Can a 2nd degree parametric equation be turned into cartesian?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on converting second and third degree parametric equations into Cartesian form. The initial example, with equations x = t^2 and y = t^3 + 4t, allows for isolation of t as t = sqrt(x), leading to y expressed as a function of x. However, when presented with a more complex parametric equation, x = t^2 + 2t and y = t^3 + 4t, the need arises to solve a quadratic equation for t, resulting in multiple values for t and thus multiple functions for y. The conversation emphasizes that not all parametric equations can be expressed as functions of x due to the vertical-line test, and suggests using implicit equations, such as R(x,y) = 0, for more complex curves.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of parametric equations
  • Knowledge of quadratic equations and their solutions
  • Familiarity with the vertical-line test for functions
  • Basic concepts of implicit functions and the Implicit Function Theorem
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Implicit Function Theorem in detail
  • Learn about the Folium of Descartes and its parametric representation
  • Explore the concept of multiple functions derived from parametric equations
  • Investigate methods for plotting parametric curves in the Cartesian plane
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, and students studying calculus, particularly those interested in parametric equations and their applications in graphing and function analysis.

mpatryluk
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Let's say i have a parametric equation:

x = t^2
y = t^3 + 4t

Even though this is a 2nd and 3rd degree parametric equation, i can isolate and express in terms of y = f(x) because the parametric equation for x involves only one term for t.

Thus:

t = sqrt(x)

and

y = sqrt(x)^3 + 4(sqrt(x))

But if the parametric equation instead had 2 terms with the variable t, in each equation, of varying degrees:

x = t^2 + 2t
y = t^3 + 4t

Could i still isolate? Because as far as i can see, i would have to express t in terms of itself.

i.e.

t^2 = x - 2t
t = sqrt(x - 2t)Is there any way around this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In this particular case, you could just solve the quadratic equation for the variable t in terms of x. Note that you will get two values for t, hence for each you will get a different function when you plug back into y.
 
To follow up on kontejnjer's comment, you should keep in mind that 2d parametric equations can be used to plot curves in the cartesian plane which are not functions. This means you cannot always write (x(t),y(t)) in the form y = f(x). In fact, as you can see with both of your examples, the curve is not a function - it fails the vertical-line test. In your first example, when you solve for t in terms of x, you need to consider both signs of the square root, just as kontejnjer mentions that you need to do for the second example.

So, in each of your examples, you really need two functions, ##y = f_\pm(x)##, to describe your parametric curve.

An alternative is to derive an implicit equation, R(x,y) = 0, which describes the curve.

It can get more complicated than even this: you can have all sorts of crazy parametric curves for which you would need a large set of functions ##y = f_n(x)## to describe all the various segments of the curve. (Though there may be a simple implicit representation).

For example, see the Folium of Descartes. You would need at least three functions to describe that curve (at least four if you want them all to be without kinks).

The Implicit function theorem tells you when you can solve an implicit function R(x,y) = 0 for y, at least over some small interval.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K