Mixing
![Must T be a contraction? [on hold]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZCTB4-bb-s-32SAm6ytjzFOU06cH9o8q-a_wq_UnH6lcd8hvws23CmBWHM6g256LzTX9yK1EiCCzTC1NSgtxlNk_J9hdr9bA3tD0Nqntbl521j4bLAm_uXPANuWLBhcCKTKzns2gaUodx/s72-c/1.jpg)
Application of the concept of 'Imaginary Circle'?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In most analytic geometric books the equation of a circle is defined as the special case of a conic $ax^2 + by^2 + 2hxy + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0$ when $ a = b neq 0$ and $h = 0$. Almost all books do not include the condition that the radius should be a real number i.e. $ g^2 + f^2 - ac geq 0 Leftrightarrow acdot bigg(detbeginvmatrix a & g & h \ g & b & f \ h & f & c endvmatrix bigg)leq 0$.
Rather these books consider the case of $ g^2 + f^2 - ac leq 0 $ as that of an imaginary circle with an imaginary radius. Note that an imaginary circle has no locus on $mathbbR^2$, it in fact represents an empty set.
Most people (that I have met!) argue that the difference is in just opinion, and it makes very little difference to the theory in general. However I have found that the condition a radius should be real adds a lot more checks to the theory: For example if $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ represent the equation to 2 (real) circles, then it is well known that $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ ($lambda neq -1$) represents the equation of a circle which passes through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$. However, in the proof of the above property it is never checked if the equation of $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ has real radius! - meaning the equation may not always represent a circle passing through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ for all $ lambda neq -1$.
As this check does seem important, I would like to know why the concept of an 'imaginary circle' was introduced i.e. any application where the concept of 'imaginary circle' solved/simplified a problem etc.?
analytic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In most analytic geometric books the equation of a circle is defined as the special case of a conic $ax^2 + by^2 + 2hxy + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0$ when $ a = b neq 0$ and $h = 0$. Almost all books do not include the condition that the radius should be a real number i.e. $ g^2 + f^2 - ac geq 0 Leftrightarrow acdot bigg(detbeginvmatrix a & g & h \ g & b & f \ h & f & c endvmatrix bigg)leq 0$.
Rather these books consider the case of $ g^2 + f^2 - ac leq 0 $ as that of an imaginary circle with an imaginary radius. Note that an imaginary circle has no locus on $mathbbR^2$, it in fact represents an empty set.
Most people (that I have met!) argue that the difference is in just opinion, and it makes very little difference to the theory in general. However I have found that the condition a radius should be real adds a lot more checks to the theory: For example if $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ represent the equation to 2 (real) circles, then it is well known that $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ ($lambda neq -1$) represents the equation of a circle which passes through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$. However, in the proof of the above property it is never checked if the equation of $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ has real radius! - meaning the equation may not always represent a circle passing through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ for all $ lambda neq -1$.
As this check does seem important, I would like to know why the concept of an 'imaginary circle' was introduced i.e. any application where the concept of 'imaginary circle' solved/simplified a problem etc.?
analytic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In most analytic geometric books the equation of a circle is defined as the special case of a conic $ax^2 + by^2 + 2hxy + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0$ when $ a = b neq 0$ and $h = 0$. Almost all books do not include the condition that the radius should be a real number i.e. $ g^2 + f^2 - ac geq 0 Leftrightarrow acdot bigg(detbeginvmatrix a & g & h \ g & b & f \ h & f & c endvmatrix bigg)leq 0$.
Rather these books consider the case of $ g^2 + f^2 - ac leq 0 $ as that of an imaginary circle with an imaginary radius. Note that an imaginary circle has no locus on $mathbbR^2$, it in fact represents an empty set.
Most people (that I have met!) argue that the difference is in just opinion, and it makes very little difference to the theory in general. However I have found that the condition a radius should be real adds a lot more checks to the theory: For example if $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ represent the equation to 2 (real) circles, then it is well known that $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ ($lambda neq -1$) represents the equation of a circle which passes through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$. However, in the proof of the above property it is never checked if the equation of $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ has real radius! - meaning the equation may not always represent a circle passing through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ for all $ lambda neq -1$.
As this check does seem important, I would like to know why the concept of an 'imaginary circle' was introduced i.e. any application where the concept of 'imaginary circle' solved/simplified a problem etc.?
analytic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
In most analytic geometric books the equation of a circle is defined as the special case of a conic $ax^2 + by^2 + 2hxy + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0$ when $ a = b neq 0$ and $h = 0$. Almost all books do not include the condition that the radius should be a real number i.e. $ g^2 + f^2 - ac geq 0 Leftrightarrow acdot bigg(detbeginvmatrix a & g & h \ g & b & f \ h & f & c endvmatrix bigg)leq 0$.
Rather these books consider the case of $ g^2 + f^2 - ac leq 0 $ as that of an imaginary circle with an imaginary radius. Note that an imaginary circle has no locus on $mathbbR^2$, it in fact represents an empty set.
