Chain rule violated for arc length?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the chain rule in the context of arc length in Cartesian coordinates. Participants explore the implications of parameterization, particularly focusing on the necessity of monotonic parameter changes when applying the chain rule to arc length calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the formula for arc length and questions the application of the chain rule, noting that substituting derivatives leads to a potential violation of the rule.
  • Another participant argues that the chain rule only holds for monotonic parameter changes, explaining that non-monotonic parameters can lead to multiple values of the parameter for a single value of time, complicating the relationship.
  • A participant reiterates the original question, emphasizing that the chain rule typically does not require monotonic parameterization, seeking clarification on why arc length appears to necessitate it.
  • Another participant asserts that arc length is inherently a positive quantity and should be treated as a strictly increasing function, suggesting that this characteristic is crucial to understanding the application of the chain rule in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of monotonic parameterization for applying the chain rule to arc length. While some acknowledge the importance of this condition, others question why it differs from typical applications of the chain rule.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing uncertainty regarding the implications of parameterization on the application of the chain rule for arc length, with participants highlighting the need for further clarification on this topic.

ajain
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
->ds/dt where s is the arc length in cartesian coordinates is ((dx/dt)^2+(dy/dt)^2)^(1/2).

-> Therefore by the chain rule ds/dt = ds/dp * dp/dt, but if I substitute dx/dt=dx/dp* dp/dt and dy/dt= dy/dp* dp/dt in the formula above, I get ds/dt=ds/dp * |dp/dt|??
What is happening?

->Even by elementary thinking, ds/dt and ds/dp are always positive whereas dp/dt need not always be. So, how is the chain rule being followed here?
Please explain. I have spent a full evening thinking over this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It only works for a monotonic parameter changes, i.e. p = p(t) is a monotonic increasing function. Otherwise, you run into the trouble that different values of t give back one and the same value of p, so p is not a good parameter of the curve.

Under these circumstances, it works like this:
<br /> \frac{ds}{dt} = \sqrt{ \left( \frac{dx}{dt} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{dy}{dt} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{dz}{dt} \right)^2 }<br />
<br /> = \sqrt{ \left( \frac{dx}{d t} \, \frac{d p}{d t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{d y}{d t} \, \frac{d p} {d t} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{d z}{d t} \, \frac{d p} {d t} \right)^2}<br />
<br /> = \sqrt{ \left( \frac{d p}{d t} \right)^2 \, \left[ \left( \frac{dx}{dp} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{dy}{dp} \right)^2 + \left( \frac{dz}{dp} \right)^2 \right]}<br />
<br /> = \left\vert \frac{d p}{d t} \right\vert \, \frac{d s}{d p} = \frac{d p}{d t} \, \frac{d s}{d p}, \ p&#039;(t) &gt; 0<br />
 
I know what you wrote! that, was my question itself.
The chain rule, in ordinary circumstances does not require monotonic parametrization, but for the arc length ,it does, so what is the reason for this apparent difference?
 
ajain said:
I know what you wrote! that, was my question itself.
The chain rule, in ordinary circumstances does not require monotonic parametrization, but for the arc length ,it does, so what is the reason for this apparent difference?

It would not make sense if this quantity were negative.

Arc-length is always a positive quantity when we are dealing with proper metrics. The arc-length is strictly an increasing function as you would expect from measuring the change in length of a string with respect to time even if it is transformed.

Dickfore did a good job of showing this mathematically and did a good job of answering your question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K