What is the Maximum Angle to Rotate a Parabola and Still Graph as a Function?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vorde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation
AI Thread Summary
The maximum angle to rotate a parabola while still allowing it to be graphed as a function is effectively zero degrees. Any rotation introduces multiple y-values for a single x-value, violating the definition of a function. Mathematical analysis confirms that even slight rotations lead to quadratic equations with two solutions for y. Discussions among participants reinforced this conclusion, with visual examples illustrating the impossibility of maintaining a functional relationship post-rotation. Ultimately, the consensus is that the parabola cannot be rotated without losing its function property.
Vorde
Messages
786
Reaction score
0
What is the maximum angle (degrees or radians) that you can rotate the basic parabola (y=x2) so that it can still be graphed as a function (y=...) with only one possible y-value per x-input.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think it's 0, because when you include the xy factor, it doesn't become a function anymore.
 
But more abstractly, I think it's possible to do a slight rotation, but there's an obvious cutoff point. I'm curious where that cutoff point is, it could be zero, I can't quite picture it well enough.
 
No, that's not correct. Any rotation at all makes it no longer a function.

Start with y= x^2. With a rotation through an angle \theta we can write x= x' cos(\theta)+ y' sin(\theta), y= x' sin(\theta)- y' cos(\theta) where x' and y' are the new, tilted coordinates.

In this new coordinate system, the parabola becomes x'sin(\theta)- y'cos(\theta)= (x'cos(\theta)+ y'sin(\theta))^2= x'^2 cos^2(\theta)+ 2x'y'sin(\theta)cos(\theta)+ y'^2 sin^2(\theta).

Now, if we were to fix x' and try to solve for y' we would get, for any non-zero \theta, a quadratic equation which would have two values of y for each x.
 
Vorde, I could not fault the logic presented by Hallsofivy, but it didn't FEEL right, so I played w/ it a bit from what I thought of as a more intuitive way of looking at it thinking it would show that at least a small rotation would work, but it clearly doesn't.

Here's how I got there. Think of a line that goes through the origin but really hugs the y axis. Let's say it has a slope of 1,000, and it has a sister line just on the other side of the y-axis with a slope of -1,000. If neither of them hit the parabola, then clearly you could rotate it by that much. It's trivially easy to show though that they both DO hit the parabola (at x = 1,000 and x=-1,000 assuming the given example of y = x^2) so Hallofivy obviously had it right and that was all a waste of time mathematically, but it DID help me see more graphically why he is right.
 
Both what HallsofIvy and phinds said make perfect sense to me. I had a feeling the answer might be zero, but I couldn't convince myself either way, thanks to both of you.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top