Parabola always through two points.
I need to draw parabola through two points, but also need to be able to change the width of the parabola.
In more details let's say I have parabola:
$f ( x ) = - frac { ( x - 1 ) ^ { 2 } } { W } + 1$
And no matter what $W$ I define I want my parabola goes through points (0,0) and (1,1) which for that case happens only if $W=1$.
I suppose I need to rotate the parabola or move whole parabola in some way. But don't know how to do that.
My aim is to increase $W$ to infinity until I get straight line (infinity almost straight) through mentioned points. And in the future of course I want to be able to manipulate those points.
For any help thanks in advance.
conic-sections fixedpoints
add a comment |
I need to draw parabola through two points, but also need to be able to change the width of the parabola.
In more details let's say I have parabola:
$f ( x ) = - frac { ( x - 1 ) ^ { 2 } } { W } + 1$
And no matter what $W$ I define I want my parabola goes through points (0,0) and (1,1) which for that case happens only if $W=1$.
I suppose I need to rotate the parabola or move whole parabola in some way. But don't know how to do that.
My aim is to increase $W$ to infinity until I get straight line (infinity almost straight) through mentioned points. And in the future of course I want to be able to manipulate those points.
For any help thanks in advance.
conic-sections fixedpoints
I edited my answer, now I derived the equation in terms of W. It's slightly different form than you expected, but it's very similar.
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 16:14
3
You've already accepted an answer, but I want to point out that in your equation, you were also forcing your parabola to be centered around the $y$-axis. That, along with requiring that it pass through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ takes alway all three degrees of freedom in an upward-opening parabola. That is why you had nothing left to adjust the width with. The two solutions drop the "centered around the $y$-axis" requirement, leaving them a degree of freedom to adjust the width.
– Paul Sinclair
Nov 24 at 18:02
add a comment |
I need to draw parabola through two points, but also need to be able to change the width of the parabola.
In more details let's say I have parabola:
$f ( x ) = - frac { ( x - 1 ) ^ { 2 } } { W } + 1$
And no matter what $W$ I define I want my parabola goes through points (0,0) and (1,1) which for that case happens only if $W=1$.
I suppose I need to rotate the parabola or move whole parabola in some way. But don't know how to do that.
My aim is to increase $W$ to infinity until I get straight line (infinity almost straight) through mentioned points. And in the future of course I want to be able to manipulate those points.
For any help thanks in advance.
conic-sections fixedpoints
I need to draw parabola through two points, but also need to be able to change the width of the parabola.
In more details let's say I have parabola:
$f ( x ) = - frac { ( x - 1 ) ^ { 2 } } { W } + 1$
And no matter what $W$ I define I want my parabola goes through points (0,0) and (1,1) which for that case happens only if $W=1$.
I suppose I need to rotate the parabola or move whole parabola in some way. But don't know how to do that.
My aim is to increase $W$ to infinity until I get straight line (infinity almost straight) through mentioned points. And in the future of course I want to be able to manipulate those points.
For any help thanks in advance.
conic-sections fixedpoints
conic-sections fixedpoints
asked Nov 24 at 15:39
pajczur
854
854
I edited my answer, now I derived the equation in terms of W. It's slightly different form than you expected, but it's very similar.
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 16:14
3
You've already accepted an answer, but I want to point out that in your equation, you were also forcing your parabola to be centered around the $y$-axis. That, along with requiring that it pass through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ takes alway all three degrees of freedom in an upward-opening parabola. That is why you had nothing left to adjust the width with. The two solutions drop the "centered around the $y$-axis" requirement, leaving them a degree of freedom to adjust the width.
– Paul Sinclair
Nov 24 at 18:02
add a comment |
I edited my answer, now I derived the equation in terms of W. It's slightly different form than you expected, but it's very similar.
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 16:14
3
You've already accepted an answer, but I want to point out that in your equation, you were also forcing your parabola to be centered around the $y$-axis. That, along with requiring that it pass through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ takes alway all three degrees of freedom in an upward-opening parabola. That is why you had nothing left to adjust the width with. The two solutions drop the "centered around the $y$-axis" requirement, leaving them a degree of freedom to adjust the width.
