The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roquette,
Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, teachi
ng a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an oval?

Replies: 11   Last Post: Oct 4, 2017 7:05 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com

Posts: 76
Registered: 9/12/15
Re: Princeton math dept agreeing with Franz for none has spotted the
error- as dumb as Franz, teaching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth
it is an oval?

Posted: Oct 2, 2017 12:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 8:00:29 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 1:37:38 AM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> > Let's consider the Sectioning of a Cylinder and a Cone.
> >
> > ^ x
> > E|
> > -+-
> > .' | `.
> > / | \
> > . | .
> > G | +c | H
> > . | .
> > \ | /
> > `. | ´
> > y <----------+ ´
> > F
> >

> > > The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
> > > Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base,
> > > and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than the height of the
> > > cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the cut is always a ellipse,
> > > which is a [certain] plane figure of two axes of symmetry with a Major Axis
> > > and Minor Axis and center at c.
> > >
> > > So, what is the proof that [cut] figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
> > > cylinder section [as well as in the cone section]?

> >
> > Here's is an easy proof for it:
> >
> > Cylinder (side view):
> >
> > | | |
> > |-------+-------+ <= x = h
> > | | ´|
> > | | ´ |
> > | |´ |
> > | ´ | |
> > | ´ | |
> > x = 0 => ´-------|-------|
> > | r | |
> >
> > d(x) = r - (2r/h)x
> >
> > y^2 = r^2 - d(x)^2 = r^2 - r^2(2x/h - 1)^2 = r^2(1 - 4(x - h)^2/h^2
> >
> > => (1/r^2)y^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > Considerations:
> >
> > => y(h/2 + x')^2 = sqrt(r^2 - r^2(2(h/2 + x')/h - 1)^2) = r^2 - r^2(2x'/h)^2
> >
> > => y(h/2 + x') = r * (sqrt(1 - (2x'/h)^2) ...symmetric relative to h/2
> >
> > => y(h/2) = r (= Gc = cH)
> >
> > Cone (side view):
> >
> > .
> > /|\
> > / | \
> > /b | \
> > /---+---´ <= x = h
> > / |´ \
> > / ´ | \
> > / ´ | \
> > x = 0 => ´-------+-------\
> > / a | \
> >
> > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x
> > d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x
> >
> > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h)^2/h^2
> >
> > => (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > Considerations:
> >
> > => y(h/2 + x')^2 = sqrt(ab - ab(2(h/2 + x')/h - 1)^2) = ab - ab(2x'/h)^2
> >
> > => y(h/2 + x') = sqrt(ab) * (sqrt(1 - (2x'/h)^2) ...symmetric relative to h/2
> >
> > => y(h/2) = sqrt(ab) (= Gc = cH)
> >
> > ======================================================
> >
> > It turns out that a cylinder can be considered as a special case of a cone here. Actually, the latter proof works for both cases, cone and cylinder.
> >
> > Cone/Cylinder (side view):
> >
> > / | \
> > /b | \
> > /---+---´ <= x = h
> > / |´ \
> > / ´ | \
> > / ´ | \
> > x = 0 => ´-------+-------\
> > / a | \
> >
> > (cone: b < a; cylinder: a = b = r)
> >
> > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x
> > d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x
> >
> > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h)^2/h^2
> >
> > => (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > Considerations:
> >
> > => y(h/2 + x')^2 = sqrt(ab - ab(2(h/2 + x')/h - 1)^2) = ab - ab(2x'/h)^2
> >
> > => y(h/2 + x') = sqrt(ab) * (sqrt(1 - (2x'/h)^2) ...symmetric relative to h/2
> >
> > => y(h/2) = sqrt(ab) (= Gc = cH)
> >
> > ======================================================
> >
> > @Archie: Yes, this proves that (certain) cone sections "as depicted in my diagram" as well as (certain) cylinder sections (as described by you) are ellipses. qed
> >
> > Note, Archie, that there is no reference to Dandelin Spheres whatsoever.
> >
> > Still not convinced? Can you point out an error in my simple calculation (of the shape of the cone/cylinder section) above?

