Circles and a Line Again

Today I read the section of my calculus textbook about continuity, looked up a couple of related proofs in Analysis with an Introduction to Proof, and experimented with a variation on the problem I shared yesterday.

2circles1line Small
Source: Single Variable Calculus by James Stewart

In a comment on yesterday’s post, reader Tim McL asked what would happen if circle $C_2$ in the diagram above were fixed and the radius of $C_1$ were allowed to increase toward infinity. (See this interactive model on Desmos.) How would this affect $R$? And if it caused the $x$-coordinate of $R$ to grow without bound, as seemed likely, why would our intuition be correct in this scenario but not in the one described in the original problem?

I’m not sure I’ve answered the second of those questions, but I did establish that in the scenario Tim McL described, $R=(\sqrt{4t^2-r^2}+2t,0)$, where $t$ is the radius of $C_1$ and $r$ is the (fixed) radius of $C_2$. Notice that the $x$-coordinate does become arbitrarily large as $t$ increases. Notice also, though, that it becomes closer and closer to $4t$. In the original problem, $R$ approached $(4,0)$ and $t$ was equal to $1$. Thus, I think we are seeing the same behavior in both scenarios, with the $x$-coordinate of $R$ dependent on the radii of both circles, and approaching $4t$ as they diverge. It only grows without bound when one of them increases toward infinity, however.

Two Circles and a Line

Today I finished the textbook exercises from the section on limit laws. There were a few interesting ones among the higher numbers. I may discuss more of them in coming days, but today I want to give a sketch of the last problem in the section:

“The figure shows a fixed circle $C_1$ with equation $(x-1)^2+y^2=1$ and a shrinking circle $C_2$ with radius $r$ and center the origin. $P$ is the point $(0,r)$, $Q$ is the upper point of intersection of the two circles, and $R$ is the point of intersection of the line $PQ$ with the $x$-axis. What happens to $R$ as $C_2$ shrinks, that is, as $r\rightarrow 0^+$?”

2circles1line Small
Source: Single Variable Calculus by James Stewart

What do you think? Make a guess.

It turns out the answer is that it approaches the point $(4,0)$. This is not at all in line with my intuition that, since at the limit point $P$ and $Q$ have the same $y$-coordinate, the $x$-coordinate of $R$ would grow without bound as $\overline{PQ}$ approached horizontal.

You can see the actual path of $R$ in this manipulable model of the problem that I made in Desmos after I found the solution. I did that by crunching the algebra arising from the equations of the circles and line in the diagram. I’m not going to give a full account of that here, but the basic procedure was a follows:

  1. Find the coordinates of the intersections of the two circles.
    $(\frac{r^2}{2}, \pm\frac{r}{2}\sqrt{4-r^2})$
  2. The one with a positive $y$-coordinate is $Q$.
  3. Use the coordinates of $P$ and $Q$ to find the slope of $\overline{PQ}$.
    $\frac{\sqrt{4-r^2}-2}{r}$
  4. Plug this and $y$-coordinate of $P$ into the slope-intercept form of a line.
    $y=\frac{\sqrt{4-r^2}-2}{r}x+r$
  5. Find the $x$-intercept of this line.
    $(\sqrt{4-r^2}+2,0)$
  6. This is $R$. Find it’s value as $r\rightarrow 0^+$.

It turns out that there is also a trigonometric solution, which you can read about in this thread on Math Stack Exchange. I stumbled on this when I did a Google search for the problem, hoping to check my (to me) surprising answer.


I also did a lot of thinking today about my review project and its ultimate goal of allowing me to do some online tutoring. I may say more about that in the coming days, as well.

