Why do early math courses focus on the cross sections of a cone and not on other 3D objects?
$begingroup$
Conic sections seem to get special attention in early math classes.
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
I have a couple of guess:
- Studying a particular "simple" example can provide insight into the general idea (i.e. cross sections of higher dimensional objects). And conic sections are deemed simple.
- The applications of ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas are just so vast that their graphs and properties deserve special studying (e.g. elliptical orbits).
I'd really appreciate some outside thoughts on this, even if it is just speculation. I've been giving cross sections some special study attention recently and have done a handful of google searches to try and understand why conic sections keep coming up (as can be seen in a lot of math curriculum).
Thank you!
conic-sections cross-sections
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conic sections seem to get special attention in early math classes.
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
I have a couple of guess:
- Studying a particular "simple" example can provide insight into the general idea (i.e. cross sections of higher dimensional objects). And conic sections are deemed simple.
- The applications of ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas are just so vast that their graphs and properties deserve special studying (e.g. elliptical orbits).
I'd really appreciate some outside thoughts on this, even if it is just speculation. I've been giving cross sections some special study attention recently and have done a handful of google searches to try and understand why conic sections keep coming up (as can be seen in a lot of math curriculum).
Thank you!
conic-sections cross-sections
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conic sections seem to get special attention in early math classes.
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
I have a couple of guess:
- Studying a particular "simple" example can provide insight into the general idea (i.e. cross sections of higher dimensional objects). And conic sections are deemed simple.
- The applications of ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas are just so vast that their graphs and properties deserve special studying (e.g. elliptical orbits).
I'd really appreciate some outside thoughts on this, even if it is just speculation. I've been giving cross sections some special study attention recently and have done a handful of google searches to try and understand why conic sections keep coming up (as can be seen in a lot of math curriculum).
Thank you!
conic-sections cross-sections
$endgroup$
Conic sections seem to get special attention in early math classes.
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
I have a couple of guess:
- Studying a particular "simple" example can provide insight into the general idea (i.e. cross sections of higher dimensional objects). And conic sections are deemed simple.
- The applications of ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas are just so vast that their graphs and properties deserve special studying (e.g. elliptical orbits).
I'd really appreciate some outside thoughts on this, even if it is just speculation. I've been giving cross sections some special study attention recently and have done a handful of google searches to try and understand why conic sections keep coming up (as can be seen in a lot of math curriculum).
Thank you!
conic-sections cross-sections
conic-sections cross-sections
asked 1 hour ago
Beasted1010Beasted1010
2112
2112
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Elementary algebra begins with the study of linear equations. Quadratic equations naturally come next. Their graphs are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas. The Greek geometers knew them as sections of a cone. That geometry is often left out of beginning math courses today.
The quadratic functions are particularly useful in physics. I think they are not nearly as useful in other applications, or in understanding numbers in the news. When I teach mathematics to students who are not planning to go on in science we work on exponential functions instead.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the things that makes a cone simpler than a cube is that it is an *algebraic object” that can be defined by a simple polynomial identity ($x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 0$). Taking cross-sections preserves this algebraic nature (since an infinite plane is also algebraic) so we end up with a quadratic curve in two variables, which is a fairly nice object. In some sense these are the “simplest” possible shapes beyond straight lines.
At the same time, you are probably aware that the shape of a quadratic curve varies drastically depending on where the minus signs live. The equation of a cone has enough minus signs that it is able to represent pretty much the entire spectrum of such curves, in contrast to, say, a sphere.
Lastly, there is some extent to which we study these because they were studied classically by the ancient Greek geometers. This kind of speaks to the utility angle in that there would be more applications of things that are well studied. But the preceding two points show that there are objective (non-historical) reasons to consider conic sections interesting. They are simple enough to be studied very thoroughly, and this simplicity also increases the chances that they would emerge naturally in many situations.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
Because there's nothing else. Look at the common 3D solids. The cross sections of a cuboid (and in fact any other polytope) are just a bunch of straight lines connected together, so this is just a piecewise linear graph, and piecewise linear graphs don't need to be motivated as cross-sections of three-dimensional objects. The cross sections of a spheroids (ellipsoids) are ellipses, which come up in cross sections of cones anyway. The cross sections of a cylinder are either trapeziums or circles. These are much less interesting and rich than conic sections!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the reason conic sections are focused on is that not everyone in the early math classes are assumed to have a special interest in mathematics and because conic sections involve the most applications relative to their complexity. A student who wants to become a physicist and would have applications for equations of conic sections has no use for the study of more complex geometrical objects associated with abstract and pure mathematics.
Another reason is most likely that conic sections are the most information-rich and interesting geometrical objects available to students in these early classes, and can be shared interdisciplinarily and used as examples in later math classes, like calc.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f3193067%2fwhy-do-early-math-courses-focus-on-the-cross-sections-of-a-cone-and-not-on-other%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Elementary algebra begins with the study of linear equations. Quadratic equations naturally come next. Their graphs are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas. The Greek geometers knew them as sections of a cone. That geometry is often left out of beginning math courses today.
