MathGroup Archive 2002

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Parametric surface

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg35261] Re: [mg35241] Parametric surface
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <andrzej at>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 02:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

First of all this situation defines at best one surface, not two. It may 
be possible to obtain a graph of this surface but it depends very much 
on what the equations are. The best approach I can think of has been 
described on this list on on several occasions by Carl Woll: it is based 
on turning the equations into a system of partial differential equations 
and then using NDSolve to obtain  solutions in terms of interpolating 
functions. One has to guess suitable initial conditions and the range of 
values of a and b you want to use in your plot. Finally, Mathematica 
must be able to solve these equations, whihc is by no means guaranteed. 
Once that has been done one can get the graph using ParametricPlot3D. I 
think there is little more that can be said without knowing what the 
equations are.

Andrzej Kozlowski
Toyama International University

On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 06:15  PM, Jun Lin wrote:

> Given functions F=F(x,y;a,b) and G=G(x,y;a,b), where x and y are
> coordinates and a and b are parameters. So,
>  F(x,y;a,b)=0,
> {
>  G(x,y;a,b)=0
> defines two 3D surfaces:
>  x=x(a,b),
> {
>  y=y(a,b).
> Suppose the functions F and G are implicit and transcendental, so they
> are cumbersome to be solved directly to give x=x(a,b) and y=y(a,b). My
> question is whether it is possible to draw these two surfaces from
> relations F=0 and G=0.
> I appreciate with your help!
> Jun Lin

  • Prev by Date: Re: Examples using Trig option
  • Next by Date: Re: Examples using Trig option
  • Previous by thread: Parametric surface
  • Next by thread: Re: Parametric surface