I recently re-posted a blog I wrote seven years ago about a way to find the tangent to the curve of a conic without employing calculus that was one of my favorite math "tricks". In response I got a serious question from Brandon@_nilradical who asked, "anything "similar" for cubics, quartics, etc?". Being busy and wanting to reply I passed off a hasty, "Nothing quite so simple." and went back to mowing. Later I felt guilty about dismissing the question, so I thought I would fess up to what little I have found in playing with the idea "Beyond the Quadratics."

My first excursion was to try a simple cubic and see if I could figure out how to apply the same polar idea. What could be easier than y=x

^{3}so I picked the point (1,1) and set out exploring. I first had to decide how to replace the three x's in the right side, and decided that I would replace y= x

^{3}with (y+1)/2 =(x)(1)(x+1)/2

Ok, we got a tangent, but it was a tangent quadratic, not a tangent line. So I decided to press on and apply the idea recursively into the new parabola. The parabola simplified to y=x

^{2}+x - 1, so I began to substitute into that using the point (1,1) again. This leads to (y+1)/2 = (1)(x) + (x+1)/2-1

I didn't even bother to simply, just entered into the Desmos calculator and ....Eureka!!!

^{2}+ bx +c and since the derivative of that, y'=2x+b must equal 3, setting 3=2(1)+b we see that b must be 1 also. Now we just plug (1,1) into the equation for y=x

^{2}+ x +c and we quickly find that indeed, the calculus will give us y=x

^{2}+x - 1 as the parabola tangent to the point (1,1) with the same slope as y=x

^{3}

^{ }At this point I had no idea what this descending cascade of polar approaches to a tangent would do with something really complicated, but I barged ahead and created something minorly absurd.

So I started typing into the calculator creating as I go along and came up with x

^{3}y = y

^{2}+x+x

^{4}

^{}

^{Desmos responds with :}

^{}

^{}Ok, this looks like fun. The first problem is finding a nice point with integers and a non-zero slope.... and (-1,0) jumps out because it should eliminate some congestion substituting y=0 in some places.

I begin by the same approach of using equal parts of variable and constant wherever possible, and write out (-1)(x)(x+1)/2 (y+0)/2= 0y +(x-1)/2 + (-1)(-1)(x)(x) and we get a cubic with two infinite discontinuities, but one of the branches slashes through the point we seek

At this point I'm convinced that our descending iteration of polars will proceed to a line tangent at the same point... and I found it interesting that even picking the equation out of my head, the point I chose also had a slope of 3 at that point.

I'm not sure I have any idea how useful these techniques might be for those forging father than my simple experiences in math can anticipate, but if you are one who knows more about this, share what you know.

^{}