High School Quadratic with simple meaningful intuitive constants

Click For Summary
A simple model for fitting quadratic functions using intuitive constants has been proposed, replacing traditional constants a, b, and c with the intercept (Yo) and the coordinates of the maxima or minima (Xm, Ym). This rearrangement simplifies the process of adjusting the quadratic function to fit new data. The creator, who has used this method for over 30 years, requests that it be credited as the "Diddams equation." Despite its simplicity, the rearrangement is presented as a powerful tool for calculations, particularly in educational contexts. The discussion also touches on the convention against naming mathematical concepts after oneself, despite the creator's belief that this approach is unique.
PaulDiddams
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
A simple quadratic rearrangement that uses the intercept and the values of x and y that define the maxima or minima, in place of a, b and c, to drive a quadratic function. (demo Excel sheet attached).
Ever made a simple model that fits a quadratic function?

Tweaking the a, b and c constants to fit new observed data is a bit of a pain.

When I was a grad. student I came up with the following simple quadratic rearrangement that uses the intercept (Yo) and the values of x and y that define the maxima or minima (Xm, Ym) in place of non-intuitive a, b and c constants to drive the quadratic function. I also include rearrangements to calculate x from y, or Yo which I often find very useful too.

I would appreciate being credited "Diddams equation" if you choose to use my rearrangement. I think it's really neat and very powerful.

Enjoy.

1649843609412.png
 

Attachments

Mathematics news on Phys.org
That's a simple rearrangement exercise for high school, done millions of times before.
Naming things after yourself is frowned upon by the way. Even if it were something new.
 
mfb said:
That's a simple rearrangement exercise for high school, done millions of times before.
Naming things after yourself is frowned upon by the way. Even if it were something new.
I've been using this rearrangement for over 30 years now and neither I nor anyone I know has ever seen it done before, and my colleagues have been referring to it by that name for point of reference. If you have references where it's been done and shared before I'm interested to see them.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
34K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K