Axes of an ellipse. I on this

  • Thread starter Thread starter sutupidmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axes Ellipse
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the mathematical relationship between the axes of an ellipse, specifically the formulas for the semi-major axis (a) and semi-minor axis (b). The equations are established as a² = p²/(1-e²)² and b² = p²/(1-e²), where p is the focal parameter and e is the eccentricity. A proof is provided using the properties of ellipses, including the constant distance from one focus to the ellipse and back to the other focus, along with the application of the Pythagorean theorem. The derivation confirms that these expressions accurately represent the axes of any ellipse.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ellipse properties and definitions
  • Familiarity with the Pythagorean theorem
  • Knowledge of eccentricity and focal parameters in conic sections
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the ellipse equation from its geometric definition
  • Explore the relationship between eccentricity and the shape of conic sections
  • Learn about directrices and their role in defining conic sections
  • Investigate applications of ellipses in physics and engineering contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students of analytical geometry, mathematicians, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of conic sections, particularly ellipses.

sutupidmath
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
4
in my textbook says that a^2=p^2/(1-e^2)^2, and b^2=p^2/(1-e^2), are two axes of an ellipse, however there is no any proof as to how we can be sure that a and b are such axes. Where p is the focal parameter, and e is the eccentricity of the ellipse; a- is the big semi-axes, b- the small one.So i would like to know is there any proof that ensures us that the above expressions are indeed or represent the axes of any ellipse??
I asked the assistant proffesor on my Analytical Geometry class, but she did not know how to proof it.

Any help would be welcomed.

sorry for reposting it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I wonder if your professor wasn't just hoping you would think about it more yourself- it's a simple calculation.

For any ellipse, the distance, d, from one focus to the ellipse and back to the other focus is a constant.

For an ellipse with major axis a along the x-axis, minor axis b, equation
\frac{x^2}{a^2}+ \frac{y^2}{b^2}= 1[/itex]<br /> the total distance from one focus, to the point (a, 0) to the other focus is d= 2a (that should be obvious- the distance you <b>don&#039;t</b> cover, from a focus to (-a, 0), is exactly the distance you cover twice, from the other focus to (a, 0)). Now, taking c to be the distance from the center to a focus (so the foci are at (c, 0) and (-c, 0)), the focal distance, we have, by the Pythagorean theorem, that (d/2)<sup>2</sup>= a<sup>2</sup>= b<sup>2</sup>+ c<sup>2</sup> so that c<sup>2</sup>= a<sup>2</sup>- b<sup>2</sup>.<br /> <br /> The &quot;eccentricity&quot; is defined to be the ratio of focal distance to the length of the major-semiaxis, here that is <br /> e= \frac{\sqrt{a^2- b^2}}{a}= \sqrt{1- \frac{b^2}{a^2}}<br /> <br /> The focal parameter, p, is the distance from the focus to the nearest directrix. For an ellipse, a directrix is a line perpendicular to the major axis such that the ratio of the distance from any point on to the nearest focus to the distance from that point to the nearest directrix is equal to the eccentricity. That is, with x the x coordinate of any point on the directix, <br /> \frac{x-a}{a-c}= e[/itex]&lt;br /&gt; Since c= ae, that is&lt;br /&gt; \frac{x- a}{a- ae}= \frac{x- a}{a(1-e)}= e[/itex] &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; so that x- a= ae(1-e) and x= a+ ae(1-e)= a(1+ e- e^2).&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; Since x is the distance from the center of the ellipse to the directrix, p, the distance from the focus to the directrix is p= x- c= x- ae= a(1+ e- e^2)- ae= a(1- e^2). From that, a= p/(1- e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;) which is equivalent to a&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;= p&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;/(1- e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;, of course.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; Since b&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;= a&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;- c&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;= a&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;- a&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;= a&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;(1- e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;), we have b&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;= (p&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;/(1- e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)(1-e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;)= p&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;/(1- e&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;).
 
thnx
It's all clear to me now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K