It seems that something is wrong either with this proof or my understanding.

  • Thread starter Thread starter vkash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the conditions for a line to be tangent to a parabola, specifically the equation y^2=4ax. It highlights that the line y=mx+c intersects the parabola at one point when the discriminant of the resulting quadratic equation is zero. A key point made is that if m=0, the line becomes linear, and the discriminant does not need to be zero, thus a does not have to equal mc. The confusion arises from applying the tangency condition without recognizing that m=0 simplifies the scenario. Ultimately, it clarifies that for m not equal to zero, the discriminant being zero indicates the line is tangent to the parabola.
vkash
Messages
316
Reaction score
1
Here i am asking all the things about parabola. I think something is wrong with proof where we prove condition of tangency.
It is done shown(in my book)
y^2=4ax //equation of general parabola
let us assume that line y=mx+c is passing through parabola.
points where it will cut parabola.
(mx+c)^2=4ax
solving this equation.
(mx)^2+x(2mc-4a)+c^2=0
line will touch parabola at one point if of the roots of this equation are equal.
It means it’s discriminant is zero.
(2mc-4a)^2-4m^2c^2=0
=> 16a^2=16amc
a=0; not possible because in that case it will not remain a parabola it became a line y=0.
a=mc
this is the require condition for the line to cut the parabola at one point.
So let's take an example.
y=2. this line cuts the parabola y^2-4x=0 at one point. as we can see on the graphs
but does it obey the equation proved previously.
a=0/2. NO. it is not obeying that equation.
WHY??
the condition is for line to cut the parabola at one point.y=2 is also a line that cuts parabola at one point but not obeying the condition.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
vkash said:
(mx)^2+x(2mc-4a)+c^2=0

To conclude that this equation is a quadratic you need to know that m≠0. If m=0, then this is just a linear equation and will have exactly one solution regardless of what the discriminant is. Since your given line does in fact have m=0, the discriminant need not be zero, and so a is not necessarily equal to mc.
 
Citan Uzuki said:
To conclude that this equation is a quadratic you need to know that m≠0. If m=0, then this is just a linear equation and will have exactly one solution regardless of what the discriminant is. Since your given line does in fact have m=0, the discriminant need not be zero, and so a is not necessarily equal to mc.
great!
problem solved.
million thanks for answering.
 
By the way, when m is not 0, "touching the parabola at one point" means "tangent to the parabola" which is what the discriminant being 0 gives.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top