The general conic and four tangent line problems

George Baloglou, State University of New York at Oswego

and Michel Helfgott, East Tenessee State University

In this note we consider four types of problems dealing with tangents to conics. The
first three problems are rather well known to Calculus students. Our main goal is to
demonstrate that they can also be made accessible to Pre-Calculus students. We also
investigate a fourth type of problem that is largely intractable using the standard Calculus
methods, hence generally absent from the college curriculum.

We achieve our goals following an approach that is an offspring of Descartes’ rather

awkward method of finding tangent lines; Descartes’ method, based on circles “kissing”
a curve, is discussed in [1] and [2]. Our modified Cartesian approach (MCM),
occasionally employed in the literature on conics [3] and presented in detail in [1], is
based on lines rather than circles. Quite naturally, we substitute the tangent line’s
equation ( y = mx + k ) into the conic’s equation ( f ( x, y ) = 0 ) in order to obtain a
quadratic equation ( f ( x, mx + k ) = 0 ) that must have precisely one solution: setting then
the quadratic’s discriminant equal to zero yields, together with additional information
partial to the type of problem discussed, the right values for m and k .

As an example, consider the “diagonal” parabola x 2 ! 2 xy + y 2 + x + y ! 2 = 0 . Its

tangent line at (1,1) may be written as y = mx + (1 ! m) . So, with k = 1 ! m , the
quadratic equation f ( x, mx + k ) = 0 is

(m 2 ! 2m + 1) x 2 ! (2m 2 ! 5m + 1) x + (m 2 ! 3m) = 0 .

The discriminant of this quadratic is m 2 + 2m + 1 = (m + 1) 2 , and is therefore equal to

zero if and only if m = !1 . We conclude that the tangent line at (1,1) is y = ! x + 2 , as
expected.
 In [1] we presented several specific examples illustrating both the Calculus and the
MCM approaches to the four type of problems. Here we offer an overview of the four
problems, providing general formulas for both approaches – and the implied
“comparison” between them. We omit most computational details, stressing instead the
“philosophy” and “consequences” of each approach and formula.

Before we begin, let us recall [3] that the condition ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde = 0

is equivalent to the conic ax 2 + 2bxy + cy 2 + 2dx + 2ey + f = 0 being “degenerate”, that

is the union of two straight lines. We therefore assume ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 " acf " 2bde ! 0
throughout our note; in fact, this condition is independently established through our
discussion in #1 - #3 below.

Problem #1: Determine the equation of the line tangent to the conic
ax 2 + 2bxy + cy 2 + 2dx + 2ey + f = 0
at a point ( x0 , y 0 ) on the conic.

Using Calculus and implicit differentiation, we obtain the tangent line at once:
(ax0 + by 0 + d )
y ! y0 = ! ( x ! x0 )
(bx0 + cy 0 + e)

MCM involves considerable more work: substituting the tangent line y = m( x ! x0 ) + y 0

into the conic and setting the appropriate discriminant equal to zero, we determine its
slope m as the unique root of the quadratic [(b 2 ! ac) x02 + 2(be ! cd ) x0 + (e 2 ! cf )]m 2 -

2[(b 2 ! ac) x0 y 0 + (bd ! ae) x0 + (be ! cd ) y 0 + (bf ! de)]m +

[(b 2 ! ac) y 02 + 2(bd ! ae) y 0 + (d 2 ! af )] = 0

It is not at all obvious that this quadratic has precisely one root, as it must. And yet that
is what happened in our example above, as well as in all our examples in [1], with the
quadratic being a perfect square. It may indeed be shown that the quadratic is a perfect

2
square if and only if ( x0 , y 0 ) lies on the conic Ax 2 + 2 Bxy + Cy 2 + 2 Dx + 2 Ey + F = 0 ,

where A = (bd ! ae) 2 ! (b 2 ! ac)(d 2 ! af ) , B = (bd ! ae)(cd ! be) ! (b 2 ! ac)(de ! bf ) ,

C = (cd ! be) 2 ! (b 2 ! ac)(e 2 ! cf ) , D = (d 2 ! af )(cd ! be) ! (bd ! ae)(de ! bf ) ,

E = (cd ! be)(de ! bf ) ! (e 2 ! cf )(bd ! ae) , F = (de ! bf ) 2 ! (d 2 ! af )(e 2 ! cf ) ; but this

new conic is simply a multiple of the old one, with
A / a = B / b = C / c = D / d = E / e = F / f = ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 " acf " 2bde ! 0 ,

and ( x0 , y 0 ) is assumed to lie on ax 2 + 2bxy + cy 2 + 2dx + 2ey + f = 0 .

Problem #2: Determine the equations of the two lines tangent to the conic
ax 2 + 2bxy + cy 2 + 2dx + 2ey + f = 0 and passing through a point ( p, q ) outside the
conic.

