Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was successful in deriving the equation for an elliptical double-napped cone in rectangular coordinates. All I did was define a line with slope $a$ on the xy-plane, and another line of slope $b$ on the xz-plane. Then, I used values of both functions concurrently to trace an ellipse (with parameters obtained from the linear functions) on all planes parallel to the yz-plane. With that, I was able to obtain the equation I was looking for. However, how can I prove that the conditions I used were enough to define the surface I was looking for? i.e. how do I know that there isn't another surface that $1)$ makes traces of ellipses to all planes parallel to the yz-plane and $2)$ makes a trace of two intersecting lines with the xy and xz planes and isn't a cone?

I'm pretty sure that they are sufficient conditions, since I derived the correct equation, but say I didn't have/know the equation? Thank you.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I don't think you have enough information. By specifying that the intersection of the surface with the xy- and xz- planes are two lines, this fixes four distinct points for each plane $P$ that is parallel to yz- plane (except the plane through the vertex of the cone).

In other words, for a fixed $x_0$, you know that the points $(x_0,\pm ax_0,0)$ and $(x_0,0,\pm bx_0)$ (assuming you take the two lines with slope $\pm a$ in the xy-plane and the lines with slope $\pm b$ in the xz-plane; you can easily modify this to fit four different slopes.

Now, you know that the figure is an ellipse on the plane $P = \{ x = x_0\}$. So we have that on that plane, using the yz-coordinates, you have that the general equation for an ellipse is

$$ \alpha y^2 + \beta z^2 + \gamma yz + \delta y + \epsilon z + 1 = 0 $$

with the requirement that $\gamma^2 < 4\alpha \beta $ and $\alpha,\beta \neq 0$. In other words, the ellipse has five degrees of freedom: the coordinates of the two foci (2 parameters each, so four total), and the eccentricity.

Since you only specified 4 points, there is one remaining free parameter. In terms of the above by specifying that four points, you showed that $\alpha = -(ax_0)^{-2}$, $\beta = -(bx_0)^{-2}$, $\delta = \epsilon = 0$. So if you let $\gamma = \gamma(x) = \frac{1}{x^2}\tilde{\gamma}(x)$ be any function of $x$ satisfying the requirement that

$$ \tilde{\gamma}(x)^2 < \frac{4}{a^2 b^2} $$

So we can define a surface $S$ by the implicit function

$$ \frac{y^2}{a^2} + \frac{z^2}{b^2} + \tilde{\gamma}(x) yz = x^2 $$

(in particular, we can choose $\tilde{\gamma}(x) = \frac{1}{ab}\sin x$). This will give a surface satisfying the properties that

  1. Its intersection with any plane that is parallel to the yz-plane is an ellipse
  2. Its intersection with xz-plane is two lines with slope $\pm b$
  3. Its intersection with the xy-plane is two lines with the slope $\pm a$.
  4. It is not a cone. (The implicit function will give you a cone if and only if $\tilde{\gamma}(x)$ is a constant function.)

Remark: the construction above is achieved by rotating the major and minor axes directions. This is one of the ways that the additional degree of freedom manifests: if we fix the major/minor axes to be parallel to the y- and z-axes, then this requirement will force $\gamma = 0$ in the general equation for the ellipse, which will allow us to completely specify the ellipse on each plane parallel to the yz-plane, and which will allow us to completely specify the cone.

Example

Consider the expression

$$ 2 z^2 + y^2 + 2 \sin(3 x)zy = x^2 $$

Here is a Mathematica Plot of that expression

enter image description here

Now I add the xz and xy planes, you clearly see the straight lines enter image description here

And now I show an arbitrary cross section (adding the plane ${x = 0.7}$) to see the ellipse

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
    
Very detailed answer. Thank you very much. In hindsight, I should have pointed out that the cone I was looking for didn't have an xy term in any of its traces, but your answer was very, very helpful. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. On another note, for whatever reason, I can't seem to be able to see the pictures you uploaded. Either way, great answer. :) –  Hautdesert Aug 2 '11 at 4:07
    
um, if you cannot see the pictures, please file a bug at the Meta site. (Go to meta.math.stackexchange.com ; ask a question, and tag it as (bug). Be sure to provide your browser and operating system information.) –  Willie Wong Aug 2 '11 at 8:07
    
I can see them now. Nice. –  Hautdesert Aug 2 '11 at 14:55

Your Answer

 
discard

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.