B Quadratic term's relationships

thetexan
Messages
269
Reaction score
13
I know everyone here must know this but it is a new revelation to me and very interesting. But I have a question about the reason behind the following...

Take ##x^2+10x+10## for example.

Any coefficient of ##x^2## modifies the "zoom" of the parabola, for lack of a better word, and determines whether it is a "up" parabola or "down" parabola.

The x term and it's coefficient determines the center of the parabola. The center is always 1/2 of the inverse of the coefficient. For example 10x results in a centerline of -5.

The constant gives the y intercept.

The x2 coefficient is related to the x coefficient in this respect...the parabola centerline at x will always be 1/2 of inverse of the x coefficient divided by the coefficient of the ##x^2## coefficient!

For example...

##2x^2 + 60x + 20## results in...

1. a y intercept of 20
2. a parabola centerline of ##( (+60/2)*-1) / 2 ## or -15

I'm trying to understand why this should be. Why or how does the ##x^2## coefficient of 2 have any relationship with the x coefficient of 60 such that the two together determine the parabola centerline?

Any insights would be appreciated.

Thanks,
tex
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
$$
y=2x^2 + 60x + 20 = 2(x^2+30x+225)+20-450 = 2(x+15)^2-430$$
This is a parabola resulting from a translation of a centered parabola ##y=2x^2## to the left by 15 and then down by 430.
 
Perhaps most simply:

##2x^2 + 60x + 20 = 2(x^2 +30x + 10)##

This graph on the left is twice the height of the graph on the right at every point. So, it has a different shape, twice the y intercept but the same centre line.

I mean of course twice the function in the brackets on the right!
 
blue_leaf77 said:
$$
y=2x^2 + 60x + 20 = 2(x^2+30x+225)+20-450 = 2(x+15)^2-430$$
This is a parabola resulting from a translation of a centered parabola ##y=2x^2## to the left by 15 and then down by 430.
Understanding the general form and the standard form for the equation of a parabola is very important and useful. The process of Completing the Square is how you change from the general form to the standard form. The standard form equation is easier to graph.
 
Here's a kinematic way to think about things:

##y=\frac{1}{2}a_0t^2+v_0t+y_0,##
where ##a_0## is the [initial and constant] acceleration, ##v_0## is the initial velocity (##v## when ##t=0##), and ##y_0## is the initial position.

On a position-vs-time graph,
##y_0## is the y-intercept (where ##t=0##)
##v_0## is the slope at the y-intercept (based on the derivative taken below).

The centerline occurs when the slope of the graph is zero.
Physically, that is when the velocity is zero.
By taking the derivative with respect to time, we obtain the velocity function
##v\equiv\frac{dy}{dt}=a_0t+v_0##
and asking for the value of ##t## that makes this zero is: ##t_{when\ v=0}=-\frac{v_0}{a_0}##.

Based on your example, ##y=2t^2 + 60t + 20##
##a_0=4## and ##v_0=60##
so ##t_{when\ v=0}=-\frac{60}{4}=-15##.
 
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.

Similar threads

Back
Top