How to interpret a function in 3 dimentions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Syrena
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
AI Thread Summary
To interpret the function x^2 + y^2 + 5z = 1 in three dimensions, it's essential to analyze cross-sections parallel to the xy-plane. Setting z to specific values reveals that for z = 0, a circle with radius 1 is formed, while z = 1 yields no valid points, indicating a degenerate circle. The equation can be rewritten as x^2 + y^2 = 1 - 5z, which shows that valid z values must satisfy 1 - 5z ≥ 0, leading to z < 0. However, since z must be non-negative, the only valid z value is 0, resulting in a single point for z = 1/5. Understanding these cross-sections and constraints is crucial for visualizing the surface accurately.
Syrena
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have calculus, and a lot of tasks ask for drawing of the functions in 3 dimentions. I have problems thinking of how to do this, often it can be a parabolid or other Objects. Example, one I can't think of how I am suppose to Draw, here I am going to solve for Stokes (that is a pretty easy function) x^2 +y^2 +5z =1 , where z≥0.

Is there any good technique to use for drawing With Three variables?

Homework Equations


I don't know what to use here


The Attempt at a Solution


I think that if I put z=0, you get a circle in the xy-plane With a radius 1, but when z=1, I get X^2 +y^2 =-4, so the New radius is -4 ( or is it √-4?) i don't think I am thinking correctly here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Syrena said:

Homework Statement


I have calculus, and a lot of tasks ask for drawing of the functions in 3 dimentions. I have problems thinking of how to do this, often it can be a parabolid or other Objects. Example, one I can't think of how I am suppose to Draw, here I am going to solve for Stokes (that is a pretty easy function) x^2 +y^2 +5z =1 , where z≥0.

Is there any good technique to use for drawing With Three variables?

Homework Equations


I don't know what to use here


The Attempt at a Solution


I think that if I put z=0, you get a circle in the xy-plane With a radius 1, but when z=1, I get X^2 +y^2 =-4, so the New radius is -4 ( or is it √-4?) i don't think I am thinking correctly here.
That's right - you aren't.
For this surface, you can get a lot of information from cross-sections that are parallel to the x-y plane. To do this, rewrite the equation as x2 + y2 = 1 - 5z.

Since x2 + y2 ≥ 0 for all real x and y, then it must be that 1 - 5z ≥ 0 as well. If you substitute z = 1, you don't get a circle with an imaginary radius. It means that there are no points on the surface for which z = 1.

If 1 - 5z = 0, what you get is a degenerate circle - a single point. Try substituting a few values of z for which 1 - 5z > 0. All of these will give you cross-sections at various heights that will help you recognize what the surface looks like.

Another technique that can be used is to look at the three traces, cross-sections of the curve in the x-y plane (set z = 0), x-z plane (set y = 0), and y-z plane (set x = 0).
 
Thanks! But how do you see that 1-5z=0 is a single point?
And to get 1 - 5z > 0, dosent z have to be negative? to have z=, -1, -2 -3 , but that can't be becous z≥0. and does this gives us the radius of the parabolid?
 
Syrena said:
Thanks! But how do you see that 1-5z=0 is a single point?
It clearly fixes the value of z. If you substitute that value in the original equation, what do you get? I think you'll find there is only solution for x and y as well.
And to get 1 - 5z > 0, dosent z have to be negative?
No, think that through again.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...
Back
Top