Parametric -> Implicit Equations

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding an implicit equation for the parametric curve defined by x = 2sin(t) and y = sin(2t). The initial attempt involved manipulating the equations but raised concerns about dividing by x, which could lead to undefined values when x = 0. Participants clarified that multiplying through by 4x^2 is valid and suggested a final implicit form of 4x^2 = 4y^2 + x^4. The conversation emphasized the importance of correctly deriving the implicit equation without division by x, ensuring the solution is valid across the entire domain. Overall, the focus was on accurately transforming parametric equations into an implicit form.
JC3187
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I have done what I can with the following:

Given a parametric curve x = xsint, y = sin(2t) where t is in R.

Find an implicit equation of this curve.

MY ANSWER:
y = 2costsint = costx

Therefore sint = x/2, cost = y/x

sin^2(t) + cos^2(t) = x^2 / 4 + y^2 / x^2 = 1

Would this be right?
I understand that x != 0 but why can't I just multiply every value underlined by 4x^2?

Thank you, any input is appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
JC3187 said:
Hi guys,

I have done what I can with the following:

Given a parametric curve x = xsint, y - sin(2t) where t is in R.



Please correct the typo's so we know what the actual equations are.
 
JC3187 said:
Hi guys,

I have done what I can with the following:

Given a parametric curve x = xsint, y - sin(2t) where t is in R.

I will assume, from your work below, that the equations are ##x=2\sin t,~y=\sin(2t)##

Find an implicit equation of this curve.
MY ANSWER:
y = 2costsint = costx

Therefore sint = x/2, cost = y/x

sin^2(t) + cos^2(t) = x^2 / 4 + y^2 / x^2 = 1

Would this be right?
I understand that x != 0 but why can't I just multiply every value underlined by 4x^2?

Thank you, any input is appreciated!

Yes, you can multiply through by ##4x^2##. The original equations certainly allow ##x=0## and the only problem is that you divided by ##x## in your solution. You could have derived the same equation as you get when you multiply through by ##4x^2## without ever dividing by ##x##. So you should give the answer as $$
4x^2 = 4y^2+x^4$$or some variation of that.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
JC3187 said:
Hi guys,

I have done what I can with the following:

Given a parametric curve x = xsint, y - sin(2t) where t is in R.

Find an implicit equation of this curve.

MY ANSWER:
y = 2costsint = costx

Therefore sint = x/2, cost = y/x

sin^2(t) + cos^2(t) = x^2 / 4 + y^2 / x^2 = 1

Would this be right?
I understand that x != 0 but why can't I just multiply every value underlined by 4x^2?

Thank you, any input is appreciated!
Do you mean
x = sin(t)

and

y = sin(2t)

?​
 
Yes sorry That is what I meant.

How do you derive it from the original equation?
x=2sint, y=sin(2t) without dividing by x?
 
JC3187 said:
Yes sorry That is what I meant.

How do you derive it from the original equation?
x=2sint, y=sin(2t) without dividing by x?

$$x^2+y^2=4\sin^2 t + (2\sin t\cos t)^2=4\sin^2t(1+\cos^2 t)
=4\sin^2 t(2-\sin^2 t) = x^2(2-\frac{x^2} 4) = \frac{x^2(8-x^2)}{4}$$
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K