Parabolic Coordinates & Cartesian Coordinates - 1-1 Mapping

  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coordinates
Click For Summary
Parabolic coordinates in 2D involve two parameters, u and v, which can represent parabolas that intersect at two points when one parameter is held constant. There is a one-to-one mapping between two-dimensional parabolic coordinates and Cartesian coordinates, despite some confusion regarding definitions that involve three coordinates. Mathworld and Wikipedia both agree on the three-dimensional case but use different notations for the parameters. The discussion highlights the challenge of visualizing intersections in parabolic coordinates, where two points result from the intersection of curves, unlike the single point in Cartesian coordinates. Understanding this mapping is crucial for grasping the relationship between these coordinate systems.
mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hi,
I have a doubt about parabolic coordinates in 2D.
if u,v are the parabolic coordinates in a plane, and we keep v=v0 constant, we have a parabola. Analogously keeping u=u0 we have another parabola which intersect the previous one in two points.

My question is, how there can be a 1-1 mapping between parabolic and cartesian coordinates without introducing a third coordinate?


What confused me is that Mathworld defines parabolic coordinates using 3 coordinates, while in wikipedia you can find a definition which uses only two coordinates and an elegant form using complex numbers: f(z)=z^{2}. What's the difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mnb96 said:
My question is, how there can be a 1-1 mapping between parabolic and cartesian coordinates without introducing a third coordinate?
As far as I understand, there is a 1-1 mapping between two-dimensional parabolic coordinates (in the Wikipedia notation: tau, sigma) and two-dimensional cartesian coordinates (x, y). Also, there is one between three-dimensional parabolic (tau, sigma, phi) and Cartesian (x, y, z) coordinates.

What confused me is that Mathworld defines parabolic coordinates using 3 coordinates, while in wikipedia you can find a definition which uses only two coordinates and an elegant form using complex numbers: f(z)=z^{2}. What's the difference?
Wikipedia uses two for the two-dimensional case. Mathworld and Wikipedia agree on the three-dimensional case, only they have renamed u = \tau, v = \sigma, \phi = \theta. I couldn't find the complex form right away, but remember that complex numbers "are" two-dimensional (there is a 1-1 mapping between complex numbers a + bi and cartesian coordinates (a, b) on the plane).
 
Last edited:
I find the complex form here (and also in another book):

http://eom.springer.de/P/p071170.htm

I still have troubles in visualizing how the 1-1 mapping between parabolic and cartesian coordinates works in the 2D case :/
 
ok...let's put my question in this way:

if I am in parabolic coordinates and I want to sketch on paper the intersection between the curves u=u_0 and v=v_0, I will have to mark two "points", right?

Instead, if we are in cartesian coordinates the intersection between x=x_0 and y=y_0 always yields one point.

does this make any sense?
 
I know this post is old but I think my equation shows a link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13155084/Pythagorean%20lattice.pdf

and

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13155084/PL3D2/P_Lattice_3D_2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K