Solving Parametric Equations: Eliminate t & Find x-y Cartesian Equation

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around eliminating the parameter t from the given parametric equations x=3t/(1+t^3) and y=3t^2/(1+t^3) to find a Cartesian equation in x and y. Participants express confusion about how to express t in terms of y and subsequently substitute it into the equation for x. They note the similarity between the equations but struggle with the complexity of solving for t due to its cubic nature. The conversation highlights the need to define x and y as functions of t over a specific interval to find a single-valued mapping. Ultimately, they acknowledge that solving the cubic equation may be necessary to eliminate t completely.
wuffle
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hello forum! I have yet another question concerning calculus and the topic we're doing right now is extremely confusing for me.

Homework Statement

Eliminate the parameter from the parametric equations x=3t/(1+t3), y=3t2/(1+t3), and hence find an Cartesian equation in x and y for this
curve.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



ummm, i have no idea how to approach this question, i assume with parametric equation you need to express t in terms of y and plug in it another equation where x is defined... however, these two equations are pretty complicated and you can't really express t in terms of y and plug it in another equation, what do you do?

I notice the x and y equations are very similar except that y=t^2 in numerator and I am certain you should use that somehow...but I have no idea how
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
So it's y(x) = x t(x), but t(x) can't be expressed in a simple manner, since it should come from a cubic.
 
dextercioby said:
So it's y(x) = x t(x), but t(x) can't be expressed in a simple manner, since it should come from a cubic.

I guess...

turns out my x=y^2 was wrong, now I am completely lost.

actually yeah, i just fond out y(x)=x * t(x), i just plugged in some numbers and it turned out y/x=t, what do i do with that?
 
Last edited:
Still can't get it.

I guess writing it as y(x)=xt(x) works but shouldn't we get rid of t in our equation?
 
You should get rid of t, of course, but it ain't easy. To get somewhere, you should first have x and y defined as functions of t on a certain interval, i.e. look for the inverse function t =t(x) only when this exists, i.e. on the set of x's on which the mapping is single valued and well-bahaved.

But then even this can't guarantee you that t=t(x) can be found without solving the cubic with Cardano's formulae.
 
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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K