Does the discriminant test apply to this conic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Apply Test
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of a quadratic surface represented by the equation 3x² + 3y² + 3z² + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy = 0. Participants are exploring the applicability of the discriminant test to this surface and questioning whether it can be classified as a conic section.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to apply the discriminant test to classify the surface and are questioning the nature of the equation, discussing whether it represents a conic section or a different type of surface. There are differing opinions on whether the surface is a sphere, an elliptic cone, or a hyperboloid.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the classification of the surface and the implications of the equation's structure, while others are still seeking clarification on the discriminant test and its application.

Contextual Notes

There is confusion regarding the definition of conic sections versus quadratic surfaces, and participants are addressing the implications of the equation equating to zero. The discussion also touches on the need for clarity in the equation's format and its dimensionality.

flyingpig
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Let's say I have 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy


How can I apply the discirminant test to this 3d surface?

The Attempt at a Solution



In all of them, I keep getting 64 - 36 > 0

But there are like different kinds of hyperbola in 3d...

i don't want to use traces.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's not a conic section.
 
vela said:
That's not a conic section.

Why?
 
flyingpig said:
Why?

Why do you think it is? Conic sections are curves, not surfaces. You have a quadratic surface. That's not the same as a conic section.
 
flyingpig,
One thing that should be cleared up is what exactly are you working with.

flyingpig said:
Let's say I have 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy

This isn't an equation, so it's hard to say what you're working with.

If it's really 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy = 0, then that is a surface in R3.

If it's w = 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy, then the graph would require four dimensions.
 
Mark44 said:
flyingpig,
One thing that should be cleared up is what exactly are you working with.



This isn't an equation, so it's hard to say what you're working with.

If it's really 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy = 0, then that is a surface in R3.

If it's w = 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy, then the graph would require four dimensions.

It is 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy = 0, but isn't it just a conic in 3d...?
 
Dick said:
Why do you think it is? Conic sections are curves, not surfaces. You have a quadratic surface. That's not the same as a conic section.

flyingpig said:
It is 3x2 + 3y2 + 3z2 + 8xz - 8xy - 8zy = 0, but isn't it just a conic in 3d...?
As Vela and Dick said, it's not a conic section, which is a curve. Here's a link to an article on Quadric Surfaces, one of which your equation represents.

Your equation represents a sphere, I'm pretty sure, but the xy, yz, and xz terms cause the thing to be tilted on all three axes.
 
Mark44 said:
As Vela and Dick said, it's not a conic section, which is a curve. Here's a link to an article on Quadric Surfaces, one of which your equation represents.

Your equation represents a sphere, I'm pretty sure, but the xy, yz, and xz terms cause the thing to be tilted on all three axes.

Actually, checking on Wolfram-Alpha, it appears to be an elliptic cone.
 
Char. Limit said:
Actually, checking on Wolfram-Alpha, it appears to be an elliptic cone.
You're going to have to convince me of this. The coefficients of all three squared terms are 1) positive and 2) equal, leading me to my assertion that the thing is a sphere. If it were a cone, I would expect the coefficient of one of the squared terms to be negative.
 
  • #10
My first instinct was that it should be a sphere as well.
However, there's this odd thing that the equation equals zero...

So I solved the system and found the eigenvalues 11, -1, -1.
This means that we can reduce the system to the form:
11x2 - y2 - z2 = 0​
with an appropriate orthonormal base transformation (read: rotation).

This is not just an elliptic cone, it's a circular cone!

In retrospect I could have guessed, since only elliptic cones would contain (0,0,0). :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #11
How could sphere's axis be "tilted"?
 
  • #12
flyingpig said:
How could sphere's axis be "tilted"?

It can't! :smile:
It can only be translated.

So I think a quadric of a sphere can actually never have terms like xy, xz, or yz.
But it can have terms like x, y, and z.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Well, it can but since every diameter of a sphere is and "axis", it would still look exactly the same!
 
  • #14
Arggghh, damn. The whole login again, lost my post.

I had a long explanation written agreeing with HallsOfIvy.

Also, it's hyperbolic.
See
solve for z and graph of 1 branch

Also, took me forever to find
the whole graph.
In the future, please always post your wolfram links!

Doesn't that make it a variation of "hyperboloid of 1 sheet"?
 
  • #15
Wait so it is NOT a sphere now?!
 
  • #16
It is not a hyperboloid and it is not a sphere.

It is a circular cone (which is a degenerate hyperboloid).
Note that (0,0,0) is part of the surface.
 
  • #17
How do you check then? Without referring to another reference. My contour plots are rpetty ugly and bad...
 
  • #18
The method to classify a quadric surface is that you first bring the equation in the form:
[tex]\boldsymbol x Q \boldsymbol x^T + P \boldsymbol x^T + R = 0[/tex]
I'm following wikipedia's notation here, where Q is a symmetric matrix, P is a column vector, and R is a scalar.

Then you determine the eigenvalues of Q.
Let's say they are [itex]\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3[/itex].

The quadric will be a surface described by:
[tex]\lambda_1 x^2 + \lambda_2 y^2 + \lambda_3 z^2 + R' = 0[/tex]
The difference is only a rotation and a translation.
I think R' is a different constant than the original R if you have a non-zero P.
(In your case R' is equal to R because P=0.)

From this you should be able to classify it yourself, or use e.g. wikipedia for a list of the cases.There! I managed it without any references! :smile:
(Uhh, although I did refer to wikipedia. :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Oh my god...
 
  • #20
flyingpig said:
Oh my god...

Ah, I forgot, you were looking for a discriminant test.

Well, I found one here (hope you don't mind the reference):
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuadraticSurface.html

I'm afraid it may not be as simple as you'd like though. :wink:
In effect it's based on the method I just described.
 
  • #21
How ar you supposed to memorize that determinant?
 
  • #22
I don't think you're supposed to.
You'd look it up if you need to.

What is doable, is to learn the classification method I described.
 

Similar threads

Using the Integral Test to Show Sum is Less Than pi/2
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Does the series converge using the integral test?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Does the series 4/k(lnk)^2 converge or diverge?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Solving an Integral: ∫(o to ∞) ∫(0 to 5) ∫(0 to 4) 16xy dydxdz
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
How to Use Comparison Test for Convergence?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
The Nth Term Test for Divergence
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Statistics, testing hypothesis
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Using the limit comparison test to prove conv or div
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Elliptic functions proof -- convergence series on lattice
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
How Do I Apply the Nth-Term Test to the Sequence (-1)^n+1?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K