Talk:Monge cone

THIS does not explain why there is a cone.

As stated by someone above, this does not really explain why there is a cone. Also, notations are not maintained. p and q replace Ux and Uy without notification. Anyone has a better explanation for Monge Cones?

Vinku (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail to explain that this is a cone? I think it is fairly clear: a solution for the parameters u_x and u_y gives a plane through the point (x₀,y₀,u₀). The set of all such solutions is either coaxial or envelopes a cone whose vertex is at that point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a more explicit description of the cone. I will also bang out an example in the simplest case of the Eikonal equation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]