Deriving Descriptions of Conic Sections from Fundamental Definition

CarlisleLes
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Everyone knows by now that a conic section is the figure formed when a plane intersects a right circular cone. Most everyone also knows that there are many different ways to describe a conic, geometrically and algebraically. What one seldom sees is the derivation of those descriptions from the fundamental definition. Using Dandelin Spheres it is easy to accomplish this for an ellipse. What I have never seen is a proof, based on the fundamental definition, of the equivalence of the ratio of the distances of a point on the conic to the focus and to the directrix, or even a definition of the directrix itself. Can anyone supply or direct me to such information? Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I have read that a dozen times. It doesn't explain the directrix derivation - just says it's possible to do so.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top