Back to Calculus

Today was dedicated to reading in my calculus textbook. I read the first two sections of chapter two, which introduce the idea of limits, as well as an appendix that covers its rigorous definition. I didn’t have any particularly interesting thoughts about them, unless you count “Hey, look at me! I’m doing calculus again.” And that put me in mind of this fun video I’ve shared before:

Book Report

Today I felt unwell again. I also had a discussion with my father about approximating pi, however, that inspired me to do some research on the subject. I ended up reading the historical section of the Wikipedia article on pi. When I was in college, the consensus was that you should never read about math on Wikipedia. My understanding is that the mathematical articles have improved since then, however, and since I’m sure there are many eyes on this particular article, I decided it would serve my purpose.

As I told my father, ancient mathematicians (such as Archimedes, but also including mathematicians in India and China) calculated pi by approximating the circumference of a circle using the perimeters of polygons with increasingly many sides. According to the article, after 1500, mathematicians in both Europe and India began to use infinite series that could be shown to converge to pi, instead. In the 20th century, they continued to use infinite series, but also developed very fast iterative algorithms in which each step involved applying the same calculation to the results of the previous step. Computers following these algorithms were able to generate millions of digits of pi. Currently, the limiting factor in finding new digits of pi seems to be, not processor speed, but availability of storage for the huge numbers needed for each calculation.

Sphere versus Cube

Today I was able to spend more than an hour on calculus exercises. (Yay!) Now I am pondering the following:

The volume of a sphere of radius $r$ is given by $V=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$. The surface area of the same sphere is given by $A=4\pi r^2$, the derivative of the formula for the volume. This makes sense, as a small change in volume involves adding a thin layer to the surface of the sphere. In the limit, that layer will be identical to the sphere’s surface.

On the other hand, the surface area of a cube of side length $x$ is given by $A=6x^2$. This is not the derivative of $V=x^3$, the formula for the cube’s volume. Why?1

  1. To do. ↩︎

Discontinuous

Things are a bit disrupted today. I am out of one of my medications and am feeling the withdrawal symptoms more and more. Nevertheless, I read more of Infinite Powers. The section I read contained several interesting ideas. One was that, while calculus is very useful in modeling the natural world, the assumptions that space and time are continuous that are fundamental to calculus may not be accurate. At the smallest scales, space and time may be broken into indivisible segments that span units called Planck length and Planck time. I will have to think more about this and how it relates to the idea that mathematics is inherent in nature.

A Wheel on a Wheel

For study today, I watched the three-video series The Wonderful World of Weird Wheels by Morphocular, which is a fun look at the mathematics of curves rolling on other curves. I think it would probably appeal to any readers who have a basic understanding of what a derivative is, and maybe to others as well, since there are a lot of engaging visuals.

The video series motivated me to read a bit about hyperbolic functions, which I never really encountered in my mathematical education. $\sinh$ and $\cosh$ were always just mysterious markings on certain calculators. I can’t say they are that much less mysterious now, but I do know their definitions and have some sense of their relationship to hyperbolas.

Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 4

Today I watched more of 3Blue1Brown’s Lockdown Math series. (See the new Resources tab for a link.) It turns out that the subseries I was following has four installments, not three, so I may be spending another day on it. I’ve enjoyed the primer on complex numbers 3Blue1Brown provides. Although they cropped up occasionally in my mathematical education, I never learned about them in any depth. I had certainly never understood their connection to trigonometry before.

Now it is time for the proofs of the two remaining cases of the proposition that is the focus of the Parabola-a-Go-Go series. (You will find links to the rest of the series under the new Highlights tab.)


Proposition: Consider the parabola $x^2=4py$, where $0<p$. Let $a$ be a real number. Let $A$ be the vertical line $x=a$. Let $B$ be the line through $F=(0, p)$, the focus of the parabola, and $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$, the point where $A$ intersects the parabola. Let $C$ be the line tangent to the parabola at $R$. Then, for all $a$, the acute or right angle formed by $A$ and $C$ is equal to the acute or right angle formed by $B$ and $C$.

As noted in Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 2, the equation of the parabola can be written as $y=\frac{1}{4p}x^2$ and, using calculus, $y’=(\frac{1}{4p})2x=\frac{1}{2p}x$.

