0

An ellipse is

defined as the set of points, the sum of whose distances from two "focus" points is a constant.

Take the two focus points to be $(c,0)$ and $(-c,0)$, and the sum of the distances to be $2a$. $(x,y)$ is on the ellipse if and only if

$$\sqrt{(x-c)^2+y^2}+\sqrt{(x-(-c))^2+y^2}=2a\tag{1}$$

$$\sqrt{(x-c)^2+y^2}=2a-\sqrt{(x+c)^2+y^2}$$

Square both sides

$$(x-c)^2+y^2=4a^2-4a\sqrt{(x+c)^2+y^2}+(x+c)^2+y^2$$

$$\implies a^2-cx=a\sqrt{(x+c)^2+y^2}$$

Square both sides again and simplify to

$$x^2(c^2-a^2)-a^2y^2=a^2(c^2-a^2)$$

Here we need to assume that $c \neq a$, and we get

$$\frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{a^2-c^2}=1\tag{2}$$

This is usually simply written

$$\frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2}=1$$

where $b=\sqrt{a^2-c^2}$ (since we must clearly choose $a>c$, it follows that $a^2-c^2>0$)

If we define $b$ as the square root as above, then yes, we must clearly have $a>c$, but it is not clear why must we define b this way? Why can't we have $a<c$ and still have an ellipse? The expression $(2)$ followed from the definition of ellipse in $(1)$ and there were no restrictions except possibly that $a>0$.

xoux
  • 4,913
  • 1
    If $a\le c$, then we couldn't have a point in the plane such that the sum of the distances from the focal points is $2a$: the distance between the focal points is already $2c\ge 2a$ so existence of such a point would contradict the triangle inequality (A side in a triangle is always smaller than the sum of the two opposite sides). –  Nov 16 '21 at 15:00
  • Intuitively it makes sense. But considering just the equations, there is also the fact that when we define hyperbola as "the set of points for which the difference of the distances to the foci is constant", we reach the same equation $(2)$. Actually just before placing it in that form we actually have the equation $x^2(c^2-a^2)=a^2(y^2+c^2-a^2)$. This equation has at least one solution no matter what the values of $a$ and $c$ are. – xoux Nov 16 '21 at 15:16
  • 1
    We may reach the same equation, but this does not mean that the original equations are equivalent. You reach the same equation by squaring both sides of something. This is not making an equivalent equation to the one you've started with. If you have $\sqrt{\text{something}}\pm\sqrt{\text{something else}}=A$, both end up as $\pm\sqrt{\text{something else}}=A-\sqrt{\text{something}}$ and then $\text{something else}=A^2-2A\sqrt{\text{something}}+\text{something}$ - but in the last step you lost the information whether the sign was plus or minus. –  Nov 16 '21 at 15:23
  • I've added the algebra steps. Is there a particular equation where we need to make the assumption that $a > c$ (ie without relying on the intuitive argument, simply relying on the actual equations being true)? – xoux Nov 16 '21 at 15:29
  • 1
    Thanks for clarification. This probably now deserves a proper answer (not just a comment) and I will see what I can do. Hope others may chip in. –  Nov 16 '21 at 15:47
  • See my post about confocal conics here. – Ng Chung Tak Nov 16 '21 at 16:01

0 Answers0