Laws of area and conservation of momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the equation for dθ in the context of the laws of area. The original poster struggles with the formula provided in their textbook, which relates dθ to x, y, dx, and dy. A participant clarifies that dθ can be derived from the relationship between polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates, emphasizing that the formula for dθ is well-defined regardless of angle assignment conventions. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding differentiation in this context, with the original poster eventually realizing the need to differentiate θ directly. The discussion concludes with acknowledgment of the complexity involved in parametric methods when dealing with products of x and y.
almo
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
i am having problem getting the dθ in the laws of area.

what the textbook states is,
dθ=

xdy-ydx
x2+y2

I can't get the equation..
the only thing i could think of is trigo functions, but i got stuck...
any help?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
almo,

laws of area and conservation of momentum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am having problem getting the dθ in the laws of area.

what the textbook states is,
dθ=

xdy-ydx
x2+y2

I can't get the equation..
the only thing i could think of is trigo functions, but i got stuck...
any help?

What are you trying to do? What are the "laws of area". What equation are you trying to find? How does the conservation of momentum fit into this?

Ratch
 
"Laws of Area" is vague, but the formula for dtheta is straightforward.

\theta = \arctan (y/x)+C

Here C is an additive constant that depends on 1. Which region of the plane you are in, and 2. How you assign angles to points in the plane. For example, if you define theta to be between 0 and 2pi, then C=0 for (x,y) in the first quadrant, C=pi in the second and third quadrants, and C=2pi in the fourth quadrant. If you define theta to lie between -pi and +pi, then C works differently. But all that is irrelevant, because even though theta as a function of x and y has some ambiguity, no matter what your convention is for assigning angles to points, dtheta is well defined by the formula:

d\theta = \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x} dx +\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial y}dy

There are ways to derive the formula for dtheta without relying on a formula for theta as a function of x and y. For example, no matter how you assign angles, you have:

x=r\cos(\theta), \hspace{1cm} y=r\sin(\theta).

Use these formulas to calculate dx and dy as linear functions of dr and dtheta (with a basepoint understood to be fixed). You get:

dx = (x/r)dr -yd\theta,\hspace{1cm} dy= (y/r)dr+xd\theta.

Multiply the first equation by y, the second equation by x and subtract to obtain:
ydx - xdy = -(y^2+x^2)d\theta =-r^2d\theta
Dividing out the - (r squared) gives you the formula for dtheta.
 
Last edited:
Thanks vargo!.. I figure out to just differentiate theta, which gives me the equation. I am too use to differentiate something against something else, that I forget about some basic stuff.

The parametric method seems quite confusing when multiplication of x and y is involved though, but its brilliant.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top