– Paul Sinclair
Nov 24 at 18:02
I edited my answer, now I derived the equation in terms of W. It's slightly different form than you expected, but it's very similar.
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 16:14
I edited my answer, now I derived the equation in terms of W. It's slightly different form than you expected, but it's very similar.
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 16:14
3
3
You've already accepted an answer, but I want to point out that in your equation, you were also forcing your parabola to be centered around the $y$-axis. That, along with requiring that it pass through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ takes alway all three degrees of freedom in an upward-opening parabola. That is why you had nothing left to adjust the width with. The two solutions drop the "centered around the $y$-axis" requirement, leaving them a degree of freedom to adjust the width.
– Paul Sinclair
Nov 24 at 18:02
You've already accepted an answer, but I want to point out that in your equation, you were also forcing your parabola to be centered around the $y$-axis. That, along with requiring that it pass through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ takes alway all three degrees of freedom in an upward-opening parabola. That is why you had nothing left to adjust the width with. The two solutions drop the "centered around the $y$-axis" requirement, leaving them a degree of freedom to adjust the width.
– Paul Sinclair
Nov 24 at 18:02
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You can simply set up a system of equations in the quadratic form:
$$y=ax^2+bx+c$$
So plugging in $x$ and $y$ from your points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, you make two equations:
$$0=a(0)^2+b(0)+c$$
$$1=a(1)^2+b(1)+c$$
The equations simplify to:
$$c=0$$
$$1=a+b$$
So the $c$ of your quadratic equation will be always 0. $a$ is your "width" of the parabola. The lower the value, the wider it is, the higher the value, the narrower it is. Just remember that whatever $a$ you chose, you have to chose $b$ so that $a+b=1$ as can be seen in the second equation.
To get the equation in terms of $W$ simply complete the square and manipulate the standard quadratic form (note that $c$ is $0$, so we exclude $c$):
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
$$y=aBig(x^2+frac{b}{a}xBig)$$
$$y=aBig(x+frac{b}{2a}Big)^2-frac{b^2}{4a}$$
Now, since $a+b=1$ then $b=1-a$:
$$y=aBig(x+frac{1-a}{2a}Big)^2-frac{(1-a)^2}{4a}$$
Now, simply define $W=frac{1}{a}$ and the equation will change into:
$$y=frac{big(x+frac{W-1}{2}big)^2}{W}-frac{(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
Then, combine the two fractions into one and expand exponent:
$$y=frac{4Big(x^2+(W-1)x+frac{(W-1)^2}{4}Big)-(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{4x^2+4(W-1)x}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2+(W-1)x}{W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
And that's it! We derived the equation in terms of $W$. Now, simply to change the width of the parabola, you change $W$. The bigger $W$, the wider the parabola, the lower $W$, the narrower the parabola. (Opposite of what happens if you change $a$ because we defined $W=frac{1}{a}$). The parabola will rest on the points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ as expected.
Also, notice what happens when you increase $W$ to infinity. With some further analysis, and taking $lim_{Wtoinfty} y$, you can see that the equation slowly becomes the line $y=x$, which is exactly what you predicted and wanted!
Note: If you would ever need three points instead of two, you won't be able to change the width of the parabola because three points describe exactly one parabola. With two points you have infinite parabolas, hence the ability to change width.
EDIT: I was answering it fast, and now I realized, that you don't have to complete the square at all! You simply need to start with:
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
Then just plug in $b=1-a$, and then $a=frac{1}{W}$:
$$y=ax^2+(1-a)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+Big(1-frac{1}{W}Big)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
Sorry for making it more complicated than it should be.
1
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
2
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
add a comment |
I think
$$
f(x) = frac{x(x-1)}{W} + x
$$
will do what you want.
For large $W$ this will be nearly straight between the two points you specified. For very large $x$ (positive or negative) it will grow without bound.
(This is what happens if you finish the algebra that @KKZiomek started.)
