' + 2Cyy' + D + Ey' = 0 \
&implies (Bx + 2Cy + E)y' + (2Ax + By + D) = 0
end{align}
Letting $(x,y,y') = (3,3,1)$, we get $(3B + 6C + E) + (6A + 3B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$6A + 6B + 6C + D + E = 0 tag{4}$$
Letting $(x,y,y') = (1,-1,-1)$, we get $-(B - 2C + E) + (2A - B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$2A - 2B + 2C + D - E = 0tag{5}$$
Solving equations $(1)$ through $(5)$ and letting $A=1$, we get
$$(A,B,C,D,E,F) = (1, -4, 4, -12, 6, 9)$$
So, the equation of the parabola becomes
$$x^2 - 4xy + 4y^2 - 12x + 6y + 9 = 0$$
Added because of something that I found out later.
If $A=0$, then $B^2=4AC$ implies $B=0$ and the equation becomes $Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$.
If $A ne 0$, then $A < 0$ implies
$$(-A)x^2 +(-B)xy + (-C)y^2 + (-D)x + (-E)y + (-F) = 0$$
and $B^2=4AC iff (-B)^2 = 4(-A)(-C)$
So we may as well assume that $A = a^2 > 0$. Then
begin{align}
Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(4Ax^2 + 4ABxy + B^2y^2) \
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(2Ax+By)^2 \
&= (ax+by)^2 \
end{align}
where $b = dfrac{B}{2a}$.
So we can write the most general form of a parabola as $$(ax + by)^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
We can now argue much as I did above and get the same answer without being annoyed by the nonlinear equation $B^2 = 4AC$.
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
The most general form of a parabola is $$Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
where $$B^2 = 4AC tag{1}$$.
Letting $(x,y)=(3,3)$, we get $$9A + 9B + 9C + 3D + 3E + F = 0 tag{2}$$
Letting $(x,y)=(1, -1)$, we get $$A - B + C + D - E + F = 0 tag{3}$$
begin{align}
Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0
&implies 2Ax + By + Bxy' + 2Cyy' + D + Ey' = 0 \
&implies (Bx + 2Cy + E)y' + (2Ax + By + D) = 0
end{align}
Letting $(x,y,y') = (3,3,1)$, we get $(3B + 6C + E) + (6A + 3B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$6A + 6B + 6C + D + E = 0 tag{4}$$
Letting $(x,y,y') = (1,-1,-1)$, we get $-(B - 2C + E) + (2A - B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$2A - 2B + 2C + D - E = 0tag{5}$$
Solving equations $(1)$ through $(5)$ and letting $A=1$, we get
$$(A,B,C,D,E,F) = (1, -4, 4, -12, 6, 9)$$
So, the equation of the parabola becomes
$$x^2 - 4xy + 4y^2 - 12x + 6y + 9 = 0$$
Added because of something that I found out later.
If $A=0$, then $B^2=4AC$ implies $B=0$ and the equation becomes $Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$.
If $A ne 0$, then $A < 0$ implies
$$(-A)x^2 +(-B)xy + (-C)y^2 + (-D)x + (-E)y + (-F) = 0$$
and $B^2=4AC iff (-B)^2 = 4(-A)(-C)$
So we may as well assume that $A = a^2 > 0$. Then
begin{align}
Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(4Ax^2 + 4ABxy + B^2y^2) \
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(2Ax+By)^2 \
&= (ax+by)^2 \
end{align}
where $b = dfrac{B}{2a}$.
So we can write the most general form of a parabola as $$(ax + by)^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
We can now argue much as I did above and get the same answer without being annoyed by the nonlinear equation $B^2 = 4AC$.
The most general form of a parabola is $$Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
where $$B^2 = 4AC tag{1}$$.
Letting $(x,y)=(3,3)$, we get $$9A + 9B + 9C + 3D + 3E + F = 0 tag{2}$$
Letting $(x,y)=(1, -1)$, we get $$A - B + C + D - E + F = 0 tag{3}$$
begin{align}
Ax^2+Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0
&implies 2Ax + By + Bxy' + 2Cyy' + D + Ey' = 0 \
&implies (Bx + 2Cy + E)y' + (2Ax + By + D) = 0
end{align}
Letting $(x,y,y') = (3,3,1)$, we get $(3B + 6C + E) + (6A + 3B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$6A + 6B + 6C + D + E = 0 tag{4}$$
Letting $(x,y,y') = (1,-1,-1)$, we get $-(B - 2C + E) + (2A - B + D) = 0$,
which implies $$2A - 2B + 2C + D - E = 0tag{5}$$
Solving equations $(1)$ through $(5)$ and letting $A=1$, we get
$$(A,B,C,D,E,F) = (1, -4, 4, -12, 6, 9)$$
So, the equation of the parabola becomes
$$x^2 - 4xy + 4y^2 - 12x + 6y + 9 = 0$$
Added because of something that I found out later.