Thus, the slope of $C$, the line tangent to the parabola at $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$, is $\frac{a}{2p}$.

Furthermore, the slope of $B$, the line through $F=(0, p)$ and $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$ is $$\frac{\frac{a^2}{4p}-p}{a-0}=\frac{a}{4p}-\frac{p}{a}=\frac{a^2-4p^2}{4ap}\text{.}$$


Now suppose that $a>2p$.

In that case, the slopes of $B$ and $C$ are both positive. Note that the slope of $C$ is greater than the slope of $B$, since $\frac{a}{2p}=\frac{2a^2}{4ap}$ and $2a^2>a^2-4p^2$. It follows that the lines intersect one another, line $A$, and the x-axis as shown in the diagram below.

A Greater Than 2p Annotated 1

In this diagram, $\alpha$ is the angle formed by $A$ and $C$ and $\beta$ is the angle formed by $B$ and $C$.

Consider the right triangle formed by $A$, $C$, and the x-axis. Note that one of its vertecies is vertical to $\alpha$. Note also that the ratio of its vertical leg to its horizontal leg is equal to the slope of $C$. It follows that the ratio of its horizontal leg to its vertical leg is the reciprocal of the slope of $C$. Yet that ratio is also the tangent of the angle that is vertical to $\alpha$.

Therefore, $$\alpha = \arctan\frac{2p}{a}\text{.}$$

Consider instead the right triangle formed by $A$, $B$, and the x-axis. By similar reasoning we see that the tangent of $\beta+\alpha$ is the reciprocal of the slope of $B$.

Thus, $$\beta+\alpha=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$$$$\beta=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}-\alpha=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}-\arctan\frac{2p}{a}\text{.}$$

Since $a>2p$, $(\frac{2p}{a})^2<1$. Therefore, by the lemma from Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 3, $$2\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\arctan\frac{2(\frac{2p}{a})}{1-(\frac{2p}{a})^2}=\arctan\frac{\frac{4p}{a}}{1-\frac{4p^2}{a^2}}=\arctan\frac{\frac{4ap}{a^2}}{\frac{a^2-4p^2}{a^2}}=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

It follows that $\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}-\arctan\frac{2p}{a}$ and thence that $\alpha=\beta$.

Thus the proposition holds when $a>2p$.


Suppose instead that $0<a<2p$.

In that case, the slope of $B$ is negative and the slope of $C$ is positive. It follows that the lines intersect one another, line $A$, and the x-axis as shown in the diagram below.

A Less Than 2p Annotated 2

In this diagram, $\alpha$ is the angle formed by $A$ and $C$ and $\beta$ is the angle formed by $B$ and $C$. An additional angle is labeled $\gamma$ and has the property that $\alpha+\beta+\gamma=\pi$.

Considering the two right triangles formed by the lines $A$, $B$, and $C$ with the x-axis, we see that the tangent of $\alpha$ is the reciprocal of the slope of $C$ and the tangent of $\gamma$ is the absolute value of the reciprocal of the slope of $B$.

Thus, $\alpha = \arctan\frac{2p}{a}$ and $\gamma=\arctan\left|\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right|$.

Since the $0<a<2p$, $\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$ is negative. Thus $\left|\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right|=\frac{-4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$.

It is a property of arctangent that $\arctan (-x)=-\arctan x$. (I forgot to write up a proof of this, but the proof is simple. “Left to the reader as an exercise.”) Thus $$\gamma=\arctan\left|\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right|=\arctan\frac{-4ap}{a^2-4p^2}=-\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

It follows that $$\beta =\pi – \arctan\frac{2p}{a} -\left(-\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\right)=\pi – \arctan\frac{2p}{a} +\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

Since $0<a<2p$, $(\frac{2p}{a})^2>1$. Thus, by the lemma, $$2\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\pi+\arctan\frac{2(\frac{2p}{a})}{1-(\frac{2p}{a})^2}=\pi+\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}\text{.}$$

It follows that $\arctan\frac{2p}{a}=\pi-\arctan\frac{2p}{a}+\arctan\frac{4ap}{a^2-4p^2}$ and thence that $\alpha=\beta$.