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011693%2fparabola-always-through-two-points%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can simply set up a system of equations in the quadratic form:
$$y=ax^2+bx+c$$
So plugging in $x$ and $y$ from your points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, you make two equations:
$$0=a(0)^2+b(0)+c$$
$$1=a(1)^2+b(1)+c$$
The equations simplify to:
$$c=0$$
$$1=a+b$$
So the $c$ of your quadratic equation will be always 0. $a$ is your "width" of the parabola. The lower the value, the wider it is, the higher the value, the narrower it is. Just remember that whatever $a$ you chose, you have to chose $b$ so that $a+b=1$ as can be seen in the second equation.
To get the equation in terms of $W$ simply complete the square and manipulate the standard quadratic form (note that $c$ is $0$, so we exclude $c$):
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
$$y=aBig(x^2+frac{b}{a}xBig)$$
$$y=aBig(x+frac{b}{2a}Big)^2-frac{b^2}{4a}$$
Now, since $a+b=1$ then $b=1-a$:
$$y=aBig(x+frac{1-a}{2a}Big)^2-frac{(1-a)^2}{4a}$$
Now, simply define $W=frac{1}{a}$ and the equation will change into:
$$y=frac{big(x+frac{W-1}{2}big)^2}{W}-frac{(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
Then, combine the two fractions into one and expand exponent:
$$y=frac{4Big(x^2+(W-1)x+frac{(W-1)^2}{4}Big)-(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{4x^2+4(W-1)x}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2+(W-1)x}{W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
And that's it! We derived the equation in terms of $W$. Now, simply to change the width of the parabola, you change $W$. The bigger $W$, the wider the parabola, the lower $W$, the narrower the parabola. (Opposite of what happens if you change $a$ because we defined $W=frac{1}{a}$). The parabola will rest on the points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ as expected.
Also, notice what happens when you increase $W$ to infinity. With some further analysis, and taking $lim_{Wtoinfty} y$, you can see that the equation slowly becomes the line $y=x$, which is exactly what you predicted and wanted!
Note: If you would ever need three points instead of two, you won't be able to change the width of the parabola because three points describe exactly one parabola. With two points you have infinite parabolas, hence the ability to change width.
EDIT: I was answering it fast, and now I realized, that you don't have to complete the square at all! You simply need to start with:
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
Then just plug in $b=1-a$, and then $a=frac{1}{W}$:
$$y=ax^2+(1-a)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+Big(1-frac{1}{W}Big)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
Sorry for making it more complicated than it should be.
1
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
2
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
add a comment |
You can simply set up a system of equations in the quadratic form:
$$y=ax^2+bx+c$$
So plugging in $x$ and $y$ from your points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, you make two equations:
$$0=a(0)^2+b(0)+c$$
$$1=a(1)^2+b(1)+c$$
The equations simplify to:
$$c=0$$
$$1=a+b$$
So the $c$ of your quadratic equation will be always 0. $a$ is your "width" of the parabola. The lower the value, the wider it is, the higher the value, the narrower it is. Just remember that whatever $a$ you chose, you have to chose $b$ so that $a+b=1$ as can be seen in the second equation.
To get the equation in terms of $W$ simply complete the square and manipulate the standard quadratic form (note that $c$ is $0$, so we exclude $c$):
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
$$y=aBig(x^2+frac{b}{a}xBig)$$
$$y=aBig(x+frac{b}{2a}Big)^2-frac{b^2}{4a}$$
Now, since $a+b=1$ then $b=1-a$:
$$y=aBig(x+frac{1-a}{2a}Big)^2-frac{(1-a)^2}{4a}$$
Now, simply define $W=frac{1}{a}$ and the equation will change into:
$$y=frac{big(x+frac{W-1}{2}big)^2}{W}-frac{(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
Then, combine the two fractions into one and expand exponent:
$$y=frac{4Big(x^2+(W-1)x+frac{(W-1)^2}{4}Big)-(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{4x^2+4(W-1)x}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2+(W-1)x}{W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
And that's it! We derived the equation in terms of $W$. Now, simply to change the width of the parabola, you change $W$. The bigger $W$, the wider the parabola, the lower $W$, the narrower the parabola. (Opposite of what happens if you change $a$ because we defined $W=frac{1}{a}$). The parabola will rest on the points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ as expected.
