Definition of arc length on manifolds without parametrization

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of arc length on differentiable manifolds without relying on parametrization. Participants explore whether a parametrization-free definition can be established, similar to the polygonal approximation used in Euclidean space, and the implications of such a definition in the context of manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that arc length is a property of the image of curves on a manifold and should be independent of parametrization.
  • Others question how to define a "curve" without parametrization, suggesting that connected compact 1-dimensional submanifolds can be treated as piecewise regular curves.
  • One participant asserts that there is no canonical method for defining arc length on a general manifold due to the nature of local coordinate systems and their transformations.
  • Another participant proposes a method involving covering the curve with neighborhoods and constructing piecewise-geodesic curves to approximate arc length, although this method's clarity is questioned.
  • Some participants discuss the necessity of parametrization in defining geodesics and arc lengths, with references to existing literature on Riemannian geometry.
  • A question is raised about using the inverse of the exponential map on Lie groups to compute arc lengths, leading to a discussion on the specific nature of geodesics in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of defining arc length without parametrization, with some asserting it is impossible in general while others suggest specific cases or methods that could work. The discussion remains unresolved regarding a universally accepted definition.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the choice of metric and the nature of the manifold, as well as the unresolved mathematical steps in defining arc length without parametrization.

  • #31
and \Vert f\Vert_{\infty} is the measure theory notation for the minimum real number K>0 such that K>|f| almost everywhere, also known as the essential supremum of |f|. Must be what he means.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I'm very sorry for you lost your detailed post. Next time don't forget to copy&paste your text somewhere before pressing the preview or submit button. Thank you for repeating it shortly.
 
  • #33
mma said:
It is shown that sup(||grad ax||) = 1 (by local geodesic calculation)

I thought originally that this "local geodesic calculation" is trivial. But now I see that I don't really know how is it.

It is clear that taking a short geodesic \gamma(s) starting from a(x) and parametrized by its arc length, then

d(x,y) = a_x(y) - a_x(x) = \int_0^{d(x,y)}\dot{\gamma}(a_x)|_{\gamma(s)} ds

and from this follows \dot{\gamma}(a_x) = 1.

But this means only that g(\mathrm{grad}(a_x), \dot{\gamma}) =1, and of course we know that \Vert\dot{\gamma}\Vert = 1.

But how follows \Vert\mathrm{grad}(a_x)\Vert = 1 from this?
 
  • #34
I suspect that \mathrm{grad}(a_x) = \dot{\gamma}.

Here a_x(y) := d(x,y), the distance between x and y (I forgot to mention this in my previous post), and \gamma is a geodesic through x, parametrized by its arc length)

So, my question is: how can I prove this?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
mma said:
It is clear that taking a short geodesic \gamma(s) starting from a(x)

Of course strarting from x and not from a(x). Sorry for the mistyping.
 
  • #36
mma said:
I suspect that \mathrm{grad}(a_x) = \dot{\gamma}.

Here a_x(y) := d(x,y), the distance between x and y (I forgot to mention this in my previous post), and \gamma is a geodesic through x, parametrized by its arc length)

So, my question is: how can I prove this?

Because the level sets of the distance function are perpedicular to the gradient vector of it, and these level sets are n-1-dimensional submanifolds, it would be enough to prove that the geodesics passing through x are always perpedicular to the level sets of the d(x,y) distance function. Could anybody prove this?
 
Last edited:
  • #37
mma said:
it would be enough to prove that the geodesics passing through x are always perpedicular to the level sets of the d(x,y) distance function.

Bingo! It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_lemma_(Riemannian_geometry)"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K