Continuity of an arc in the complex plane

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of continuity of an arc in the complex plane, specifically examining the conditions under which a curve defined piecewise can be considered an arc or a simple arc. The scope includes theoretical definitions and properties of curves in complex analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a piecewise-defined curve, if not joined at some point in the complex plane, would still qualify as an arc.
  • Another participant introduces the definition of a simple arc, noting that it requires the function to be one-to-one on the interval, which raises concerns about crossing between the segments of a piecewise curve.
  • A different participant asserts that an arc cannot have "gaps," implying that continuity is essential for the definition of an arc.
  • There is a challenge regarding the definition of a simple arc, with one participant suggesting that a curve defined in parts does not have special mathematical meaning, while another insists that the condition for a simple arc implies it cannot cross itself.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the condition ##t_1 \ne t_2 \implies C(t_1) \ne C(t_2)##, with some asserting it means the curve never crosses itself, while others argue that a general curve can violate this condition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of arcs and simple arcs, particularly regarding continuity and self-intersection. There is no consensus on whether the piecewise nature of a curve affects its classification as an arc.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the definitions of arcs and simple arcs that may not be universally agreed upon. The implications of continuity and self-intersection are also not fully resolved, leaving room for interpretation.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
Hello everyone,

I have a rather simple question. I have the curve

##
C(t) =
\begin{cases}
1 + it & \text{if}~ 0 \le t \le 2 \\
(t-1) + 2i & \text{if }~ 2 \le t \le 3
\end{cases}
##

which is obviously formed from the two curves. This curve is regarded as an arc if the functions ##x(t)## and ##y(t)## are continuous real mappings. Clearly each individual curve has continuous real mappings. But here is my concern: what if the two curves did not coincide somewhere in the complex plane, that is, they were not joined somewhere? Would the curve ##C(t)## no longer be an arc?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another question I have relates to an arc being a simple arc. The definition of this concept is the following:

An arc is simple arc if, on ##a < t < b##, ##t_1 \ne t_2## implies ##C(t_1) \ne C(t_2)##, e.g. the function is one-to-one.

So, according to this definition, if a curve is composed of smaller curves, such as the one given in the first post, then no individual curve can cross itself, but it is possible for one of the other curves to cross another curve. Is this right?
 
Bashyboy said:
Would the curve ##C(t)## no longer be an arc?
Right, an arc cannot have "gaps".
Bashyboy said:
then no individual curve can cross itself
Why not? C(t)=sin(2t) + i sin(3t) for 0<t<2pi
In fact, those cases ("define it in two parts") are just used for notation - they have no special mathematical meaning.
 
Doesn't the condition ##t_1 \ne t_2 \implies C(t_1) \ne C(t_2)## means that the curve never crosses itself?
 
A "simple arc" never does that by definition in post 2, but a general curve can (violating this condition if it does).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K