Derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction

In summary, the conversation discusses the computation of tangent vectors to a loop on an arbitrary manifold, specifically when traversed in the opposite direction. The map \iota is introduced to reverse the parameterization of the loop, and the action of d\iota on tangent vectors is determined. The isomorphism between d\iota and -d\iota is discussed, and the reason for the initial confusion in the computation is explained. The question raised is about the implicit identification of -X and -d\iota(X) and whether there was an assumption made that made this identification implicit.
  • #1
Kreizhn
743
1
I hope that this is a foolish question and that someone can make quick meat out of it. If [itex] \gamma: S^1 \to M [/itex] is a loop on an arbitrary manifold M, our goal is to analyze the tangent vectors to [itex] \gamma [/itex] when the loop is traversed in the opposite direction.

Let [itex] \iota: S^1 \to S^1 [/itex] be the map which reverses your favourite parameterization of [itex] S^1[/itex]. That is, if [itex] S^1 = \mathbb R/2\pi\mathbb Z [/itex] then [itex] \iota(\theta) = -\theta[/itex]; if [itex] S^1 = \{ z \in \mathbb C: |z|=1 \} [/itex] then [itex] \iota(z) = \bar z [/itex], etc. I think it is clear that these are identical maps given appropriate composition with parameterization isomorphism.

We want to compute [itex] (\gamma \circ \iota)'(\theta) [/itex]. We may equivalently write this as any of the following equivalent expressions
[tex] \begin{align*}
(\gamma \circ \iota)'(\theta_0) &= d(\gamma\circ\iota)\left.\frac{d}{d\theta}\right|_{\theta_0} = (d\gamma_{\iota(\theta_0)} \circ d\iota_{\theta_0}) \left.\frac{d}{d\theta}\right|_{\theta_0} \\
&= d\gamma_{\iota(\theta_0)} (\iota'(\theta_0))
\end{align*}
[/tex]
where in the latter equation, we view [itex]\iota [/itex] as a loop on [itex] S^1[/itex].

We now determine the action of [itex] d\iota[/itex]. For the sake of example, let us fix [itex] S^1 = \mathbb R/2\pi \mathbb Z [/itex], [itex] \theta_0 \in S_1 [/itex]. If [itex] X \in T_{\theta_0} S^1 [/itex] then set [itex] \beta: \mathbb R\to S^1 [/itex] such that [itex] \beta(0) = \theta_0, \beta'(0) = X [/itex] so that
[tex] \begin{align*}
d\iota_{\theta_0} \left.\frac{d}{d\theta}\right|_{\theta_0} &= \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0} \iota(\beta(t)) \\
&= -\left.\frac d{dt} \right|_{t=0} \beta(t) \\
&= - X
\end{align*}[/tex]

Hence we find that
[tex] \begin{align*}
(\gamma\circ\iota)'(\theta_0) &= d\gamma_{\iota(\theta_0)} d\iota_{\theta_0} \left. \frac d{d\theta}\right|_{\theta_0}\\
&= -d\gamma_{\iota(\theta_0)} X \\
&= -\gamma'(X)
\end{align*}
[/tex]

This is of course non-sense in general, since [itex] d\iota_{\theta}(X) = -X [/itex] implies that [itex] X [/itex] lives in the wrong space; and one would suspect that [itex] (\gamma(-\theta))' = -\gamma'(-\theta) [/itex], but this extra negative sign in the argument seems to disappear. However, everything works out in the end since in fact, [itex] \iota [/itex] is easily seen to be a diffeomorphism hence [itex] d\iota [/itex] is an isomorphism on the tangent spaces, and we get
[tex] d\iota(X) = -d\iota(X), \qquad (\gamma(-\theta))' = -\gamma(-\theta). [/tex]
So ultimately, the reason why it looks wrong in the first place is that there is an implicit identification of [itex] -X [/itex] with [itex] -d\iota(X) [/itex].

My question is as follows: In my experience such identifications are made explicitly by the mathematician, yet in this case the isomorphism "hid" itself. If one had naively carried through with the computation, one would have actually gotten the wrong answer ([itex] -\gamma'(\theta) \neq -\gamma'(-\theta) [/itex] in general!). Where did the isomorphism go? Was there some assumption above that made the identification implicit?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not sure what you mean with [itex]\frac{d}{d\theta}[/itex] it is clearly some vector field associated with a parametrization, but which one?

Somehow, I think you're thinking of [itex]\theta(e^{ix})=x[/itex] with [itex]x\in[0,2\pi)[/itex] or something similar. This is an example of a so called angle function. This would yield a valid parametriation on [itex]S^1\setminus \{1\}[/itex] and the field [itex]\frac{d}{d\theta}[/itex] is initially defined on [itex]S^1\setminus \{1\}[/itex], but can be extended on the entire circle.

Is this what you mean with [itex]\frac{d}{d\theta}[/itex]?
 
  • #3
My apologies, perhaps it would have been better if I had chosen the parameterization of [itex] S^1 = \mathbb R / 2\pi \mathbb Z[/itex] before writing that line. All I meant is that if we take [itex] \gamma: S^1 \to M [/itex] and [itex] \iota: S^1 \to S^1 [/itex] to be loops in their respective codomains, then they are implicitly parameterized (I have always taken curves to be parameterized, otherwise their interpretation as curves is lost and they become simply maps). This implicit parameterization endows the domain with a coordinate chart about each point [itex] \theta_0[/itex], so in this context I meant [itex] \left.\frac d{d\theta}\right|_{\theta_0} [/itex] to represent the induced derivation on [itex] T_{\theta_0} S^1 [/itex] coming from the coordinate map, rather than specifically alluding to any vector field.

Hence [itex] \frac d{d\theta} [/itex] depends on your choice of parameterization: it is not meant to refer to a specific parameterization (though I fix a parameterization later).
 

1. What is the derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction?

The derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction is the same as the derivative of the curve traversed in the original direction. This is because the derivative measures the rate of change of a function, which does not depend on the direction of traversal.

2. How do you calculate the derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction?

To calculate the derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction, you can use the same methods and formulas used for calculating the derivative of a curve traversed in the original direction. This includes using the power rule, product rule, chain rule, etc.

3. Does the direction of traversal affect the value of the derivative?

No, the direction of traversal does not affect the value of the derivative. The derivative only depends on the function itself and not the direction in which it is traversed.

4. Can you have a negative derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction?

Yes, you can have a negative derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction. This simply means that the function is decreasing in the opposite direction of traversal, but increasing in the original direction.

5. How does the derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction relate to the original function?

The derivative of a curve traversed in the opposite direction is related to the original function by the fact that it represents the slope of the tangent line at any given point on the curve. This means that the derivative is a measure of the rate of change of the original function at that point.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
590
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
862
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
986
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
789
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top