Using Calculus, we simply determine the point(s) of tangency ( x0 , y 0 ) , observing first

that implicit differentiation (already employed in #1) determines one of the coordinates
(ax0 + by 0 + d ) q ! y 0
once the other one is known. Indeed ! = allows us, for example,
(bx0 + cy 0 + e) p ! x0
(ap + bq + d ) (dp + eq + f )
to express y 0 as a function of x0 : y 0 = ! x0 ! . Using the
(bp + cq + e) (bp + cq + e)
fact that ( x0 , y 0 ) lies on the conic, and substituting the above expression for y 0 into the

conic’s equation, we arrive at the quadratic

[(b 2 ! ac)(ap 2 + 2bpq + cq 2 + 2dp + 2eq + f ) ! (ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde)]x02 +

+ 2[(be ! cd )(ap 2 + 2bpq + cq 2 + 2dp + 2eq + f ) + (ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde) p ]x0 +

+ [(e 2 ! cf )(ap 2 + 2bpq + cq 2 + 2dp + 2eq + f ) ! (ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde) p 2 ] = 0

For MCM all we have to do is to repeat what we did in #1: using ( p, q ) instead of
( x0 , y 0 ) , we arrive at the considerably simpler quadratic:

[(b 2 ! ac) p 2 + 2(be ! cd ) p + (e 2 ! cf )]m 2 ! 2[(b 2 ! ac) pq + (bd ! ae) p + (be ! cd )q + (bf ! de)]m
+ [(b 2 ! ac)q 2 + 2(bd ! ae)q + (d 2 ! af ] = 0 ,

3
where y = mx + k is the equation of the tangent line(s) and k = q ! mp . Observe that,
by our discussion at the end of #1, the fact that ( p, q ) does not lie on the conic implies
that there must be either two solutions or no solution at all: so either there exist two
distinct slopes and tangent lines or no tangent line at all (in case ( p, q ) lies “inside” the
conic); in particular, a closer look at the x0 - quadratic of the Calculus approach above

shows that ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde = (be ! cd ) 2 ! (b 2 ! ac)(e 2 ! cf ) cannot equal

zero.

Problem #3: Determine the equation(s) of the line(s) of given slope m tangent to the
conic ax 2 + 2bxy + cy 2 + 2dx + 2ey + f = 0 .

The Calculus approach parallels the one in #2: with ( x0 , y 0 ) being the point(s) of

(ax0 + by 0 + d )
tangency, implicit differentiation yields ! = m , so that, for example,
(bx0 + cy 0 + e)

[(bm + a ) x0 + (em + d )]
y0 = ! ; substituting into the conic’s equation we obtain the
cm + b
quadratic [(b 2 ! ac)(cm 2 + 2bm + a )]x02 + 2[(be ! cd )(cm 2 + 2bm + a )]x0 +

+ [(e 2 ! cf )(cm 2 + 2bm + a ) ! (ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde)] = 0 .

There is one obvious case where this quadratic has no solution, namely
cm 2 + 2bm + a = 0 : that cannot happen in the case of an ellipse (b 2 ! ac < 0) , but it can

! b ± b 2 ! ac
happen in the case of a hyperbola for m = (asymptotes’ slopes); it also
c
happens in the case of a parabola (where b 2 ! ac = 0 implies that there can be at most
one solution) for m = ! b c (axis’ slopes). But cm 2 + 2bm + a = 0 implies

ae 2 + b 2 f + cd 2 ! acf ! 2bde = 0 , a condition that we have already assumed not to hold.

In simpler terms, all this corroborates that no tangent to a parabola may be parallel to its
axis, and that no tangent to a hyperbola may be parallel to one of its asymptotes—unless
of course the conic in question is degenerate!

4
 In the case of MCM, we substitute the tangent line equation y = mx + k into the
conic’s equation, set the appropriate discriminant equal to zero and obtain a quadratic in
k:
(b 2 ! ac)k 2 + 2[(cd ! be)m + (bd ! ae)]k + [(e 2 ! cf )m 2 + 2(de ! bf )m + (d 2 ! af )] = 0 .
Observe that this k-quadratic is slightly simpler than the x0 - quadratic above: this is

consistent with our observations in [1], where our examples indicated that, while MCM is
clearly inferior to Calculus in problem #1, it is more efficient in problems #2 and #3.

Problem #4: Determine the equations of the lines simultaneously tangent to the conics
ax 2 + 2bxy + cy 2 + 2dx + 2ey + f = 0 and Ax 2 + 2 Bxy + Cy 2 + 2 Dx + 2 Ey + F = 0 .

