B Deriving the Polar of a Point on a Conic

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Appleton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polar Pole
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the polar of a point P(p, q) with respect to a general conic represented by the equation ax^2 + 2hxy + by^2 + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0. It clarifies that the polar of point P is the chord of contact of the tangents drawn from P to the conic. If point P lies on the conic, the chord of contact becomes non-existent as the tangents coincide at that point. The conversation also highlights the importance of understanding the implicit derivative in this derivation process. Overall, the participants aim to clarify the derivation of the polar equation and the implications of point placement relative to the conic.
Appleton
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
If a general conic is

<br /> ax^2+2hxy+by^2+2gx+2fy+c=0<br />

I am told that, if P(p, q) is a point on this conic, then the polar of P(p, q) to this conic is

<br /> apx+h(py+qx)+bgy+g(p+x)+f(q+y)+c=0<br />

How is this derived?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What is your definition of the polar of a point wrt the conic? What do you know about the polar if the point lies on the conic?
 
Thanks for your reply micromass. I realize I made a mistake. P(p,q) does not lie on the conic.

The polar is the chord of contact of the tangents from P.

If the point lies on the conic then the chord of contact would be non existent as P and the tangent points would all be coincident.

If we assume there are no constraints on P, what would be the derivation?
 
Do you know the equation of the tangent line from ##P##?
 
OK I think I'm with you now. Thanks for the prompt. I think the implicit derivative was my main stumbling block, amongst various other oversights.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top