>
>
> Princeton University Math dept
>
> Michael Aizenman Professor
>
> Zahra Aminzare Lecturer
>
> Manjul Bhargava Professor
>
> Nathaniel Bottman Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>
> Nicolas Boumal Instructor
>
> Jean Bourgain Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
> Mathematics
>
> William Browder Professor Emeritus
>
> Tristan Buckmaster Assistant Professor
>
> Francesc Castella Instructor
>
> Sun-Yung Alice Chang Professor
>
> Otis Chodosh Veblen Research Instructor
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> Maria Chudnovsky Professor
>
> Peter Constantin Professor of Mathematics and Director of PACM
>
> John Conway Professor Emeritus
>
> Mihalis Dafermos Professor
>
> Gabriele Di Cerbo Assistant Professor
>
> Hansheng Diao Instructor
>
> Theodore Drivas Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>
> Zeev Dvir Associate Professor
>
> Weinan E Professor
>
> Tarek Elgindi Instructor
>
> Tolga Etgü Visiting Fellow
>
> Charles Fefferman Professor
>
> Jonathan Fickenscher Associate Research Scholar
>
> David Gabai Chair, Professor
>
> Ziyang Gao Instructor
>
>
> Javier Gómez-Serrano Assistant Professor, Director of Graduate Studies
>
> Robert C. Gunning Professor
>
> Jonathan Hanselman Assistant Professor
>
> Helmut Hofer Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
> Mathematics
>
> Henry Horton Postdoctoral Research Associate
>
> Yong Hou Lecturer
> Mathematics
> Tatiana Howard Lecturer
>
> Wu-Chung Hsiang Professor Emeritus
>
> June Huh Veblen Fellow
>
> Mihaela Ignatova Instructor
>
> Alexandru Ionescu Professor
>
> Jennifer M. Johnson Senior Lecturer, Associate Departmental Representative
>
> Nicholas Katz Professor
>
> Casey Kelleher Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>
> Daniel Ketover Instructor
>
> Ilya Khayutin Veblen Research Instructor
>
> Seongtag Kim Visiting Fellow
>
> Sergiu Klainerman Professor
>
> Simon Kochen Professor Emeritus
>
> Joseph Kohn Professor Emeritus
>
> János Kollár Professor, Department Representative
>
> Elliott Lieb Professor Emeritus
>
> Francesco Lin Veblen Research Instructor
>
> Yueh-Ju Lin Instructor
>
> Chun-Hung Liu Instructor
>
> Robert MacPhersonVisiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
> Mathematics
>
> Adam Marcus Assistant Professor
>
> Fernando Codá Marques Professor
>
> Mark McConnell Senior Lecturer
>
> Stephen McKeown Postdoctoral Research Associate
>
> Ana Menezes Assistant Professor
>
> Sophie Morel Professor
>
> Assaf Naor Professor
>
> Evita Nestoridi Instructor
>
> Huy Quang Nguyen Postdoctoral Research Associate
>
> Oanh Nguyen Instructor
>
> Peter Ozsváth Professor, Director of Graduate Studies
>
> John Pardon Professor
>
> Fabio Pusateri Assistant Professor
>
> Igor Rodnianski Professor
>
> Vermont Rutherfoord Postdoctoral Research Associate
>
> Peter Sarnak Professor
>
> Paul D. Seymour Professor
>
> Tatyana Shcherbyna Assistant Professor
>
> Nicholas Sheridan Assistant Professor
>
> Goro Shimura Professor Emeritus
>
> Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman Instructor
>
> Yakov Sinai Professor
>
> Amit Singer Professor
>
> Christopher Skinner Professor
>
> Allan Sly Professor
>
> Elias Stein Professor Emeritus
>
> Zoltán Szabó Professor
>
> Yunqing Tang Instructor
>
> Richard Taylor Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
>
> Christine Taylor Senior Lecturer
>
> Gang Tian Professor
>
> Konstantin Tikhomirov Instructor
>
> Hale Trotter Professor Emeritus
>
> Karen Uhlenbeck Visiting Research Scholar
>
> Vlad Vicol Assistant Professor
>
> Ilya Vinogradov Lecturer
>
> Rafael von Känel Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>
> Joseph Waldron Instructor
>
> Guangbo Xu Associate Research Scholar
>
> Paul C. Yang Professor
>
> Ian Zemke Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>
> Shou-Wu Zhang Professor
>
> Yongbin Zhang Visiting Research Scholar


The lists are getting longer. Is this part of your "proof"? Or are you finally getting completely unglued?



Date Subject Author
10/2/17
Read 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roquette,
Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, teachi
ng a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an oval?
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/2/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, te
aching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ov
al?
Me
10/2/17
Read Princeton math dept agreeing with Franz for none has spotted the
error- as dumb as Franz, teaching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth
it is an oval?
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/2/17
Read Re: Princeton math dept agreeing with Franz for none has spotted the
error- as dumb as Franz, teaching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth
it is an oval?
alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com
10/2/17
Read Re: Princeton math dept agreeing with Franz for none has spotted the
error- as dumb as Franz, teaching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth
it is an oval?
Me
10/2/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, te
aching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ov
al?
Dan Christensen
10/2/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roquette
, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, tea
ching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an oval
?
Peter Percival
10/2/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, tea
ching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ova
l?
Me
10/3/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, te
aching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ov
al?
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/3/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, te
aching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ov
al?
needspy@gmail.com
10/4/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, te
aching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ov
al?
Jan Bielawski
10/4/17
Read Re: 6)are all German mathematicians like Peter Roque
tte, Gunther Schmidt Karl-Otto Stöhr- as dumb as Franz, te
aching a Conic section is ellipse, when in truth it is an ov
al?
Me

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.