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


1



$begingroup$


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

39613




39613












  • $begingroup$
    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

7,3772925




7,3772925












  • $begingroup$
    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

Berounka

Image
Berounka.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Caractéristiques Longueur 139  km Bassin 8 861  km 2 Bassin collecteur Elbe Débit moyen ? Cours Source Confluence de la Mže et de la Radbuza · Localisation Pilsen · Altitude 305  m · Coordonnées 49° 45′ 13″ N, 13° 23′ 24″ E Confluence Vltava · Localisation Prague · Altitude 187  m · Coordonnées 49° 59′ 43″ N, 14° 24′ 04″ E Géographie Pays traversés   République tchèque modifier   La Berounka est une rivière de la République tchèque. Elle porte le nom de Mže depuis sa source en Allemagne près de la frontière jusqu'à sa confluence avec la Radbuza à Plzeň. Elle continue ensuite sous le nom de Berounka jusqu'à sa confluence avec la Vltava, près de Prague. La rivière est une destination prisée pour les amateurs de canoë, qui appréc...
Read more

Sphinx de Gizeh

Image
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Sphinx. Sphinx de Gizeh.mw-parser-output .entete.egypte-antique{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Picto_infobox_ancient_Egypt.png")} Site d'Égypte antique Le visage du sphinx de Gizeh. Noms en arabe أبو الهول , Abou al-Hôl Localisation Région Basse-Égypte Coordonnées 29° 58′ 31″ nord, 31° 08′ 16″ est Géolocalisation sur la carte : Égypte Sphinx de Gizeh modifier   Le sphinx de Gizeh est la statue thérianthrope qui se dresse devant les grandes pyramides du plateau de Gizeh, en Basse-Égypte. Sculpture monumentale monolithique la plus grande du monde [ 1 ] avec 73,5 mètres de longueur, 14 mètres de largeur et 20,22 mètres de hauteur, elle représente un sphinx couchant. Réalisée vers -2500, elle serait attribuée à Djédefrê, l'un des pharaons de la IV e  dynastie, représentant son père le pharaon Khéops. Sommaire 1 Étymologie 2 Desc...
Read more

Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...

Image
3 Let's suppose I'd like to divert the navigation symbols template (e.g. in order replace them by the frame numbers, see this bug report ;) I would be facing troubles regarding the font size/position, depending on regular/plain frames, as shown by the following MCE. How could I get rid of these troubles? documentclass{beamer} usetheme{PaloAlto} setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{insertframenumber/inserttotalframenumber} begin{document} begin{frame} frametitle{A regular frame} end{frame} begin{frame}[plain] frametitle{A plain frame} end{frame} end{document} beamer header-footer share | improve this question asked Dec 10 '18 a...
Read more