Prove that the parabloas are mutually perpendicular.












0












$begingroup$


Given that two parabolas have the same focus with their axes of symmetry in opposite directions. Then I have to prove that the two intersect at right angles. As I think, because the axes are oppositely directed, the directrices must be rotated by an angle $π$ . So let their equations be $x+y+c=0$ and $x-y+c=0$. Let the common focus of the two parabolas be, for simplicity, the origin $(0,0)$. Then the two parabolas are:
$$F(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x+y+c)^2=0$$
$$G(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x-y+c)^2=0$$
Hence , the angle between the two parabolas comes out to be:
$$atan frac {F_xG_y - F_yG_x}{F_xG_x + F_yG_y}$$
$$= atan frac {2c(c+x)}{x^2+2cx+y^2}$$
Where am I getting wrong?
The subscripts stand for partial differentials.






analytic-geometry conic-sections







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What do you mean by "axes ... in opposite direction"?
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:41










  • $begingroup$
    @user10354138, this means that the axes of symmetry of the two parabolas are antiparallel.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:47










  • $begingroup$
    By antiparallel is meant perpendicular?
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:52










  • $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, of course not. Antiparallel is parallel but rotated by 180 deg.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But $xpm y-c=0$ are perpendicular, not (anti-)parallel.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01


















0












$begingroup$


Given that two parabolas have the same focus with their axes of symmetry in opposite directions. Then I have to prove that the two intersect at right angles. As I think, because the axes are oppositely directed, the directrices must be rotated by an angle $π$ . So let their equations be $x+y+c=0$ and $x-y+c=0$. Let the common focus of the two parabolas be, for simplicity, the origin $(0,0)$. Then the two parabolas are:
$$F(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x+y+c)^2=0$$
$$G(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x-y+c)^2=0$$
Hence , the angle between the two parabolas comes out to be:
$$atan frac {F_xG_y - F_yG_x}{F_xG_x + F_yG_y}$$
$$= atan frac {2c(c+x)}{x^2+2cx+y^2}$$
Where am I getting wrong?
The subscripts stand for partial differentials.






analytic-geometry conic-sections







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    What do you mean by "axes ... in opposite direction"?
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:41










  • $begingroup$
    @user10354138, this means that the axes of symmetry of the two parabolas are antiparallel.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:47










  • $begingroup$
    By antiparallel is meant perpendicular?
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:52










  • $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, of course not. Antiparallel is parallel but rotated by 180 deg.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But $xpm y-c=0$ are perpendicular, not (anti-)parallel.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01
















0












0








0


0



$begingroup$


Given that two parabolas have the same focus with their axes of symmetry in opposite directions. Then I have to prove that the two intersect at right angles. As I think, because the axes are oppositely directed, the directrices must be rotated by an angle $π$ . So let their equations be $x+y+c=0$ and $x-y+c=0$. Let the common focus of the two parabolas be, for simplicity, the origin $(0,0)$. Then the two parabolas are:
$$F(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x+y+c)^2=0$$
$$G(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x-y+c)^2=0$$
Hence , the angle between the two parabolas comes out to be:
$$atan frac {F_xG_y - F_yG_x}{F_xG_x + F_yG_y}$$
$$= atan frac {2c(c+x)}{x^2+2cx+y^2}$$
Where am I getting wrong?
The subscripts stand for partial differentials.






analytic-geometry conic-sections







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Given that two parabolas have the same focus with their axes of symmetry in opposite directions. Then I have to prove that the two intersect at right angles. As I think, because the axes are oppositely directed, the directrices must be rotated by an angle $π$ . So let their equations be $x+y+c=0$ and $x-y+c=0$. Let the common focus of the two parabolas be, for simplicity, the origin $(0,0)$. Then the two parabolas are:
$$F(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x+y+c)^2=0$$
$$G(x,y):=x^2+y^2-(x-y+c)^2=0$$
Hence , the angle between the two parabolas comes out to be:
$$atan frac {F_xG_y - F_yG_x}{F_xG_x + F_yG_y}$$
$$= atan frac {2c(c+x)}{x^2+2cx+y^2}$$
Where am I getting wrong?
The subscripts stand for partial differentials.






analytic-geometry conic-sections




analytic-geometry conic-sections






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 9 '18 at 9:13









Awe Kumar JhaAwe Kumar Jha

523113




523113












  • $begingroup$
    What do you mean by "axes ... in opposite direction"?
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:41










  • $begingroup$
    @user10354138, this means that the axes of symmetry of the two parabolas are antiparallel.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:47










  • $begingroup$
    By antiparallel is meant perpendicular?
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:52










  • $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, of course not. Antiparallel is parallel but rotated by 180 deg.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But $xpm y-c=0$ are perpendicular, not (anti-)parallel.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01




















  • $begingroup$
    What do you mean by "axes ... in opposite direction"?
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:41










  • $begingroup$
    @user10354138, this means that the axes of symmetry of the two parabolas are antiparallel.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:47










  • $begingroup$
    By antiparallel is meant perpendicular?
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:52










  • $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, of course not. Antiparallel is parallel but rotated by 180 deg.
    $endgroup$
    – Awe Kumar Jha
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But $xpm y-c=0$ are perpendicular, not (anti-)parallel.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:01


















$begingroup$
What do you mean by "axes ... in opposite direction"?
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Dec 9 '18 at 9:41




$begingroup$
What do you mean by "axes ... in opposite direction"?
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Dec 9 '18 at 9:41












