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
Click For 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.
 
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
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K