In Section, we introduced the Cartesian coordinates of a point in the plane as a means of assigning ordered pairs of numbers to points in the plane. We defined the Cartesian coordinate plane using two number lines – one horizontal and one vertical – which intersect at right angles at a point we called the `origin'. To plot a point, say , we start at the origin, travel horizontally to the left units, then up units. Alternatively, we could start at the origin, travel up units, then to the left units and arrive at the same location. For the most part, the `motions' of the Cartesian system (over and up) describe a rectangle, and most points can be thought of as the corner diagonally across the rectangle from the origin.1 For this reason, the Cartesian coordinates of a point are often called `rectangular' coordinates. In this section, we introduce a new system for assigning coordinates to points in the plane – polar coordinates. We start with an origin point, called the pole, and a ray called the polar axis. We then locate a point using two coordinates, , where represents a directed distance from the pole2 and is a measure of rotation from the polar axis. Roughly speaking, the polar coordinates of a point measure `how far out' the point is from the pole (that's ), and `how far to rotate' from the polar axis, (that's ).
Figure 11.53Figure 11.54
For example, if we wished to plot the point with polar coordinates , we'd start at the pole, move out along the polar axis units, then rotate radians counter-clockwise.
Figure 11.55Figure 11.56Figure 11.57
We may also visualize this process by thinking of the rotation first.3 To plot this way, we rotate counter-clockwise from the polar axis, then move outwards from the pole units. Essentially we are locating a point on the terminal side of which is units away from the pole.
Figure 11.58Figure 11.59Figure 11.60
If , we begin by moving in the opposite direction on the polar axis from the pole. For example, to plot we have
Figure 11.61Figure 11.62Figure 11.63
If we interpret the angle first, we rotate radians, then move back through the pole units. Here we are locating a point units away from the pole on the terminal side of , not .
Figure 11.64Figure 11.65Figure 11.66
As you may have guessed, means the rotation away from the polar axis is clockwise instead of counter-clockwise. Hence, to plot we have the following.
Figure 11.67Figure 11.68Figure 11.69
From an `angles first' approach, we rotate then move out units from the pole. We see that is the point on the terminal side of which is units from the pole.
Figure 11.70Figure 11.71Figure 11.72
The points and above are, in fact, the same point despite the fact that their polar coordinate representations are different. Unlike Cartesian coordinates where and represent the same point if and only if and , a point can be represented by infinitely many polar coordinate pairs. We explore this notion more in the following example.
Now that we have had some practice with plotting points in polar coordinates, it should come as no surprise that any given point expressed in polar coordinates has infinitely many other representations in polar coordinates. The following result characterizes when two sets of polar coordinates determine the same point in the plane. It could be considered as a definition or a theorem, depending on your point of view. We state it as a property of the polar coordinate system.
Equivalent Representations of Points in Polar Coordinates
Suppose and are polar coordinates where , and the angles are measured in radians. Then and determine the same point if and only if one of the following is true:
and for some integer
and for some integer
All polar coordinates of the form represent the pole regardless of the value of .
The key to understanding this result, and indeed the whole polar coordinate system, is to keep in mind that means . If , then no matter how much rotation is performed, the point never leaves the pole. Thus is the pole for all values of . Now let's assume that neither nor is zero. If and determine the same point then the (non-zero) distance from to the pole in each case must be the same. Since this distance is controlled by the first coordinate, we have that either or . If , then when plotting and , the angles and have the same initial side. Hence, if and determine the same point, we must have that is coterminal with . We know that this means for some integer , as required. If, on the other hand, , then when plotting and , the initial side of is rotated radians away from the initial side of . In this case, must be coterminal with . Hence, which we rewrite as for some integer . Conversely, if and for some integer , then the points and lie the same (directed) distance from the pole on the terminal sides of coterminal angles, and hence are the same point. Now suppose and for some integer . To plot , we first move a directed distance from the pole; to plot , our first step is to move the same distance from the pole as , but in the opposite direction. At this intermediate stage, we have two points equidistant from the pole rotated exactly radians apart. Since for some integer , we see that is coterminal to and it is this extra radians of rotation which aligns the points and .
Next, we marry the polar coordinate system with the Cartesian (rectangular) coordinate system. To do so, we identify the pole and polar axis in the polar system to the origin and positive -axis, respectively, in the rectangular system. We get the following result.
In the case , Theorem is an immediate consequence of Theorem along with the quotient identity . If , then we know an alternate representation for is . Since and , applying the theorem to gives and . Moreover, , and , so the theorem is true in this case, too. The remaining case is , in which case is the pole. Since the pole is identified with the origin in rectangular coordinates, the theorem in this case amounts to checking `.' The following example puts Theorem to good use.
Now that we've had practice converting representations of points between the rectangular and polar coordinate systems, we now set about converting equations from one system to another. Just as we've used equations in and to represent relations in rectangular coordinates, equations in the variables and represent relations in polar coordinates. We convert equations between the two systems using Theorem as the next example illustrates.
In practice, much of the pedantic verification of the equivalence of equations in Example Example 3 is left unsaid. Indeed, in most textbooks, squaring equations like to arrive at happens without a second thought. Your instructor will ultimately decide how much, if any, justification is warranted. If you take anything away from Example Example 3, it should be that relatively nice things in rectangular coordinates, such as , can turn ugly in polar coordinates, and vice-versa. In the next section, we devote our attention to graphing equations like the ones given in Example Example 3 number on the Cartesian coordinate plane without converting back to rectangular coordinates. If nothing else, number above shows the price we pay if we insist on always converting to back to the more familiar rectangular coordinate system.
Exercises
In Exercises -, plot the point given in polar coordinates and then give three different expressions for the point such that (a) and , (b) and (c) and
Convert the origin into polar coordinates in four different ways.
With the help of your classmates, use the Law of Cosines to develop a formula for the distance between two points in polar coordinates.
In Exercises -, convert the point from polar coordinates into rectangular coordinates.
In Exercises -, convert the point from rectangular coordinates into polar coordinates with and .
In Exercises -, convert the equation from rectangular coordinates into polar coordinates. Solve for in all but # through #. In Exercises -, you need to solve for
In Exercises -, convert the equation from polar coordinates into rectangular coordinates.
Answers
Figure 11.93
Figure 11.94
Figure 11.95
Figure 11.96
Figure 11.97
Figure 11.98
Figure 11.99
Figure 11.100
Figure 11.101
Figure 11.102
Figure 11.103
Figure 11.104
Figure 11.105
Figure 11.106
Figure 11.107
Figure 11.108
or
or
or
or
Any point of the form will work, e.g. and
Adapted from Precalculus, 3rd corrected edition, by Carl Stitz and Jeff Zeager (stitz-zeager.com), licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. Changes were made: reformatted as an accessible XYZ web edition. License: CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0.