Covering space of implicit vs parametric functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between implicit and parametric functions, exploring whether every implicit function can be converted to a parametric form and vice versa. Participants examine the definitions of these function sets and the conditions under which one can represent the other, touching on theoretical aspects and examples.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether every implicit function can be represented as a parametric function and vice versa.
  • One participant suggests that the set of implicit functions can describe a wide range of functions, depending on the constraints placed on them.
  • Another participant points out that there are functions that cannot be expressed in closed form, both for implicit and parametric representations.
  • It is proposed that while any parametric function can be described as an implicit function, not every implicit function can be described parametrically.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the implicit function theorem in relation to local representations of functions.
  • There is mention of the concept of 'genus' as potentially relevant to the parameterization of implicit functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between implicit and parametric functions, with no consensus reached on whether one set is a subset of the other or the conditions under which they can be converted.

Contextual Notes

Definitions of "set of implicit functions" and "set of parametric functions" are not clearly established, leading to potential ambiguity in the discussion. The exploration of closed forms and the implications of the implicit function theorem introduce additional complexity.

ellipsis
Messages
158
Reaction score
24
Hello PF, I've got a curiosity question someone may be able to indulge me on:

The set of implicit functions covers a certain function-space - the set of all functions that can be represented by an implicit relation. Parametric functions also covers a function-space, that at least overlaps implicit functions in some points.

Is it the case that every implicit function can be converted to a parametric form? Or are there implicit functions that cannot be represented as a parametric function, and vice versa? Is the set of implicit functions a subset of parametric functions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How exactly do you define "set of implicit functions" and "set of parametric functions"?

As an example, you can always define U(x,y) to be zero for an arbitrary subset of R^2, then the implicit function U(x,y)=0 can be everything.
 
I don't have the vocabulary to define these things the proper way. There are functions which just can't be written explicitly in an analytic, closed form. For a quick example, the solution of y in x=y^(y+1). Likewise, there are parametric functions that cannot be written in closed form, such as y=sin(t), x = cos(t). But that parametric function can be converted to implicit form - x^2+y^2 = 1.

Are you saying that the implicit function U(x,y) = 0 is a way of describing any function? I think there might be a function you can write parametrically but not implicitly e.g. x(t) = sin(t)+t, y(t) = cos(t)+t^2

Usually to go from parametric -> implicit, I would solve for T and substitute, but T can be unsolvable for both.

EDIT: I have discovered some information on the topic here. Whether or not an implicit function has a parameterization seems to be related to its 'genus'. Whatever that is.
 
Last edited:
ellipsis said:
Are you saying that the implicit function U(x,y) = 0 is a way of describing any function?
If you do not put additional constraints on U (continuous, or even differentiable, ...), yes.
 
So the answer to my question: Any parametric function can be described as an implicit function U(x,y), but not every implicit function can be described as a parametric one.
 
You can do the same with parametric functions. x=U(t), y=V(t). As long as you do not add more requirements for U and V, this can give every possible function.
This is not limited to R^2, of course, it works for all sets.
 
Try looking at the implicit function theorem, which gives conditions for the existence of a(n) (at least) local representation f(x,y)=0 for a given function.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K