The quadratic functions are particularly useful in physics. I think they are not nearly as useful in other applications, or in understanding numbers in the news. When I teach mathematics to students who are not planning to go on in science we work on exponential functions instead.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Elementary algebra begins with the study of linear equations. Quadratic equations naturally come next. Their graphs are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas. The Greek geometers knew them as sections of a cone. That geometry is often left out of beginning math courses today.
The quadratic functions are particularly useful in physics. I think they are not nearly as useful in other applications, or in understanding numbers in the news. When I teach mathematics to students who are not planning to go on in science we work on exponential functions instead.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Elementary algebra begins with the study of linear equations. Quadratic equations naturally come next. Their graphs are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas. The Greek geometers knew them as sections of a cone. That geometry is often left out of beginning math courses today.
The quadratic functions are particularly useful in physics. I think they are not nearly as useful in other applications, or in understanding numbers in the news. When I teach mathematics to students who are not planning to go on in science we work on exponential functions instead.
$endgroup$
Elementary algebra begins with the study of linear equations. Quadratic equations naturally come next. Their graphs are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas. The Greek geometers knew them as sections of a cone. That geometry is often left out of beginning math courses today.
The quadratic functions are particularly useful in physics. I think they are not nearly as useful in other applications, or in understanding numbers in the news. When I teach mathematics to students who are not planning to go on in science we work on exponential functions instead.
answered 59 mins ago
Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker
46.3k555121
46.3k555121
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the things that makes a cone simpler than a cube is that it is an *algebraic object” that can be defined by a simple polynomial identity ($x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 0$). Taking cross-sections preserves this algebraic nature (since an infinite plane is also algebraic) so we end up with a quadratic curve in two variables, which is a fairly nice object. In some sense these are the “simplest” possible shapes beyond straight lines.
At the same time, you are probably aware that the shape of a quadratic curve varies drastically depending on where the minus signs live. The equation of a cone has enough minus signs that it is able to represent pretty much the entire spectrum of such curves, in contrast to, say, a sphere.
Lastly, there is some extent to which we study these because they were studied classically by the ancient Greek geometers. This kind of speaks to the utility angle in that there would be more applications of things that are well studied. But the preceding two points show that there are objective (non-historical) reasons to consider conic sections interesting. They are simple enough to be studied very thoroughly, and this simplicity also increases the chances that they would emerge naturally in many situations.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the things that makes a cone simpler than a cube is that it is an *algebraic object” that can be defined by a simple polynomial identity ($x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 0$). Taking cross-sections preserves this algebraic nature (since an infinite plane is also algebraic) so we end up with a quadratic curve in two variables, which is a fairly nice object. In some sense these are the “simplest” possible shapes beyond straight lines.
At the same time, you are probably aware that the shape of a quadratic curve varies drastically depending on where the minus signs live. The equation of a cone has enough minus signs that it is able to represent pretty much the entire spectrum of such curves, in contrast to, say, a sphere.
Lastly, there is some extent to which we study these because they were studied classically by the ancient Greek geometers. This kind of speaks to the utility angle in that there would be more applications of things that are well studied. But the preceding two points show that there are objective (non-historical) reasons to consider conic sections interesting. They are simple enough to be studied very thoroughly, and this simplicity also increases the chances that they would emerge naturally in many situations.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the things that makes a cone simpler than a cube is that it is an *algebraic object” that can be defined by a simple polynomial identity ($x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 0$). Taking cross-sections preserves this algebraic nature (since an infinite plane is also algebraic) so we end up with a quadratic curve in two variables, which is a fairly nice object. In some sense these are the “simplest” possible shapes beyond straight lines.
At the same time, you are probably aware that the shape of a quadratic curve varies drastically depending on where the minus signs live. The equation of a cone has enough minus signs that it is able to represent pretty much the entire spectrum of such curves, in contrast to, say, a sphere.
Lastly, there is some extent to which we study these because they were studied classically by the ancient Greek geometers. This kind of speaks to the utility angle in that there would be more applications of things that are well studied. But the preceding two points show that there are objective (non-historical) reasons to consider conic sections interesting. They are simple enough to be studied very thoroughly, and this simplicity also increases the chances that they would emerge naturally in many situations.
$endgroup$
One of the things that makes a cone simpler than a cube is that it is an *algebraic object” that can be defined by a simple polynomial identity ($x^2 + y^2 - z^2 = 0$). Taking cross-sections preserves this algebraic nature (since an infinite plane is also algebraic) so we end up with a quadratic curve in two variables, which is a fairly nice object. In some sense these are the “simplest” possible shapes beyond straight lines.
