Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    From
    malaysia
    Posts
    82
    Thanks
    1

    what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

    hmm can anyone give a guidance on what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation.

    My ans is cartesian equation is an equation which is y=x^2 while parametric equation is an equation with parameter which is t as a link to form a cartesian equation, for example y=sint, x = cos t, through basic identity of trigonometry, sint^2 +cost^2 =1, y^2+x^2=1. therefore this show that parametric equation is the linker to form an equation from parameter given.

    but the question is that, do my answer actually explain the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?
    do I need to add on more information on the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?
    thanks ur comment i will appreciate them
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    From
    California
    Posts
    5,925
    Thanks
    2491

    Re: what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

    I don't know that there is any magical relationship.

    As you noted in a Cartesian equation you can write

    $y=f(x)$

    where as in a parametric equation you write

    $\{x,y\} = \{x(t), y(t)\}$

    to achieve the same functional mapping.

    There will be plenty of parametric equations that don't have Cartesian equivalents given the usual vocabulary of functions.

    You can always find a simple parametric equivalent of a Cartesian equation. $\{x,y\} = \{t,f(t)\}$ where $f$ is such that $y=f(x)$
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    From
    Washington DC USA
    Posts
    1,061
    Thanks
    410

    Re: what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

    There are actually 3 different things here: graphs of functions, "Cartesian Equations", and parametric equations.

    The distinction between graphs of functions and "Cartesian Equations" (to use your terminology) is best seen by considering a circle.

    The equation x^2 + y^2 = 1 is satisfied by a set of points (x, y) in the plane that form the unit circle at the origin. But it's not the graph of any function y = f(x).
    (Would f(0) be 1, or -1? It can't be both for a function f. This is the origin of the so-called "vertical line rule", which the circle fails.)

    So by "Cartesian Equations", I assuming you're including things like x^2 + y^2 = 1, which is not the graph of any function. (It's the union of the graphs of 2 different functions, g_1(x) = \sqrt{1 - x^2} and g_2(x) = - \sqrt{1 - x^2}.)

    The following are the 3 types of sets in the plane it seems you want to consider:

    1. Graphs of Functions: \{ (x, f(x)) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \ | \ x \in D_f \} (where D_f \subset \mathbb{R} is the function's domain.)

    2. "Cartesian Equations": \{ (x, y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \ | \ F(x, y) = 0 \}

    3. Parametric Equations: \{ Q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \ | \ t \in D \}, where Q : D (\subset \mathbb{R}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2.

    The differences? Well, every graph of a function y = f(x) could be represented by a "Cartesian Equation" or a parametric equation.
    Ex: F(x, y) = y - f(x) when x is in f's domain, and define F(x, y) however you like, other than zero, otherwise. And for parametric, set x(t) = t, y(t) = f(x(t)), where the t-domain is f's domain.

    However, not every "Cartesian Equation" can be continuously parameterized.
    F(x, y) = xy - x^3 = x(y - x^2), whose graph is the union of a parabola and the x-axis.

    For practical purposes, the same is true in reverse (the formal claim would be a mess, and likely be false), meaning that not every parametric equation has the same image as a "Cartesian Equation"
    Ex: Try to find F such that F(x(t), y(t)) = 0 \ \forall \ t where y(t) = t^{35} + 4 t^4 - 3 e^{\sin(t)}, x(t) = 2t^{10} - t \tan(t) - e^t\cos(\ln(t)).

    Note that the set of points in the plane via "Cartesian Equation" is given by a function inverse at a point (it's the set F^{-1}(0)), while in the parametric case it's the image set of a function (the function Q).

    Also, if you don't put some minimal restrictions - especially continuity - on the possible functions F and Q for "Cartesian Equations" and parametric equations respectively, then ANY subset of the plane comes from such an F or Q.
    Ex: For F, you could use 1 minus the indicator function, meaning F of a point is 0 if the point is in the given set, and 1 otherwise. For Q, one could exploit a set bijection between \mathbb{R} and \mathbb{R}^2.

    Even requiring continuity, there are very counter-intuitive examples possible under these definitions.
    Ex: F(x,y) := 0 is the "Cartesian Equation" whose graph is the entire plane. Likewise, parametricly, there are continuous space-filling curves (like the Peano curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_curve)... counter-intuitive indeed!

    A set of points in a plane is not a function! A corresponding function is uniquely recoverable from that only in the first case, where you're told that the set of points is the graph of a function. In the other two cases, "Cartesian coordinates" and parametric equations, there are multiple functions F and Q, respectively, which could produce those sets.
    Ex: For the "Cartesian Equation" case, if F defines the set in the plane, then kF defines the same set for any non-zero constant k. For parametric, consider the line y = x via x(t) =t, y(t) = t, OR x(t) =t^3, y(t) = t^3.

    The functions F and Q contain more information than you get from just the set of points in the plane given by F^{-1}(0) and \text{Image}(Q) respectively!

    The "best" form in general is the parametric form, because it contains the most information, is the most flexible, is the most direct (it's just a function \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2) and is the most useful for modelling.

    Parametric Equations common use of t is, of course, for "time". So you think of parametric equations as describing a point moving in the plane in time - which clearly contains vastly more information than just the set that moving point eventually covers. And even more valuable than all that additional information is that the description of a point moving through time is EXACTLY what's needed to model most dynamic real world scenarios.

