elipse of units

[shahar]

Why can't I define like a "circle of unit" to understand problem with complex numbers but not "elipse of unit" to solve that problems?

 

[tkhunny]

Why can't I define like a "circle of unit" to understand problem with complex numbers but not "elipse of unit" to solve that problems?

A "Unit Circle"?

A circle IS an elipse.

 

[shahar]

I try to explain

Another question:
Why can't I find a Gaussian graph with graph of ellipse picture?
(I can say that my Computer is very slow and let not speak about google).

 

[Deleted member 4993]

Why can't I define like a "circle of unit" to understand problem with complex numbers but not "elipse of unit" to solve that problems?

Circle has ONE parameter - the radius (r). The unit circle has r = 1.

Ellipses have TWO parameters - the major and the minor axes (a & b).

You can make both (a & b) equal to one to refer to unit - but then ellipse becomes circle.

 

[shahar]

Circle has ONE parameter - the radius (r). The unit circle has r = 1.

Ellipses have TWO parameters - the major and the minor axes (a & b).

You can make both (a & b) equal to one to refer to unit - but then ellipse becomes circle.

What there isn't a picture of ellipse in Gausian plane?

 

[Deleted member 4993]

What there isn't a picture of ellipse in Gausian plane?

 

[shahar]

This elipse look to me ugly.
(1) Where is the source?
(2) What they not "perfect" ellipse as Painter Software of Windows ellipse?

 

[HallsofIvy]

So you are not talking about mathematics, you just don't like that particular picture? Yes, as a representation of ellipses that is very poorly done with poor resolution. It appears to have been done by calculating "n" points on the graph, for n relatively small, then straight lines drawn between those points. The graphs would probably look much better if "n" were larger. You ask about a "source". Where did you get those pictures?

 

[topsquark]

I guess my question is What would the word "unit" mean for a (non-circular) ellipse? The unit circle is called such because its radius is 1. What would a relevant measure be on an ellipse? An ellipse effectively has two different "radii" to consider.

-Dan

 

[JeffM]

I guess my question is What would the word "unit" mean for a (non-circular) ellipse? The unit circle is called such because its radius is 1. What would a relevant measure be on an ellipse? An ellipse effectively has two different "radii" to consider.

-Dan

I might quibble with this answer. The major and minor axes are not radii in most senses of the word "radius."

Moreover, I doubt that a unit ellipse is a meaningful idea. We can place an infinite number of distinct ellipses with a center at the origin and x-intercepts at (-1, 0) and (1, 0).

The unit circle is a meaningful concept because it has a single focus and thus no eccentricity.

 

[topsquark]

I might quibble with this answer. The major and minor axes are not radii in most senses of the word "radius."

Moreover, I doubt that a unit ellipse is a meaningful idea. We can place an infinite number of distinct ellipses with a center at the origin and x-intercepts at (-1, 0) and (1, 0).

The unit circle is a meaningful concept because it has a single focus and thus no eccentricity.

Hey, I'm not arguing. I'm just wondering what the OP thinks the properties a unit ellipse should have.

-Dan

 

[JeffM]

Hey, I'm not arguing. I'm just wondering what the OP thinks the properties a unit ellipse should have.

-Dan

I said it was a quibble.

I do not think there is any utility to the idea because a unique ellipse cannot be identified in terms of a single number such as the measure of a radius. An ellipse is a more complicated beast than a circle, which is the simplest conic section imaginable.

 

[Deleted member 4993]

I said it was a quibble.

I do not think there is any utility to the idea because a unique ellipse cannot be identified in terms of a single number such as the measure of a radius. An ellipse is a more complicated beast than a circle, which is the simplest conic section imaginable.

Simpler than "pair of st. lines"??