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.
 
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...
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top