Also, notice what happens when you increase $W$ to infinity. With some further analysis, and taking $lim_{Wtoinfty} y$, you can see that the equation slowly becomes the line $y=x$, which is exactly what you predicted and wanted!
Note: If you would ever need three points instead of two, you won't be able to change the width of the parabola because three points describe exactly one parabola. With two points you have infinite parabolas, hence the ability to change width.
EDIT: I was answering it fast, and now I realized, that you don't have to complete the square at all! You simply need to start with:
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
Then just plug in $b=1-a$, and then $a=frac{1}{W}$:
$$y=ax^2+(1-a)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+Big(1-frac{1}{W}Big)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
Sorry for making it more complicated than it should be.
1
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
2
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
add a comment |
You can simply set up a system of equations in the quadratic form:
$$y=ax^2+bx+c$$
So plugging in $x$ and $y$ from your points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, you make two equations:
$$0=a(0)^2+b(0)+c$$
$$1=a(1)^2+b(1)+c$$
The equations simplify to:
$$c=0$$
$$1=a+b$$
So the $c$ of your quadratic equation will be always 0. $a$ is your "width" of the parabola. The lower the value, the wider it is, the higher the value, the narrower it is. Just remember that whatever $a$ you chose, you have to chose $b$ so that $a+b=1$ as can be seen in the second equation.
To get the equation in terms of $W$ simply complete the square and manipulate the standard quadratic form (note that $c$ is $0$, so we exclude $c$):
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
$$y=aBig(x^2+frac{b}{a}xBig)$$
$$y=aBig(x+frac{b}{2a}Big)^2-frac{b^2}{4a}$$
Now, since $a+b=1$ then $b=1-a$:
$$y=aBig(x+frac{1-a}{2a}Big)^2-frac{(1-a)^2}{4a}$$
Now, simply define $W=frac{1}{a}$ and the equation will change into:
$$y=frac{big(x+frac{W-1}{2}big)^2}{W}-frac{(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
Then, combine the two fractions into one and expand exponent:
$$y=frac{4Big(x^2+(W-1)x+frac{(W-1)^2}{4}Big)-(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{4x^2+4(W-1)x}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2+(W-1)x}{W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
And that's it! We derived the equation in terms of $W$. Now, simply to change the width of the parabola, you change $W$. The bigger $W$, the wider the parabola, the lower $W$, the narrower the parabola. (Opposite of what happens if you change $a$ because we defined $W=frac{1}{a}$). The parabola will rest on the points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ as expected.
Also, notice what happens when you increase $W$ to infinity. With some further analysis, and taking $lim_{Wtoinfty} y$, you can see that the equation slowly becomes the line $y=x$, which is exactly what you predicted and wanted!
Note: If you would ever need three points instead of two, you won't be able to change the width of the parabola because three points describe exactly one parabola. With two points you have infinite parabolas, hence the ability to change width.
EDIT: I was answering it fast, and now I realized, that you don't have to complete the square at all! You simply need to start with:
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
Then just plug in $b=1-a$, and then $a=frac{1}{W}$:
$$y=ax^2+(1-a)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+Big(1-frac{1}{W}Big)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
Sorry for making it more complicated than it should be.
You can simply set up a system of equations in the quadratic form:
$$y=ax^2+bx+c$$
So plugging in $x$ and $y$ from your points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, you make two equations:
$$0=a(0)^2+b(0)+c$$
$$1=a(1)^2+b(1)+c$$
The equations simplify to:
$$c=0$$
$$1=a+b$$
So the $c$ of your quadratic equation will be always 0. $a$ is your "width" of the parabola. The lower the value, the wider it is, the higher the value, the narrower it is. Just remember that whatever $a$ you chose, you have to chose $b$ so that $a+b=1$ as can be seen in the second equation.
