2019
DOI: 10.7146/math.scand.a-114715
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The $2$-Hessian and sextactic points on plane algebraic curves

Abstract: In an article from 1865, Arthur Cayley claims that given a plane algebraic curve there exists an associated 2-Hessian curve that intersects it in its sextactic points. In this paper we fix an error in Cayley's calculations and provide the correct defining polynomial for the 2-Hessian. In addition, we present a formula for the number of sextactic points on cuspidal curves and tie this formula to the 2-Hessian. Lastly, we consider the special case of rational curves, where the sextactic points appear as zeros of… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In [2] Cayley defined the second Hessian of a curve and proved that the sextactic points are as the flexes, the common points of the curve and its Hessian. The formula that Cayley provided was corrected in [9]. We have the following definition.…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [2] Cayley defined the second Hessian of a curve and proved that the sextactic points are as the flexes, the common points of the curve and its Hessian. The formula that Cayley provided was corrected in [9]. We have the following definition.…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to answer this question Cayley introduced the notion of the second Hessian of a curve and proved that the sextactic points are, in analogy to the flexes, the common points of the curve and its second Hessian, which defines a curve of degree 12 deg(Γ) − 27. Only recently Maugesten and Moe [21] checked Cayley's formula carefully and pinned down an inaccuracy in its coefficients. Since the erroneous formula was repeated in the literature for over 150 years, we state it here in the correct form following the notation of [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only recently Maugesten and Moe [21] checked Cayley's formula carefully and pinned down an inaccuracy in its coefficients. Since the erroneous formula was repeated in the literature for over 150 years, we state it here in the correct form following the notation of [21]. The inaccuracy of Cayley was to write 40 in the place of the coefficient 20 appearing in the third line of the formula in Definition 3.1.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar argument can be used to prove that in a 1-parameter family of curves, hyperflexes are points of multiplicity 2 in the divisor of flexes, and flexes are points of multiplicity 1 in the divisor of sextactic points-points at which the osculating conic meets the curve with intersection multiplicity at least 6. For more on the enumerative geometry of sextactic points, refer to [Cay09, § 341] and[MM17].17 We say "expected" because of the assumption that the linear system of plane conics is general in the sense of Remark 16.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%