Parabolic Coordinates & Cartesian Coordinates - 1-1 Mapping

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coordinates
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between parabolic coordinates and Cartesian coordinates in both two-dimensional and three-dimensional contexts. Participants explore the concept of one-to-one mapping between these coordinate systems, questioning the necessity of a third coordinate and examining definitions from different sources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert there is a one-to-one mapping between two-dimensional parabolic coordinates (u, v) and Cartesian coordinates (x, y), while others mention a similar mapping exists in three dimensions.
  • There is confusion regarding the definitions of parabolic coordinates, with some noting that Mathworld uses three coordinates while Wikipedia uses two, leading to questions about the implications of these definitions.
  • One participant expresses difficulty in visualizing the one-to-one mapping in the two-dimensional case, particularly regarding the intersection of curves in parabolic coordinates compared to Cartesian coordinates.
  • Another participant suggests that sketching the intersection of curves in parabolic coordinates results in two points, contrasting with the single point intersection in Cartesian coordinates.
  • A link to external resources is provided by one participant, claiming it shows a connection relevant to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of parabolic coordinates, particularly regarding the necessity of a third coordinate and the nature of intersections in different coordinate systems. No consensus is reached on these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in understanding the mappings and intersections due to varying definitions and the complexity of visualizing the relationships between the 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
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K