I Moving center of coordinates in the polar graph

ektov_konstantin
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Please, check if made a mistake. I get bad result but can`t understand where is my mistake
I have a function in polar coordinates:

t (rho, phi) = H^2 / (H^2 + rho^2) (1)

I have moved the center to the right and want to get the new formulae.

I use cartesian coordinates to simplify the transformation (L = 232.5).

rho^2 = (x')^2+(y')^2
x' = x-L (2)
y' = y

Then I substitute expression (2) into (1) and go back to the polar coordinates (using x=rho*cos(phi) and y=rho*sin(phi) ). The result is:

t (rho, phi) = H^2 / (H^2 + rho^2 - 2 * rho * L * cos(phi) )**2 (3)

The first picture is for (1) function.

The second picture is for (3).
 

Attachments

  • изображение_2021-11-07_201307.png
    изображение_2021-11-07_201307.png
    13.6 KB · Views: 164
  • изображение_2021-11-07_202150.png
    изображение_2021-11-07_202150.png
    14.9 KB · Views: 138
Mathematics news on Phys.org
ektov_konstantin said:
Summary:: Please, check if made a mistake. I get bad result but can`t understand where is my mistake

I have a function in polar coordinates:

t (rho, phi) = H^2 / (H^2 + rho^2) (1)
Or as a bit more readable,
$$t(\rho, \phi) = \frac{H^2}{H^2 + \rho^2}$$
If you click what I wrote above, you can see my LaTeX script. There's more information about LaTeX in the LaTeX Guide line at the lower left of the input pane.
ektov_konstantin said:
I have moved the center to the right and want to get the new formulae.

I use cartesian coordinates to simplify the transformation (L = 232.5).

rho^2 = (x')^2+(y')^2
x' = x-L (2)
y' = y

Then I substitute expression (2) into (1) and go back to the polar coordinates (using x=rho*cos(phi) and y=rho*sin(phi) ). The result is:

t (rho, phi) = H^2 / (H^2 + rho^2 - 2 * rho * L * cos(phi) )**2 (3)
It looks to me like you are omitting the ##L^2## term in the denominator. After the substitution -- in equation (2) -- I get this:
$$t(\rho, \phi) = \frac{H^2}{H^2 + (x - L)^2 + y^2} = \frac{H^2}{H^2 + x^2 - 2Lx + L^2 + y^2} $$
$$ = \frac{H^2}{H^2 +\rho^2 - 2L\rho\cos(\phi) + L^2}$$
ektov_konstantin said:
The first picture is for (1) function.

The second picture is for (3).
Does my change make a difference?
 
Mark44 said:
Or as a bit more readable,
$$t(\rho, \phi) = \frac{H^2}{H^2 + \rho^2}$$
If you click what I wrote above, you can see my LaTeX script. There's more information about LaTeX in the LaTeX Guide line at the lower left of the input pane.
It looks to me like you are omitting the ##L^2## term in the denominator. After the substitution -- in equation (2) -- I get this:
$$t(\rho, \phi) = \frac{H^2}{H^2 + (x - L)^2 + y^2} = \frac{H^2}{H^2 + x^2 - 2Lx + L^2 + y^2} $$
$$ = \frac{H^2}{H^2 +\rho^2 - 2L\rho\cos(\phi) + L^2}$$

Does my change make a difference?
Yes. I made such a stupid mistake. Thanks for advise about LaTeX
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top