Given a random equation of a curve: $ax^2 + 2hxy + by^2 + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0$.
Suppose we need to find the tangent to this curve at any point $A(x_1, y_1)$. A method given to me by my professor was the 'T' method:
The 'T' form of an equation can be obtained by replacing:
$$x^2 \rightarrow xx_1$$ $$y^2 \rightarrow yy_1$$ $$x \rightarrow \frac{x + x_1}{2}$$ $$y \rightarrow \frac{y + y_1}{2}$$ $$xy \rightarrow \frac{xy_1 + x_1y}{2}$$
The tangent to the curve is then the equation $T=0$.
For instance, if we need to find the tangent at $(2, 2)$ to the parabola $y^2 - 2x=0$:
$T =0$: $\implies yy_1 - 2\frac{x+x_1}{2} = 0$
Substituting $x_1 = 2$ and $y_1 = 2$: $$2y - (x+2) = 0$$ $$\implies 2y - x = 2$$
which is the required tangent.
I don't understand how this works! Could someone help me understand why it does?
This also works for other cases like:
- Deriving the equation of the two tangents to a curve from a certain external point: $SS_1 = T^2$ (S is the equation of the curve and S1 is the value given by the equation when the point is substituted into it (the power of the point wrt the curve))
First of all, you probably know that the tangent at $x_0$ of the parabola $y=ax^2$ is: $$ y = ax_0^2 + 2ax_0(x-x_0). $$
If you didn't know this, keep reading! This means that, if we stay "close enough" to $x_0$, the line above is the one that approximates best the direction of the parabola.
In particular, if we move from $x_0$ to $x_0 + \Delta x$, we get: $$ a(x_0+\Delta x)^2 = ax_0^2 + 2ax_0\Delta x + a(\Delta x)^2. $$
You see that if $\Delta x$ is very small, the last term tends to vanish, and $$ a(x_0+\Delta x)^2 \approx ax_0^2 + 2ax_0\Delta x $$
becomes a very good approximation. Since $\Delta x = x-x_0$, the equation of the line given by: $$ y = ax_0^2 + 2ax_0(x-x_0) $$
is the equation of our desired tangent.
Your "T-formula" implies that a curve $C$ with equation: $$ ax^2 + 2hxy + by^2 + 2 gx +2 fy + c =0 $$
has tangent $T$ in $(x_0,y_0)$: $$ axx_0 + h(xy_0+x_0y) + byy_0 + g(x+x_0) + f(y+y_0) +c=0. $$
We would like to show now that $T$ is tangent, that is, that $T$ is the best possible approximation of $C$ if we stay "close enough" to the point.
If we move from $(x_0,y_0)$ to $(x_0+\Delta x, y_0+\Delta y)$, like before, we get: $$ a(x_0+\Delta x)^2 + 2h(x_0+\Delta x)(y_0+\Delta y) + b(y_0+\Delta y)^2 + 2 g(x_0+\Delta x) +2 f(y_0+\Delta y) + c =0. $$
Expanding the products: $$ \begin{array}{c} a(x_0^2+2x_0\Delta x+\Delta x^2)+ \\ + 2h(x_0y_0+\Delta xy_0+x_0\Delta y+\Delta x\Delta y)+ \\ + b(y_0^2+2y_0\Delta y+\Delta y^2)+ \\ + 2 g(x_0+\Delta x) +\\ +2 f(y_0+\Delta y) + c =0. \end{array} $$
Like before, we can neglect the quadratic "small" terms to get a linear equation, which approximates our curve in the best way possible. We obtain: $$ \begin{array}{c} a(x_0^2+2x_0\Delta x) + 2h(x_0y_0+\Delta xy_0+x_0\Delta y) + b(y_0^2+2y_0\Delta y)+ \\ + 2 g(x_0+\Delta x) +2 f(y_0+\Delta y) + c =0. \end{array} $$
To get the equation in $x,y$ for the line, we must (like before) replace $\Delta x$ with $(x-x_0)$, and now also $\Delta y$ with $(y-y_0)$. So: $$ \begin{array}{c} a(x_0^2+2x_0(x-x_0)) + 2h(x_0y_0+(x-x_0)y_0+x_0(y-y_0)) + b(y_0^2+2y_0(y-y_0))+ \\ + 2 g(x_0+x-x_0) +2 f(y_0+y-y_0) + c =0. \end{array} $$
Summing, we get: $$ \begin{array}{c} a(-x_0^2+2x_0x) + 2h(-x_0y_0+xy_0+x_0y) + b(-y_0^2+2y_0y)+ \\ + 2 gx +2 fy + c =0. \end{array} $$
This is an equation for the line, but we still haven't used the fact that the line must pass through our point $(x_0,y_0)$. Or, we still have to ensure that $(x_0,y_0)$ satisfies the equation for $C$. Now, we rewrite the expression above in the following way (we have moved the terms in $a,h,c$, and added and subtracted the terms in g,f,c): $$ \begin{array}{c} a(2x_0x) + 2h(xy_0+x_0y) + b(2y_0y) + g(x +x_0) + f(y+y_0) + 2c +\\ -(ax_0^2+2hx_0y_0+by_0^2+gx_0+fy_0+c) =0. \end{array} $$
Saying that $(x_0,y_0)$ passes through $C$ is saying that the second line vanishes! So we are finally left with: $$ 2ax_0x + 2h(xy_0+x_0y) + 2by_0y + g(x +x_0) + f(y+y_0) + 2c =0. $$
Dividing both sides by $2$, we get exactly your formula.
(Yes, it is a rather long and complicated process. I can't come up with a simpler one that doesn't lose clarity and doesn't use advanced calculus. This is probably why they never prove it in high school! Anyway, I'd be very very happy to see a shorter, elementary proof.)