Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If $\left\{P_{k,l}^{0}\right\}_{k,l=0}^{n}$ is a set of $\left(n+1\right)^2$ three-dimensional points, and

$$ P_{k,l}^{r+1}\left(t,s\right)=\left(P_{k+1,l+1}^{r}+P_{k+1,l}^{r}+P_{k,l+1}^{r}+P_{k,l}^{r}\right)ts,\tag{$*$} $$

then, is $P_{0,0}^{n}(t,s)$ the parametric equation of a surface?

I tried plotting this with a set of test points and obtained a spatial, straight line, when I was instead aiming to obtain a surface (since I am making use of the two parameters $t$ and $s$).

What is the problem with $(*)$? I am just interested in knowing whether this is a surface or not. Thanks in advance!

share|cite|improve this question
The notation is very confusing (I assume this is some special case of something more general, or I am completely misunderstanding). I assume "three-dimensional point" means vector in $\mathbb{R}^3$. In which case, I don't understand the summation. Effectively, you are asking, "Given $v\in\mathbb{R}^3$, does $vts$ define a surface as $t$ and $s$ vary?" Well, you are only getting the linear span of $v$ no matter what $t$ and $s$ are, so you actually always get a straight line! (Unless that sum is $0$, in which case you only get a point). – Matt Nov 13 '12 at 22:42
@Matt, the way I read it, the sum itself depends on $t$ and $s$. The superscript $r$ is the key: the 0th generation is constant, the 1st linear in them, and the $r$th generation has degree $r$ of both. So in the end, you will probably have something curved. – MvG Nov 14 '12 at 0:07
Thank you, @Matt. Yes! You're completely right; this is a very special case of something way more general on which I'm currently working on. Indeed, the points are best thought of as vectors in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and now that you broke it down like that for me, I see how this is just either a point or a straight line regardless of the values of $t$ and $s$ (I could even merge them into one variable). I will have a talk with my adviser about this and post any clarifications promptly. – EsX_Raptor Nov 14 '12 at 0:11
up vote 2 down vote accepted

As far as I read your notation, the formulka does not describe a surface. You work with two parameters, but only ever use the product of these. So the set of points $P_{0,0}^n(t,s)$ can be described using a single parameter, e.g. $P_{0,0}^n(u,1)$. You can see that by taking $u=ts$, there is a one-to-one correspondence between your two-parameter form any my one-parameter version. Therefore, the best you can hope for is a curved line, not a surface.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.