Distances with non-euclidean metric

  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the measurement of geodesic shortest paths and parametric curves using non-Euclidean metrics, specifically questioning the conventional reliance on Euclidean norms. The author highlights the lack of literature addressing the use of alternative norms, such as L1-norm, for measuring infinitesimal arcs in \(\mathbb{R}^2\). The conversation also touches upon the definition of infinitesimal length in the context of Riemannian and Finsler geometries, referencing the work of Chern and Shen in "Riemann-Finsler Geometry".

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Riemannian geometry
  • Familiarity with Finsler geometries
  • Knowledge of parametric curves
  • Basic concepts of metric spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the applications of L1-norm in geometric measurements
  • Study the principles of Finsler geometry in depth
  • Explore the implications of non-Euclidean metrics in real-world scenarios
  • Read "Riemann-Finsler Geometry" by Chern and Shen for advanced insights
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and researchers interested in advanced geometry, particularly those exploring non-Euclidean metrics and their applications in various fields.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,
when measuring length of geodesic shortest paths, or more in general, when measuring the length of a parametric curve in the space, what we usually do is to sum the length of infinitesimal arcs of that curve, assuming an euclidean norm.

Why this choice?
I have not found in literature any mention on the possibility of using other norms, like L1-norm.

Why not to allow to measure the length of infinitesimal arcs of a curve in \mathbb{R}^2 by doing instead:

ds = \left| \frac{\partial \mathbf{p}}{\partial x} \right| dx + \left| \frac{\partial \mathbf{p}}{\partial y} \right| dy

Thanks...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We sum the lengths without any norm. We just sum numbers because of the natural assumption that the length of two pieces of a given path is the sum of the two lengths.

Here I am assuming that we are talking about the Riemannian and not pseudo-Riemannian case.

The other question is how to define the infinitesimal length. Here you have not only Riemannian but also more general Finsler geometries (see e.g. Chern and Shen, "Riemann-Finsler Geometry", World Scientific (2004)).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K