I Finding intersection of two algebraic curves

AI Thread Summary
Finding intersections of two algebraic curves, particularly for higher degrees, poses significant challenges. While brute force methods work for low-degree curves, a more general numeric approach is sought for degrees like 10 or 12. The Abel-Ruffini theorem indicates that quintic equations lack solutions expressed in radicals, complicating the search for intersections. The resultant of the two polynomials is suggested as a potential method, but its application for computing intersections of real and imaginary sheets remains unclear. A systematic approach for higher-degree cases is still needed to effectively find these intersections.
aheight
Messages
318
Reaction score
108
TL;DR Summary
Is there a standard numeric approach to finding the intersection of two algebraic curves?
Given two algebraic curves:

##f_1(z,w)=a_0(z)+a_1(z)w+\cdots+a_n(z)w^n=0##
##f_2(z,w)=b_0(z)+b_1(z)w+\cdots+b_k(z)w^k=0##

Is there a general, numeric approach to finding where the first curve ##w_1(z)## intersects the second curve ##w_2(z)##? I know for low degree like quadratic or cubics can find the intersection by brute force but was wondering if there is a more general approach for higher degrees say 10 or 12 each?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not expressed with radicals, at least.
If there would be then quintic equations would have such a solution. They do not in general: Abel-Ruffini theorem
 
mfb said:
Not expressed with radicals, at least.
If there would be then quintic equations would have such a solution. They do not in general: Abel-Ruffini theorem

It appears to be a difficult problem even numerically. Was just wondering how others might approach it (numerically).
 
@aheight -- You should look at the resultant of the two polynomials. See the Resultant - Wikipedia article for more information, especially the section on Algebraic Geometry. HTH
 
Petek said:
@aheight -- You should look at the resultant of the two polynomials. See the Resultant - Wikipedia article for more information, especially the section on Algebraic Geometry. HTH
Thanks for that. However, perhaps I should have stated above I'm interested in computing the intersections of the real and imaginary sheets of both algebraic curves. Consider a simple case I'm working on:

$$
\begin{align*}
f1(z,w)&=(-6z/5-2z^2+z^4)+(2/5-2 z^2/5)w+1/25 w^2=0\\
f2(z,w)&=(-1+z^2)-6/5 w=0
\end{align*}
$$
If I plot the real sheets of ##w_1## from f1 as the yellow and red surfaces and the real sheet of ##w_2## from f2 as the orange surface in the plot below, I obtain their intersections as the white curves. The white curves I computed by solving simple simultaneous equations for this simple case which I would not be able to do with higher degree curves and was wondering if there is a systematic way to find the intersections for the higher degree cases.

Guess I mean I don't see how the resultant can be used to find the white curves.
intersectionPlot.jpg
 
Last edited:
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...
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top