If $A=0$, then $B^2=4AC$ implies $B=0$ and the equation becomes $Cy^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$.
If $A ne 0$, then $A < 0$ implies
$$(-A)x^2 +(-B)xy + (-C)y^2 + (-D)x + (-E)y + (-F) = 0$$
and $B^2=4AC iff (-B)^2 = 4(-A)(-C)$
So we may as well assume that $A = a^2 > 0$. Then
begin{align}
Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(4Ax^2 + 4ABxy + B^2y^2) \
&= dfrac{1}{4A}(2Ax+By)^2 \
&= (ax+by)^2 \
end{align}
where $b = dfrac{B}{2a}$.
So we can write the most general form of a parabola as $$(ax + by)^2 + Dx +Ey +F=0$$
We can now argue much as I did above and get the same answer without being annoyed by the nonlinear equation $B^2 = 4AC$.
edited 13 hours ago
answered yesterday
steven gregory
17.1k22155
17.1k22155
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
You can’t assume that $A=1$ unless you have further information because that leaves out all parabolas with axes parallel to the $x$-axis, e.g., $y^2=x$. However, the quadratic part is always a perfect square (guaranteed by vanishing discriminant), so you can write it as $(alpha x+beta y)^2$.
– amd
yesterday
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
@amd It is clear from the data that the axis is not parallel to the $x$-axis.
– steven gregory
21 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
That may be, but you’ve written that $(x+by)^2+dots$ is “the most general form of a parabola,” which it certainly isn’t. If you’re going to reject horizontal parabolas here, I think you ought to justify that somehow. It’s obvious post hoc, but what in the problem statement allows you to reject this case?
– amd
20 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
@amd OK, how's this?
– steven gregory
13 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
I think we can get the 6th equation when we Put T=0 for the general parabola equation and compare it with the line joining A(3,3) and B(1,-1)
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let’s continue with the geometric construction that you started.
Construct the parallelogram $AOBC$. The diagonal $OC$ is parallel to the parabola’s axis. We know that perpendicular tangents meet on the directrix, which is perpendicular to the parabola’s axis, so we now know its directrix $d$. Construct circles centered on $A$ and $B$ and tangent to $d$. Their intersection is the parabola’s focus. You can simply divide $overline{AB}$ proportionally to find this point: $F = {r_BA+r_ABover r_B+r_A}$. You can then use the point-point and point-line distance formulas to obtain a Cartesian equation for the parabola.
The construction in the preceding paragraph took advantage of the perpendicularity of the two tangents, but it’s quite easy to obtain a Cartesian equation of a parabola from any pair of points $P_0$ and $P_2$ on it and the tangents at those points: Let $P_1$ be the intersection of the tangents. A Bézier parameterization of the parabola is then $(1-t)^2P_0+2t(1-t)P_1+t^2P_2$. Eliminating $t$ gets you a Cartesian equation for it. In this case, the tangents intersect at the origin, so we have the parameterization $$x = 3(1-t)^2+t^2 = 4t^2-6t+3 \ y=3(1-t)^2-t^2 = 2t^2-6t+3.$$ Eliminating $t$ produces the equation $$x^2-4xy+4y^2-12x+6y+9=0.$$
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let’s continue with the geometric construction that you started.
Construct the parallelogram $AOBC$. The diagonal $OC$ is parallel to the parabola’s axis. We know that perpendicular tangents meet on the directrix, which is perpendicular to the parabola’s axis, so we now know its directrix $d$. Construct circles centered on $A$ and $B$ and tangent to $d$. Their intersection is the parabola’s focus. You can simply divide $overline{AB}$ proportionally to find this point: $F = {r_BA+r_ABover r_B+r_A}$. You can then use the point-point and point-line distance formulas to obtain a Cartesian equation for the parabola.
