Basic Calculus III- Arc Length Parameter and Length- Getting a negative length

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the arc length parameter along a curve defined by a vector function, specifically evaluating an integral to determine the length of a portion of the curve. The context is within basic calculus, focusing on arc length calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to evaluate the arc length parameter and questions the negative result obtained when substituting a specific value into the expression. Participants discuss the implications of integrating over a negative interval and the interpretation of signed versus absolute length.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the nature of the arc length parameter and its sign based on the limits of integration. There is a recognition of the need to consider the context of the integral and the implications of negative results in relation to arc length. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of signed distances.

Contextual Notes

The problem involves evaluating an integral from a negative lower limit to zero, which raises questions about the interpretation of the resulting negative length in the context of arc length calculations. The original poster expresses a desire to understand the reasoning behind these results rather than simply applying absolute values.

Battlemage!
Messages
292
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement



Find the Arc Length Parameter along the curve from the point where t = 0 by evaluating the integral:

s = ∫ |v(τ)| dτ from 0 to t


Then find the length of the indicated portion of the curve.

Homework Equations



The vector I am using for this:


r(t) = (etcos t)i + (etsin t)j + etk, -ln (4) ≤ t ≤ 0

The Attempt at a Solution



I got the correct answer for the Arc Length Parameter, so no algebra or calculus mistakes:

s(t) = ∫ √ ([(eτcos τ - eτsin τ)2 + (eτcos τ + eτsin τ)2 + (eτ)2]) dτ from 0 to t


After multiplying, canceling, and applying the trig identity cos2u + sin2u = 1, I have

s(t) = ∫ √ (3e) dτ from 0 to t


which is

√(3) et - √(3)​

That is what is in the back of the book.
However, the second part is giving me problems. I plug in -ln4, and I end up with the right number, but negative. How can there be a negative length?

So I plug -ln4 in for t, and I get (I suspect that this is where I went wrong):

√(3) (et - 1)

√(3) (e-ln 4 - 1)

√(3) (eln(.25) - 1)

√(3) (1/4 - 1)

√(3) (- 3/4)

-3√(3)/4​

Which is off by a sign.

Why am I getting this wrong?Thanks

EDIT- I know it is easy to just say "take the absolute value," but that won't get me any understanding. You see, I did the exact same thing for the previous problem that I've done in this current one , except that the interval was 0 ≤ t ≤ π/2, and just plugging in π/2 for t gave me the correct answer. Why does this not work in this problem?

Clearly, the obvious difference is that the interval for my vector is -ln 4 ≤ t ≤ 0, which is kind of "reverse" from my previous problem. Basically I'm looking to understand what's going on here, obviously. I'm sure it's obvious.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are integrating a positive function from t=0 to t=(-ln(4)). Of course the result is negative. The arc length parameter, s(t), as you've defined it is negative for t<0 and positive for t>0. The arc length distance from t=0 is indeed |s(t)|.
 
Dick said:
You are integrating a positive function from t=0 to t=(-ln(4)). Of course the result is negative. The arc length parameter, s(t), as you've defined it is negative for t<0 and positive for t>0. The arc length distance from t=0 is indeed |s(t)|.

So, to be on the safe side, would I be mathematically justified in putting the absolute value on s(t) in all cases from now on?
 
Battlemage! said:
So, to be on the safe side, would I be mathematically justified in putting the absolute value on s(t) in all cases from now on?

Depends on what you are doing. You should always think about something before you just do it. If you want the arclength distance between two points t1<t2 you want s(t2)-s(t1). Definitely not |s(t2)|-|s(t1)|. You see why, right?
 
Dick said:
Depends on what you are doing. You should always think about something before you just do it. If you want the arclength distance between two points t1<t2 you want s(t2)-s(t1). Definitely not |s(t2)|-|s(t1)|. You see why, right?

Yes, I believe so. If I plug a negative number in for s(t1) and a positive for s(t2) I get two different answers.
 
Sounds like you get the point. s(t) is signed arclength distance from t=0. Just like the x coordinate is the signed distance from x=0 along the x-axis.
 
Thanks Dick. Now I'm off to partial derivatives.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K