MHB Solving optimum Bézier approximation of a circle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the optimal control vector lengths for a cubic Bézier approximation of a 90-degree circular arc, highlighting the complexity of the associated equation. The equation is identified as a quintic in κ, which generally cannot be solved exactly, as established by Abel and Galois. Mathematica attempts to solve the equation but only provides approximate roots, indicating at least seven solutions, some of which are complex. The original poster expresses skepticism about the solvability of the equation and acknowledges a previously found value that is close but not exact. The conversation underscores the challenges of solving quintic equations in mathematical modeling.
Adlibber
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am trying to determine the optimum length of the control vectors for a cubic Bézier approximation of a $90^\circ$ circular arc. However to my limited mathematical mind the equation cannot be solved algebraically. Wolfram Alpha even finds it too complicated. However I am told that it IS solvable! I remain unconvinced.

Can anyone spot a way of simplifying this monster?

\begin{align*}
&\left(u_\mu^6+(\textstyle\frac{1}{2})^6\right)(18\kappa^2-24\kappa+8)+\left(u_\mu^5+(\textstyle\frac{1}{2})^5\right)(-54\kappa^2+72\kappa-24)+\\
&\left(u_\mu^4+(\textstyle\frac{1}{2})^4\right)(63\kappa^2-66\kappa+18)+\left(u_\mu^3+(\textstyle\frac{1}{2})^3\right)(-36\kappa^2+12\kappa-4)+\\
&\left(u_\mu^2+(\textstyle\frac{1}{2})^2\right)(9\kappa^2+6\kappa-6)=0\\
&\text{where }\;\;u_\mu=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{12-20\kappa-3\kappa^2}}{4-6\kappa}
\end{align*}
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you look at these equations, you will see that it is at least a quintic in $\kappa$. Quintics are not, in general, solvable exactly. You can solve the quadratic exactly, and the cubic exactly, and even the quartic exactly. But not the quintic. Abel and Galois proved that. However, there are specific quintics that you can solve. I'm going to give this problem to Mathematica, to see if it will solve it. Stay tuned...

...Mathematica chickens out, and gives the answers using the Root function - basically telling you that it couldn't find the roots exactly. Mathematica does give one interesting piece of information: there are at least 7 solutions. Now, if I ask for approximations to these roots, Mathematica gives me the following:
\begin{align*}
\kappa_1&= -3.45296\\
\kappa_2&= 0.366686\\
\kappa_3&= 0.518404\\
\kappa_4&= 0.347233-1.1646i\\
\kappa_5&= 0.347233+1.1646i\\
\kappa_6&= 0.556569-0.00384123i\\
\kappa_7&= 0.556569+0.00384123i.
\end{align*}
The complex solutions come in conjugate pairs, as you'd expect if all the coefficients are real.

If Mathematica can't solve it exactly, I don't think you're going to be able to solve it exactly.
 
Thanks very much for your response and effort, Ackbach. Good to know that simple intuition still has value!

I must assume that whoever found the correct value (0.551915024494) did so using a more clever route than I chose. Although I did find a method that gave a 96% result (but not a 100%!).
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
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