The construction in the preceding paragraph took advantage of the perpendicularity of the two tangents, but it’s quite easy to obtain a Cartesian equation of a parabola from any pair of points $P_0$ and $P_2$ on it and the tangents at those points: Let $P_1$ be the intersection of the tangents. A Bézier parameterization of the parabola is then $(1-t)^2P_0+2t(1-t)P_1+t^2P_2$. Eliminating $t$ gets you a Cartesian equation for it. In this case, the tangents intersect at the origin, so we have the parameterization $$x = 3(1-t)^2+t^2 = 4t^2-6t+3 \ y=3(1-t)^2-t^2 = 2t^2-6t+3.$$ Eliminating $t$ produces the equation $$x^2-4xy+4y^2-12x+6y+9=0.$$
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Let’s continue with the geometric construction that you started.
Construct the parallelogram $AOBC$. The diagonal $OC$ is parallel to the parabola’s axis. We know that perpendicular tangents meet on the directrix, which is perpendicular to the parabola’s axis, so we now know its directrix $d$. Construct circles centered on $A$ and $B$ and tangent to $d$. Their intersection is the parabola’s focus. You can simply divide $overline{AB}$ proportionally to find this point: $F = {r_BA+r_ABover r_B+r_A}$. You can then use the point-point and point-line distance formulas to obtain a Cartesian equation for the parabola.
The construction in the preceding paragraph took advantage of the perpendicularity of the two tangents, but it’s quite easy to obtain a Cartesian equation of a parabola from any pair of points $P_0$ and $P_2$ on it and the tangents at those points: Let $P_1$ be the intersection of the tangents. A Bézier parameterization of the parabola is then $(1-t)^2P_0+2t(1-t)P_1+t^2P_2$. Eliminating $t$ gets you a Cartesian equation for it. In this case, the tangents intersect at the origin, so we have the parameterization $$x = 3(1-t)^2+t^2 = 4t^2-6t+3 \ y=3(1-t)^2-t^2 = 2t^2-6t+3.$$ Eliminating $t$ produces the equation $$x^2-4xy+4y^2-12x+6y+9=0.$$
Let’s continue with the geometric construction that you started.
Construct the parallelogram $AOBC$. The diagonal $OC$ is parallel to the parabola’s axis. We know that perpendicular tangents meet on the directrix, which is perpendicular to the parabola’s axis, so we now know its directrix $d$. Construct circles centered on $A$ and $B$ and tangent to $d$. Their intersection is the parabola’s focus. You can simply divide $overline{AB}$ proportionally to find this point: $F = {r_BA+r_ABover r_B+r_A}$. You can then use the point-point and point-line distance formulas to obtain a Cartesian equation for the parabola.
The construction in the preceding paragraph took advantage of the perpendicularity of the two tangents, but it’s quite easy to obtain a Cartesian equation of a parabola from any pair of points $P_0$ and $P_2$ on it and the tangents at those points: Let $P_1$ be the intersection of the tangents. A Bézier parameterization of the parabola is then $(1-t)^2P_0+2t(1-t)P_1+t^2P_2$. Eliminating $t$ gets you a Cartesian equation for it. In this case, the tangents intersect at the origin, so we have the parameterization $$x = 3(1-t)^2+t^2 = 4t^2-6t+3 \ y=3(1-t)^2-t^2 = 2t^2-6t+3.$$ Eliminating $t$ produces the equation $$x^2-4xy+4y^2-12x+6y+9=0.$$
edited yesterday
steven gregory
17.1k22155
17.1k22155
answered yesterday
amd
28.3k21048
28.3k21048
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
Why is OC parallel to the parabola's axis?
– steven gregory
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@stevengregory See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Axis-direction.
– amd
yesterday
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
@amd,@stevengregoryThanks for all the support,but i think I found a shorter solution.Check my answer for the question
– Gesskay
3 hours ago
add a comment |
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%2f2999165%2ffind-a-parabola-touches-the-line-y-x-and-y-x-at-a3-3-and-b1-1%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
perpedicular to focal chord a line passing through origin will become axis of parabola. perpedicular distance from origin to focal chord will be one fourth of semi latus ractum
– maveric
yesterday
the tangents intersect at the directrix not the vertex of the parabola.What you say is true if the origin is the vertex but actually it is the directix where they intersect
– Gesskay
yesterday
This parabola inclined respect to $x$-axis, so perhaps considering general form $Ax^2+By^2+Cxy+Dx+Ey+F=0$ be helpful here!
– Nosrati
yesterday
@Gesskay. yes it should be 1/2 of latus ractum.
– maveric
yesterday