We are not aware of a Calculus-based general solution for this type of problem.
Moreover, we cannot offer a single “general quadratic” associated with the MCM method
(as we did in the previous three types of problems). All we can do in the general case is to
determine the tangent line(s) y = mx + k by graphically determining (m, k ) as the
point(s) of intersection of the following two conics:

(e 2 ! cf )m 2 + 2(cd ! be)mk + (b 2 ! ac)k 2 + 2(de ! bf )m + 2(bd ! ae)k + (d 2 ! af ) = 0

and
( E 2 ! CF )m 2 + 2(CD ! BE )mk + ( B 2 ! AC )k 2 + 2( DE ! BF )m + 2( BD ! AE )k + ( D 2 ! AF ) = 0

These two conics are obtained by substituting the tangent line equation y = mx + k
into each of the two original conics, and then setting each of the appropriate determinants
equal to zero; knowing neither m nor k and having no equation relating them to each
other, we are forced to keep both of them throughout the process.

In specific, relatively simple situations such as the lines simultaneously tangent to the
circles x 2 + y 2 = 1 and ( x ! 4) 2 + y 2 = 1 [1], both Calculus and MCM are capable of
yielding exact solutions. For another example, let us look at the lines simultaneously

5
tangent to the circle x 2 + y 2 = 1 and the parabola x = y 2 + 2 . Employing Calculus, we
let (a, b) and (c, d ) be the points of tangency on the circle and the parabola, respectively,
a b!d a 1
obtaining the system ! = , a2 + b2 = 1, c = d 2 + 2 , ! = ; elimination leads
b a!c b 2d
then to the quadratic 9a 2 ! 4a ! 1 = 0 and four distinct solutions for a , b, c , d .
Employing MCM and the standard discriminant approach, we need to solve the system
m 2 ! k 2 + 1 = 0 and 8m 2 + 4mk ! 1 = 0 ; this may be done either by reduction to the
biquadratic 48m 4 ! 32m 2 + 1 = 0 (exact solution) or graphically:

In fact Calculus always allows the derivation of the points of tangency graphically, as the
intersections of each of the given conics with an “associated” higher degree curve. These
curves are obtained by solving the linear system

ap + bq + d Ar + Bs + D ap + bq + d s ! q
! =! , ! =
bp + cq + e Br + Cs + E bp + cq + e r ! p

for r, s in terms of p, q and substituting into Ar 2 + 2 Brs + Cs 2 + 2 Dr + 2 Es + F = 0 ,

and likewise by solving the linear system

6
 ap + bq + d Ar + Bs + D Ar + Bs + D s ! q
! =! , ! =
bp + cq + e Br + Cs + E Br + Cs + E r ! p

for p, q in terms of r, s and substituting into ap 2 + 2bpq + cq 2 + 2dp + 2eq + f = 0 .

p 1 p s!q
As an illustration, in the example studied above the systems ! = , ! =
q 2s q r!p

p 1 1 s!q 2 p 3 + 2 pq 2 + q 2 q r ! 2s 2
and ! = , = yield r = , s=! and p = 2 ,
q 2s 2s r ! p 2 p2 2p 4s + 1

4 s 3 ! 2rs
q= 2
, respectively; substituting into r = s 2 + 2 and p 2 + q 2 = 1 , the points of
4s + 1
tangency ( p, q ) and (r , s ) are now found as intersection points between x 2 + y 2 = 1 ,

4 x 3 + 4 xy 2 + y 2 ! 8 x 2 = 0 and x = y 2 + 2 , 4 y 4 ! 4 xy 2 + x 2 ! 4 y 2 ! 1 = 0 , respectively:

7
The example presented here is relatively simple, so much so that it is easy to reduce the
determination of ( p, q ) and (r , s ) to the solution of the one-variable quadratics

9 p 2 ! 4 p ! 1 = 0 (as above) and r 2 ! 12r + 23 = 0 , respectively. In the general case,

however, the “associated curves” are of degree 4, and their intersections with the given
conics impossible to determine algebraically; the graphical MCM approach, always
involving intersections of curves of degree 2, remains our best option. It is to be noted
that for the familiar example of x 2 + y 2 = 1 and ( x ! 4) 2 + y 2 = 1 the “associated

curves” are ( x + 4 y 2 ! 4) 2 + ( y ! 4 xy ) 2 = 1 and (4 x ! 15) 2 (( x ! 4) 2 + y 2 ) = 1 ,

respectively:

Bibliography

1. Baloglou, G. and Helfgott, M. Finding Equations of Tangents to Conics. The

AMATYC Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2004, 35-45.
2. Katz, V. History of Mathematics. Harper and Collins, 1993.
3. Siceloff, L.P., Wentworth, G., and Smith, D.E. Analytic Geometry, Ginn and
Company, 1922.