To get the equation in terms of $W$ simply complete the square and manipulate the standard quadratic form (note that $c$ is $0$, so we exclude $c$):
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
$$y=aBig(x^2+frac{b}{a}xBig)$$
$$y=aBig(x+frac{b}{2a}Big)^2-frac{b^2}{4a}$$
Now, since $a+b=1$ then $b=1-a$:
$$y=aBig(x+frac{1-a}{2a}Big)^2-frac{(1-a)^2}{4a}$$
Now, simply define $W=frac{1}{a}$ and the equation will change into:
$$y=frac{big(x+frac{W-1}{2}big)^2}{W}-frac{(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
Then, combine the two fractions into one and expand exponent:
$$y=frac{4Big(x^2+(W-1)x+frac{(W-1)^2}{4}Big)-(W-1)^2}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{4x^2+4(W-1)x}{4W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2+(W-1)x}{W}$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
And that's it! We derived the equation in terms of $W$. Now, simply to change the width of the parabola, you change $W$. The bigger $W$, the wider the parabola, the lower $W$, the narrower the parabola. (Opposite of what happens if you change $a$ because we defined $W=frac{1}{a}$). The parabola will rest on the points $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ as expected.
Also, notice what happens when you increase $W$ to infinity. With some further analysis, and taking $lim_{Wtoinfty} y$, you can see that the equation slowly becomes the line $y=x$, which is exactly what you predicted and wanted!
Note: If you would ever need three points instead of two, you won't be able to change the width of the parabola because three points describe exactly one parabola. With two points you have infinite parabolas, hence the ability to change width.
EDIT: I was answering it fast, and now I realized, that you don't have to complete the square at all! You simply need to start with:
$$y=ax^2+bx$$
Then just plug in $b=1-a$, and then $a=frac{1}{W}$:
$$y=ax^2+(1-a)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+Big(1-frac{1}{W}Big)x$$
$$y=frac{x^2}{W}+frac{(W-1)}{W}x$$
Sorry for making it more complicated than it should be.
edited Nov 24 at 17:08
answered Nov 24 at 15:50
KKZiomek
1,9691337
1,9691337
1
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
2
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
add a comment |
1
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
2
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
1
1
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
Great it works. Thanks :) it seems to be very simple that I am embarased that I asked :)
– pajczur
Nov 24 at 16:54
2
2
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
It's fine, that's what this site is for :)
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 17:00
add a comment |
I think
$$
f(x) = frac{x(x-1)}{W} + x
$$
will do what you want.
For large $W$ this will be nearly straight between the two points you specified. For very large $x$ (positive or negative) it will grow without bound.
(This is what happens if you finish the algebra that @KKZiomek started.)
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
add a comment |
I think
$$
f(x) = frac{x(x-1)}{W} + x
$$
will do what you want.
For large $W$ this will be nearly straight between the two points you specified. For very large $x$ (positive or negative) it will grow without bound.
(This is what happens if you finish the algebra that @KKZiomek started.)
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
add a comment |
I think
$$
f(x) = frac{x(x-1)}{W} + x
$$
will do what you want.
For large $W$ this will be nearly straight between the two points you specified. For very large $x$ (positive or negative) it will grow without bound.
(This is what happens if you finish the algebra that @KKZiomek started.)
I think
$$
f(x) = frac{x(x-1)}{W} + x
$$
will do what you want.
For large $W$ this will be nearly straight between the two points you specified. For very large $x$ (positive or negative) it will grow without bound.
(This is what happens if you finish the algebra that @KKZiomek started.)
answered Nov 24 at 15:54
Ethan Bolker
40.8k546108
40.8k546108
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
add a comment |
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
This is the answer KKZiomek would eventually get, but it's easier to see this as (A) all quadratics with roots 0 and 1 plus (B) a polynomial of degree ≤2 through (0,0) and (1,1).
– Teepeemm
Nov 25 at 1:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3011693%2fparabola-always-through-two-points%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I edited my answer, now I derived the equation in terms of W. It's slightly different form than you expected, but it's very similar.
– KKZiomek
Nov 24 at 16:14
3
You've already accepted an answer, but I want to point out that in your equation, you were also forcing your parabola to be centered around the $y$-axis. That, along with requiring that it pass through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ takes alway all three degrees of freedom in an upward-opening parabola. That is why you had nothing left to adjust the width with. The two solutions drop the "centered around the $y$-axis" requirement, leaving them a degree of freedom to adjust the width.
– Paul Sinclair
Nov 24 at 18:02