Most people (that I have met!) argue that the difference is in just opinion, and it makes very little difference to the theory in general. However I have found that the condition a radius should be real adds a lot more checks to the theory: For example if $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ represent the equation to 2 (real) circles, then it is well known that $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ ($lambda neq -1$) represents the equation of a circle which passes through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$. However, in the proof of the above property it is never checked if the equation of $S_1 + lambda S_2 = 0$ has real radius! - meaning the equation may not always represent a circle passing through the points of intersection of $S_1 = 0$ and $S_2 = 0$ for all $ lambda neq -1$.
As this check does seem important, I would like to know why the concept of an 'imaginary circle' was introduced i.e. any application where the concept of 'imaginary circle' solved/simplified a problem etc.?
analytic-geometry
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
edited 2 days ago
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
asked 2 days ago
Ashish
302110
302110
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This approach (common in the 19th century) is still the prevailing point of view in algabraic geometry.
The equation $x^2+y^2 = 1$ is studied as an (algebraic) curve ... which is not the same thing as a point set.
Then we may talk about points on the curve ... real points, rational points, complex points, or indeed points where $x,y$ belong to any field of interest.
Similarly, we may study the curve $x^2+y^2 = -1$. In fact it has no real points, but that need not prevent us to talking about complex points or indeed points in some $p$-adic field or finite field.
......
Now I am an analyst, so the point of view above seems alien to me. I prefer to study point sets, and to specify in advance what set (such as $mathbb R times mathbb R$) that I want to take the points from. And I like to talk about curves that are not algebraic, like $y = e^x$ or $sin x = sinh y$.
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This approach (common in the 19th century) is still the prevailing point of view in algabraic geometry.
The equation $x^2+y^2 = 1$ is studied as an (algebraic) curve ... which is not the same thing as a point set.
Then we may talk about points on the curve ... real points, rational points, complex points, or indeed points where $x,y$ belong to any field of interest.
Similarly, we may study the curve $x^2+y^2 = -1$. In fact it has no real points, but that need not prevent us to talking about complex points or indeed points in some $p$-adic field or finite field.
......
Now I am an analyst, so the point of view above seems alien to me. I prefer to study point sets, and to specify in advance what set (such as $mathbb R times mathbb R$) that I want to take the points from. And I like to talk about curves that are not algebraic, like $y = e^x$ or $sin x = sinh y$.
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This approach (common in the 19th century) is still the prevailing point of view in algabraic geometry.
The equation $x^2+y^2 = 1$ is studied as an (algebraic) curve ... which is not the same thing as a point set.
Then we may talk about points on the curve ... real points, rational points, complex points, or indeed points where $x,y$ belong to any field of interest.
Similarly, we may study the curve $x^2+y^2 = -1$. In fact it has no real points, but that need not prevent us to talking about complex points or indeed points in some $p$-adic field or finite field.
......
Now I am an analyst, so the point of view above seems alien to me. I prefer to study point sets, and to specify in advance what set (such as $mathbb R times mathbb R$) that I want to take the points from. And I like to talk about curves that are not algebraic, like $y = e^x$ or $sin x = sinh y$.
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
This approach (common in the 19th century) is still the prevailing point of view in algabraic geometry.
The equation $x^2+y^2 = 1$ is studied as an (algebraic) curve ... which is not the same thing as a point set.
Then we may talk about points on the curve ... real points, rational points, complex points, or indeed points where $x,y$ belong to any field of interest.
Similarly, we may study the curve $x^2+y^2 = -1$. In fact it has no real points, but that need not prevent us to talking about complex points or indeed points in some $p$-adic field or finite field.
......
Now I am an analyst, so the point of view above seems alien to me. I prefer to study point sets, and to specify in advance what set (such as $mathbb R times mathbb R$) that I want to take the points from. And I like to talk about curves that are not algebraic, like $y = e^x$ or $sin x = sinh y$.
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
This approach (common in the 19th century) is still the prevailing point of view in algabraic geometry.
The equation $x^2+y^2 = 1$ is studied as an (algebraic) curve ... which is not the same thing as a point set.
Then we may talk about points on the curve ... real points, rational points, complex points, or indeed points where $x,y$ belong to any field of interest.
Similarly, we may study the curve $x^2+y^2 = -1$. In fact it has no real points, but that need not prevent us to talking about complex points or indeed points in some $p$-adic field or finite field.
......
Now I am an analyst, so the point of view above seems alien to me. I prefer to study point sets, and to specify in advance what set (such as $mathbb R times mathbb R$) that I want to take the points from. And I like to talk about curves that are not algebraic, like $y = e^x$ or $sin x = sinh y$.
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
answered 2 days ago
GEdgar
58.3k264163
58.3k264163
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2871889%2fapplication-of-the-concept-of-imaginary-circle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password