Talk:Parametric equation/Archive 1

Archive 1

MERGE Vector-valued function to here

The description on the vector-valued function article currently sounds exactly like parametric curves (parametric equations with one parameter) discussed on this article; and is also related to what is discussed on the differential geometry of curves article. --Spoon! 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably say they deserve seperate articles. vector-valued function are a special case of Parametric equations, indeed they are parametric curves, although I think a parametric curve would need to be continuous, whereas a vector valued function need not be. There is great scope for expansion in the treatment of this special case, which I think deserves a seperate article. --Salix alba (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the other article I think that they ought to remain seperate. More can and should be said about them. BrokenSegue 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree they should be kept seperate, much more could be added to this article as it is a subject that is included in many maths and engineering courses at many levels. I think it would be useful to add some more examples, explain why adding an extra parameter is useful. I also think that as with many maths topics a section entitled something like 'Real World Applications' or just 'Applications' should be added. With a better title. Reason being, a lot of people do not realise where some areas of mathmatics are used. DougBrown 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that they should be kept separate. A vector-valued function is any function f: R^m → Rⁿ with n≥2 (n=1 corresponds to a scalar field), so technically a parametrization of a curve (f: R¹ → Rⁿ) or of a surface (f: R² → R³) is a vector-valued function. However, both are important special cases (see line integral and surface integral, for example, for why) that deserve to have articles of their own. A merger with parametric curve and/or parametric surface might make more sense. FilipeS 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people seem to be against the merge. I've remove the notice. --Salix alba (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

a) Does the new variable bear some meaning?

b) A section should be included on how to convert an equation to its parametric form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.55.101 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

separate comment

I wish you would correct the spelling : separate.

thank you

(24.118.7.127 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

External link

A user (see 59.103.24.222 and 59.103.11.31 contribs) requested a third opinion as follows:

"[[1]]. I posted links to my Graphing Tools GraphEasy that allow graphing parametric curves, I done the same with Polar Graphs in a different section. Similar links already existed on these pages. My links were deleted, as far as I know I did nothing against the rules. 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)"

The Wikipedia:Third opinion project relies upon user discussions on talk pages in order to assess disagreements. I don't see any discussion here, so I have forwarded the post. — Athaenara ✉ 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The GraphEasy site is hideously ad-filled. I'm opposed to linking to it for this reason. Doctormatt (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unknown knowns

What is this? Unknown

Disambiguation page

Topology Expert (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparametric plots

Most of the material in the short article titled parametric plot is actually about comparametric plots, and those are worth a separate article under that title. The rest of the material in that article, which the article seemingly purports to be about, should get merged into this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a difference between parametric representation and a vector valued function?

I'm trying to figure out if there is a difference between parametric representations and vector valued functions. They are presented in two different chapters in my calculus book, but they seem to be different ways of writing exactly the same thing. This article even mentions that parametric representations are written r(t) = <f(t),g(t),h(t)>, which looks an aweful lot like a vector valued function. (Also, regular functions seem to be the special case of both). Am I thinking about this right? I never see any connection between the two mentioned anywhere. 75.50.154.173 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• See above.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

derivative of parametric

is there a way to calulate the derivative of a parametric? and if so should this be added to this artacle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.49.10 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This question lies at the heart of "differential geometry". (I don't know how to produce links). There, look for tangent vector and chain rule. Besides, the Talk pages in Wikipedia are actually intended for discussions regarding the presentation of the material, not explanations. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely a way to calculate the derivative of parametric equations, but the proofs for it are horendously complicated, or so I've heard. Basically, you need to calculate dy/dt, then dx/dt, and then divide dy/dt by dx/dt (One can see that through simple algebraic fraction manipulation that this is equivalent to dy/dx, but this is not a proof. Does anyone know parametric equations well enough to add this understandably quite important thing in? My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)