At the same time, you are probably aware that the shape of a quadratic curve varies drastically depending on where the minus signs live. The equation of a cone has enough minus signs that it is able to represent pretty much the entire spectrum of such curves, in contrast to, say, a sphere.
Lastly, there is some extent to which we study these because they were studied classically by the ancient Greek geometers. This kind of speaks to the utility angle in that there would be more applications of things that are well studied. But the preceding two points show that there are objective (non-historical) reasons to consider conic sections interesting. They are simple enough to be studied very thoroughly, and this simplicity also increases the chances that they would emerge naturally in many situations.
answered 43 mins ago
Erick WongErick Wong
20.4k22666
20.4k22666
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
Because there's nothing else. Look at the common 3D solids. The cross sections of a cuboid (and in fact any other polytope) are just a bunch of straight lines connected together, so this is just a piecewise linear graph, and piecewise linear graphs don't need to be motivated as cross-sections of three-dimensional objects. The cross sections of a spheroids (ellipsoids) are ellipses, which come up in cross sections of cones anyway. The cross sections of a cylinder are either trapeziums or circles. These are much less interesting and rich than conic sections!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
Because there's nothing else. Look at the common 3D solids. The cross sections of a cuboid (and in fact any other polytope) are just a bunch of straight lines connected together, so this is just a piecewise linear graph, and piecewise linear graphs don't need to be motivated as cross-sections of three-dimensional objects. The cross sections of a spheroids (ellipsoids) are ellipses, which come up in cross sections of cones anyway. The cross sections of a cylinder are either trapeziums or circles. These are much less interesting and rich than conic sections!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
Because there's nothing else. Look at the common 3D solids. The cross sections of a cuboid (and in fact any other polytope) are just a bunch of straight lines connected together, so this is just a piecewise linear graph, and piecewise linear graphs don't need to be motivated as cross-sections of three-dimensional objects. The cross sections of a spheroids (ellipsoids) are ellipses, which come up in cross sections of cones anyway. The cross sections of a cylinder are either trapeziums or circles. These are much less interesting and rich than conic sections!
$endgroup$
My question is why do these cross sections of cones deserve more attention than those of, say, a rectangular prism, a cube, or some other 3D (or any dimensional) object?
Because there's nothing else. Look at the common 3D solids. The cross sections of a cuboid (and in fact any other polytope) are just a bunch of straight lines connected together, so this is just a piecewise linear graph, and piecewise linear graphs don't need to be motivated as cross-sections of three-dimensional objects. The cross sections of a spheroids (ellipsoids) are ellipses, which come up in cross sections of cones anyway. The cross sections of a cylinder are either trapeziums or circles. These are much less interesting and rich than conic sections!
answered 47 mins ago
YiFanYiFan
5,4102828
5,4102828
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the reason conic sections are focused on is that not everyone in the early math classes are assumed to have a special interest in mathematics and because conic sections involve the most applications relative to their complexity. A student who wants to become a physicist and would have applications for equations of conic sections has no use for the study of more complex geometrical objects associated with abstract and pure mathematics.
Another reason is most likely that conic sections are the most information-rich and interesting geometrical objects available to students in these early classes, and can be shared interdisciplinarily and used as examples in later math classes, like calc.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the reason conic sections are focused on is that not everyone in the early math classes are assumed to have a special interest in mathematics and because conic sections involve the most applications relative to their complexity. A student who wants to become a physicist and would have applications for equations of conic sections has no use for the study of more complex geometrical objects associated with abstract and pure mathematics.
Another reason is most likely that conic sections are the most information-rich and interesting geometrical objects available to students in these early classes, and can be shared interdisciplinarily and used as examples in later math classes, like calc.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the reason conic sections are focused on is that not everyone in the early math classes are assumed to have a special interest in mathematics and because conic sections involve the most applications relative to their complexity. A student who wants to become a physicist and would have applications for equations of conic sections has no use for the study of more complex geometrical objects associated with abstract and pure mathematics.
Another reason is most likely that conic sections are the most information-rich and interesting geometrical objects available to students in these early classes, and can be shared interdisciplinarily and used as examples in later math classes, like calc.
$endgroup$
I think the reason conic sections are focused on is that not everyone in the early math classes are assumed to have a special interest in mathematics and because conic sections involve the most applications relative to their complexity. A student who wants to become a physicist and would have applications for equations of conic sections has no use for the study of more complex geometrical objects associated with abstract and pure mathematics.
Another reason is most likely that conic sections are the most information-rich and interesting geometrical objects available to students in these early classes, and can be shared interdisciplinarily and used as examples in later math classes, like calc.
answered 40 mins ago
Ryan SheslerRyan Shesler
1399
1399
add a comment |
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.
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%2f3193067%2fwhy-do-early-math-courses-focus-on-the-cross-sections-of-a-cone-and-not-on-other%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