Hi,
those level-sets are surfaces in R3. You can draw them with most math-packages. The command usually is called "implicitplot" or similar.
Do you have maple or mupad?
Regards,
Andreas
I'm not sure this is the right forum, I hope the moderator will move it if necessary.
(1) I have to sketch level sets , c=1, 0, -1, for the function
I know level sets are but how do i sketch this?
(2) Let be the inverse of stereographic projection from to the equatorial hiperplane . Show that for every vector exists such that
.
I don't even know how to start..
Thank you for your time and help!
(1) You can use a software, but you can also sketch it yourself.
For our convenience, let us denote the coordinates by , so that the equations are for .
These are equations of quadrics. A usual trick in this case is to introduce the new coordinates and (this just corresponds to rotating the axes of the x-y plane by an angle ), for then we obtain , and the equations are now .
First remark is that it depends only on , so that the surface has a "revolution symmetry" around the axis . So it suffices to find the sketch of a slice (containing ), for instance , and rotate it around to generate the whole surface.
Consider . Then for we have , hence or . The graph is nothing else but a cone with axis and angle .
Consider . Then for we have , hence . This is the equation of a hyperbola centered at 0, with asymptots (one piece above the axis, one piece below). The surface is a hyperboloid of one sheet (i.e. a connected one).
Consider . This time you have , this has no solution when , this is the equation the same hyperbola as above but rotated by . Hence we get a hyperboloid of two sheets (i.e. with two connected parts).
A first step is to find an expression for .
A sketch is pretty helpful. Of course not in , but the situation (and the result) is pretty much the same in any dimension, so you can draw in : draw the unit circle, the line (this is the hyperplane of the text), pick a point on the line, draw the line from (the "north pole") to . It intersects the circle at one point, which is . In my explanation, I will think at as a point outside the circle (or the sphere), so perhaps it will be clearer if you draw your sketch accordingly.
In the following, I will denote the north pole by .
In a geometric way: remark that (remember where is in the hyperplane of ), hence the triangle is isocele at , so that the point projects orthogonally to the middle of the segment . Subsequently, is twice the projection of to the line , that is to say: . Notice that since and . Finally, we have:
.
If you prefer not to look at the picture, you can write for some (because lies on the line ), and find by writing (because lies on the unit sphere). You'll end up with the same expression of course.
--
Now, we must differentiate. It would have been tedious with coordinates, but this is easy with vectors, and the conclusion will be very nice.
The differential of (at , evaluated at ) is just .
Then the differential of is .
So that the differential of is . (by the chain rule)
Finally, .
Let me write is slightly differently: .
--
What do you recognize in the bigger parentheses? This is minus twice its projection on . In other words, this is the symmetric of with respect to the vectorial hyperplane orthogonal to .
A symmetry preserves the length, so that . This is what you need, with an explicit . That means that multiplies lengths by a constant factor: it is a similitude (if my translation is correct). In particular, this shows that preserves the angles. But this is another story...
Thank you so very much!!!
I was offline for two days and until now I didn't see you reply.
I'm sure it took a lot of time and efford and I am extremely grateful!
I will study it in detail today, and I hope it's okay to post some further questions, if I have some.
Thank you!
Perhaps the "revolution symmetry" is not the proper term in English, I'm not sure. Anyway, here is what it means:
We noticed that the equation depends only on and on the distance from the -axis to the point (this distance equals ). So if a point is on the surface, then any point where will lie on the surface as well. And how can we go from the first point to the second one? By rotating around the axis .
Or I could say that the circle of center , of radius , and orthogonal to is a subset of the surface.
Now if we know the intersection of the surface with a slice containing the axis, like the slice , then the whole surface is the union of the previous circles, centered on the axis, orthogonal to the axis, and going through the points of the section.
In other words, the whole surface is obtained by rotating the slice around this axis. You can see this on Andreas'plots, except that the scale is not the same on the three axes, so what we can see on the pictures is not really a revolution symmetry (the sections are ellipses rather than circles).
I hope it was clearer...