$begingroup$
@user10354138, this means that the axes of symmetry of the two parabolas are antiparallel.
$endgroup$
– Awe Kumar Jha
Dec 9 '18 at 9:47




$begingroup$
@user10354138, this means that the axes of symmetry of the two parabolas are antiparallel.
$endgroup$
– Awe Kumar Jha
Dec 9 '18 at 9:47












$begingroup$
By antiparallel is meant perpendicular?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 9 '18 at 9:52




$begingroup$
By antiparallel is meant perpendicular?
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 9 '18 at 9:52












$begingroup$
@coffeemath, of course not. Antiparallel is parallel but rotated by 180 deg.
$endgroup$
– Awe Kumar Jha
Dec 9 '18 at 10:01




$begingroup$
@coffeemath, of course not. Antiparallel is parallel but rotated by 180 deg.
$endgroup$
– Awe Kumar Jha
Dec 9 '18 at 10:01




1




1




$begingroup$
But $xpm y-c=0$ are perpendicular, not (anti-)parallel.
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Dec 9 '18 at 10:01






$begingroup$
But $xpm y-c=0$ are perpendicular, not (anti-)parallel.
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Dec 9 '18 at 10:01












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

If the parabolae are conguent: Suppose the directrices are $y=c$ and $y=-c$. Then the equations of the parabolae are:
$$Gamma_pm:=(x^2+y^2=(ymp c)^2)=(x^2pm2yc-c^2=0)$$
They intersect at $(pm c,0)$ and it is easy to see their tangents have slope $pm 1$ there.



If the parabolae are not congruent: the directrices $y=c_i$, $i=1,2$ gives
$$
Gamma_i:=(x^2+2yc_i-c_i^2=0)
$$
so $y=frac12(c_1+c_2)$ and $x=pmsqrt{-c_1c_2}$ (in particular, $c_1c_2<0$). Differentiating gives the slopes are $-frac{c_i}{x}$ and so multiplies to $-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 15:47













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032187%2fprove-that-the-parabloas-are-mutually-perpendicular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

If the parabolae are conguent: Suppose the directrices are $y=c$ and $y=-c$. Then the equations of the parabolae are:
$$Gamma_pm:=(x^2+y^2=(ymp c)^2)=(x^2pm2yc-c^2=0)$$
They intersect at $(pm c,0)$ and it is easy to see their tangents have slope $pm 1$ there.



If the parabolae are not congruent: the directrices $y=c_i$, $i=1,2$ gives
$$
Gamma_i:=(x^2+2yc_i-c_i^2=0)
$$
so $y=frac12(c_1+c_2)$ and $x=pmsqrt{-c_1c_2}$ (in particular, $c_1c_2<0$). Differentiating gives the slopes are $-frac{c_i}{x}$ and so multiplies to $-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 15:47


















1












$begingroup$

If the parabolae are conguent: Suppose the directrices are $y=c$ and $y=-c$. Then the equations of the parabolae are:
$$Gamma_pm:=(x^2+y^2=(ymp c)^2)=(x^2pm2yc-c^2=0)$$
They intersect at $(pm c,0)$ and it is easy to see their tangents have slope $pm 1$ there.



If the parabolae are not congruent: the directrices $y=c_i$, $i=1,2$ gives
$$
Gamma_i:=(x^2+2yc_i-c_i^2=0)
$$
so $y=frac12(c_1+c_2)$ and $x=pmsqrt{-c_1c_2}$ (in particular, $c_1c_2<0$). Differentiating gives the slopes are $-frac{c_i}{x}$ and so multiplies to $-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 15:47
















1












1








1





$begingroup$

If the parabolae are conguent: Suppose the directrices are $y=c$ and $y=-c$. Then the equations of the parabolae are:
$$Gamma_pm:=(x^2+y^2=(ymp c)^2)=(x^2pm2yc-c^2=0)$$
They intersect at $(pm c,0)$ and it is easy to see their tangents have slope $pm 1$ there.



If the parabolae are not congruent: the directrices $y=c_i$, $i=1,2$ gives
$$
Gamma_i:=(x^2+2yc_i-c_i^2=0)
$$
so $y=frac12(c_1+c_2)$ and $x=pmsqrt{-c_1c_2}$ (in particular, $c_1c_2<0$). Differentiating gives the slopes are $-frac{c_i}{x}$ and so multiplies to $-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



If the parabolae are conguent: Suppose the directrices are $y=c$ and $y=-c$. Then the equations of the parabolae are:
$$Gamma_pm:=(x^2+y^2=(ymp c)^2)=(x^2pm2yc-c^2=0)$$
They intersect at $(pm c,0)$ and it is easy to see their tangents have slope $pm 1$ there.



If the parabolae are not congruent: the directrices $y=c_i$, $i=1,2$ gives
$$
Gamma_i:=(x^2+2yc_i-c_i^2=0)
$$
so $y=frac12(c_1+c_2)$ and $x=pmsqrt{-c_1c_2}$ (in particular, $c_1c_2<0$). Differentiating gives the slopes are $-frac{c_i}{x}$ and so multiplies to $-1$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 15:46

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 10:02









user10354138user10354138

7,4322925




7,4322925












  • $begingroup$
    Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 15:47




















  • $begingroup$
    Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – user10354138
    Dec 9 '18 at 15:47


















$begingroup$
Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Dec 9 '18 at 15:47






$begingroup$
Oops, yes that is indeed not given. Corrected.
$endgroup$
– user10354138
Dec 9 '18 at 15:47




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032187%2fprove-that-the-parabloas-are-mutually-perpendicular%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more