Therefore the proposition holds for $0<a<2p$ and holds in general.


This gnarly argument was fun to work out, and I got to practice all the things I’ve been reviewing: algebra, analytic geometry, conics, and trig, plus some basic geometry. That said, if you want to see a really good proof of this theorem, check out this page. I looked this up sometime after I finished my own proof, and I’ll admit I was a little discouraged to find there was a way to do the problem that was so much better. (And this definitely is. It uses the definition of the object involved directly, requires less advanced concepts, and doesn’t rely on cases.) Not everyone can be optimally clever all the time, though—one is lucky if one can be optimally clever any of the time—and, as I said, doing it my way was fun and educational. I’m not sure whether either approach can be adapted to ellipses. That is a project for the future.

For those wondering, the diagrams for the Parabola-a-Go-Go series are based on images from the graphing program Desmos. I added additional details in GIMP and, in some cases, annotated the results by hand using a stylus and the photo app of my tablet. Most of my diagrams (the ones with the cream quad-ruled backgrounds) are made on my tablet using the stylus and a freehand note-taking app.

I know this series of posts was not very accessible. I want to explain more of what I do in a way non-specialists can understand; that’s a task that has always appealed to me. After doing my study each day, though, I only have so much energy and time left for the blog, and it tends to be more efficient to write at a higher level. Perhaps some of the competition problems I hope to try will have fairly short solutions that lend themselves to more complete explanations.

Parabola-a-Go-Go, Part 2

Today has been a very busy day—I think I did every errand known to man—and I haven’t fit in any study time yet. I give my readers my solemn word to at least read some of The Joy of X before bed, however.

Today I am proving the proposition below for the case $a=2p$. The case $a=0$ was dealt with yesterday, and the cases $0<a<2p$ and $a>2p$ will be addressed tomorrow or later in the week.

Proposition: Consider the parabola $x^2=4py$, where $0<p$. Let $a$ be a real number. Let $A$ be the vertical line $x=a$. Let $B$ be the line through $F=(0, p)$, the focus of the parabola, and $R=(a,\frac{a^2}{4p})$, the point where $A$ intersects the parabola. Let $C$ be the line tangent to the parabola at $R$. Then, for all $a$, the acute or right angle formed by $A$ and $C$ is equal to the acute or right angle formed by $B$ and $C$.

First, note that the equation of the parabola can be written as $y=\frac{1}{4p}x^2$.

Now suppose $a=2p$.

Then, $R$ is the point $(2p, p)$, and $B$ is the horizontal line $y=p$.

Using calculus, $y’=(\frac{1}{4p})2x=\frac{1}{2p}x$. Thus, the slope of $C$, the line tangent to the parabola at $R=(2p, p)$, is $(\frac{1}{2p})(2p)=1$.

It follows that $C$ intersects $A$, $B$, and the x-axis as show in the diagram below.

A Equals 2p Annotated 1

In this diagram, $\alpha$ is the angle formed by $A$ and $C$ and $\beta$ is the angle formed by $B$ and $C$.

Note that $\alpha$ is equal to the angle that is vertical to $\alpha$.

Since $B$ is horizontal, it is parallel to the x-axis. Thus, $\beta$ is equal to the alternate interior angle to $\beta$ that is formed by $C$ and the x-axis.

Because $A$ is perpendicular to the x-axis, the triangle formed by $A$, $C$, and the x-axis is a right triangle. Hence the ratio of the legs must be equal to the slope of $C$, which is 1. It follows that the legs are equal.

Thus, the angle vertical to $\alpha$ and the alternate interior angle to $\beta$ are also equal, because they subtend the equal sides of an isosceles triangle.

Therefore, $\alpha=\beta$ and the proposition holds when $a=2p$.

(Fun!)