    At the level of generality of your question - asking for "the relationship" between them - that's about all I can think to say.
    Last edited by johnsomeone; Aug 22nd 2015 at 01:57 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    From
    malaysia
    Posts
    82
    Thanks
    1

    Re: what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsomeone View Post
    There are actually 3 different things here: graphs of functions, "Cartesian Equations", and parametric equations.

    The distinction between graphs of functions and "Cartesian Equations" (to use your terminology) is best seen by considering a circle.

    The equation x^2 + y^2 = 1 is satisfied by a set of points (x, y) in the plane that form the unit circle at the origin. But it's not the graph of any function y = f(x).
    (Would f(0) be 1, or -1? It can't be both for a function f. This is the origin of the so-called "vertical line rule", which the circle fails.)

    So by "Cartesian Equations", I assuming you're including things like x^2 + y^2 = 1, which is not the graph of any function. (It's the union of the graphs of 2 different functions, g_1(x) = \sqrt{1 - x^2} and g_2(x) = - \sqrt{1 - x^2}.)

    The following are the 3 types of sets in the plane it seems you want to consider:

    1. Graphs of Functions: \{ (x, f(x)) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \ | \ x \in D_f \} (where D_f \subset \mathbb{R} is the function's domain.)

    2. "Cartesian Equations": \{ (x, y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \ | \ F(x, y) = 0 \}

    3. Parametric Equations: \{ Q(t) = (x(t), y(t)) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \ | \ t \in D \}, where Q : D (\subset \mathbb{R}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2.

    The differences? Well, every graph of a function y = f(x) could be represented by a "Cartesian Equation" or a parametric equation.
    Ex: F(x, y) = y - f(x) when x is in f's domain, and define F(x, y) however you like, other than zero, otherwise. And for parametric, set x(t) = t, y(t) = f(x(t)), where the t-domain is f's domain.

    However, not every "Cartesian Equation" can be continuously parameterized.
    F(x, y) = xy - x^3 = x(y - x^2), whose graph is the union of a parabola and the x-axis.

    For practical purposes, the same is true in reverse (the formal claim would be a mess, and likely be false), meaning that not every parametric equation has the same image as a "Cartesian Equation"
    Ex: Try to find F such that F(x(t), y(t)) = 0 \ \forall \ t where y(t) = t^{35} + 4 t^4 - 3 e^{\sin(t)}, x(t) = 2t^{10} - t \tan(t) - e^t\cos(\ln(t)).

    Note that the set of points in the plane via "Cartesian Equation" is given by a function inverse at a point (it's the set F^{-1}(0)), while in the parametric case it's the image set of a function (the function Q).

    Also, if you don't put some minimal restrictions - especially continuity - on the possible functions F and Q for "Cartesian Equations" and parametric equations respectively, then ANY subset of the plane comes from such an F or Q.
    Ex: For F, you could use 1 minus the indicator function, meaning F of a point is 0 if the point is in the given set, and 1 otherwise. For Q, one could exploit a set bijection between \mathbb{R} and \mathbb{R}^2.

    Even requiring continuity, there are very counter-intuitive examples possible under these definitions.
    Ex: F(x,y) := 0 is the "Cartesian Equation" whose graph is the entire plane. Likewise, parametricly, there are continuous space-filling curves (like the Peano curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_curve)... counter-intuitive indeed!

    A set of points in a plane is not a function! A corresponding function is uniquely recoverable from that only in the first case, where you're told that the set of points is the graph of a function. In the other two cases, "Cartesian coordinates" and parametric equations, there are multiple functions F and Q, respectively, which could produce those sets.
    Ex: For the "Cartesian Equation" case, if F defines the set in the plane, then kF defines the same set for any non-zero constant k. For parametric, consider the line y = x via x(t) =t, y(t) = t, OR x(t) =t^3, y(t) = t^3.

    The functions F and Q contain more information than you get from just the set of points in the plane given by F^{-1}(0) and \text{Image}(Q) respectively!

    The "best" form in general is the parametric form, because it contains the most information, is the most flexible, is the most direct (it's just a function \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2) and is the most useful for modelling.

    Parametric Equations common use of t is, of course, for "time". So you think of parametric equations as describing a point moving in the plane in time - which clearly contains vastly more information than just the set that moving point eventually covers. And even more valuable than all that additional information is that the description of a point moving through time is EXACTLY what's needed to model most dynamic real world scenarios.

    At the level of generality of your question - asking for "the relationship" between them - that's about all I can think to say.
    what if i change it to relation between cartesian equation and parametric equation? is there any relation between these two?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    From
    malaysia
    Posts
    82
    Thanks
    1

    Re: what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

    what if i change it to relation between cartesian equation and parametric equation? is there any relation between these two?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    From
    Washington DC USA
    Posts
    1,061
    Thanks
    410

    Re: what is the relationship between cartesian equation and parametric equation?

    At this level of generality, I think I've pointed out most of the obvious similarities and differences. (FYI: "Cartesian Equation" isn't particularly standard terminology - I was just following your lead.)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Equation of a plane parametric and cartesian
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Oct 15th 2011, 10:17 PM
  2. Cartesian Equation and Parametric Equation
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Jul 29th 2010, 09:33 PM
  3. [SOLVED] Parametric equation / Cartesian equation
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jul 21st 2010, 12:54 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 8th 2009, 09:00 PM
  5. Parametric Equation to Cartesian Equation
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Mar 26th 2008, 12:19 PM

Search tags for this page

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum