Can Parameterization be Redefined Any Simpler?

  • Thread starter Thread starter royblaze
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Parameterization of curves allows for flexibility in defining relationships between variables, making it easier to analyze and manipulate functions. While one can plot points by substituting values into a function, parameterization provides a systematic way to express curves, particularly for complex shapes. It is not unique, as multiple parameterizations can represent the same curve, each serving different purposes such as calculating length or curvature. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the underlying reasons for parameterization beyond mere plotting. Overall, parameterization is a valuable tool in calculus for exploring geometric properties and relationships.
royblaze
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Hello all. This is just a question I've been having while learning about parameterization of curves in my Calc III class.

Now, I've never taken parameterization lessons (?) which apparently are supposed to be covered in Calc II (which includes heavy integrals, series, and other stuff).

But now that we are revisiting paramerization, I've got a question.

Why is it defined in the way that it is?

I mean, for some HW questions I had to draw the resultant curve of something. But I didn't paramterize or anything. I just fit in values of t into a function of t and I got points. I connected the points. I checked my answer, and the graph looked really good compared to what the book says the answer is.

My teacher, on the other hand, said something along the lines of

"try saying that (_1,_2) can be redefined by something easier, for example, let's set _1 as 'x' and then redefine _2 in terms of our new x."


What I'm saying, then, is, why do we parameterize? If given a function r(t), and I'm asked to graph it, can't I just plug in values of t and then plot those points and connect them?

If anyone also has any good reference websites about parameterization, that would be great too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
royblaze said:
But now that we are revisiting paramerization, I've got a question.

Why is it defined in the way that it is?

You haven't told us what your definition of parametrization is. You just sight examples of (I assume) polar curves. What does that have to do with parametrization?
 
I guess my definition of parameterization is just simply taking a given equation r(t) equation and using different values of t to find see how the function looks on a graph. The "parameter" comes from t being what defines the r(t)...

That's what I think. :P
 
Is that right? I'm still unsure.
 
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here, but parameterizations of curves are not unique. The only reason for using a partiular parameterization is because it happens to be useful.

As a trivial example, the non-parametric equation of a circle x^2 + y^2 = a^2 could be parameterized as x = a \cos t, y = a \sin t, or x = 2at / (1+t^2), y = a(1-t^2) / (1 + t^2), or in polar coordinates as r = a, (where the parameter t doesn't appear at all in the parameterized eqations!) etc.

Parameterizations are useful for much more than just plotting curves from points - for example finding the length of a curve by integration, finding tangents, normals, and curvature at any point in terms of the parameter, etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K