Geodesic & Asymptotic Curves: Proving Segment of Straight Line

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geodesic
Click For Summary
A regular curve on a smooth surface is classified as both a geodesic and an asymptotic curve if and only if it is a segment of a straight line. The discussion highlights that a unit speed curve is a straight line if its second derivative is zero. Definitions of geodesics involve the covariant derivative being zero, while asymptotic curves require the second fundamental form to be zero. The confusion arises in reconciling different definitions of geodesics, particularly regarding the relationship between curvature and the normal vector. Ultimately, proving these equivalences is essential to demonstrate that the definitions align with the conclusion that the curve must be a segment of a straight line.
Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement



Show that a regular curve on a smooth surface is a geodesic and an asymptotic curve if and only if it is a segment of a straight line.


The Attempt at a Solution



I did the <= implication, which is quite easy. I can't get the other one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A unit speed curve \gamma is a segment of a straight line iff \ddot{\gamma} = 0, and all regular curves can be reparametrised to be unit speed. What are the definitions of "geodesic" and "asymptotic curve"?
 
Last edited:
Suppose \alpha a unit speed curve, then it is a geodesic if the covariant derivative D\alpha/dt=0 and it is an asymptotic curve if II(\alpha &#039;(s))=0 for all s, where II is the second fundamental form and the normal curvature k_n at a point on the curve. Since k_n=k&lt;n,N&gt;=0 where k is the curvature of \alpha at a point, n the curve's normal and N the surface's normal, we have to conclude that k=0 or <n,N>=0. This is where I am stuck. What if <n,N>=0?
 
My book says that a curve is a geodesic if it's second derivative is zero or if it's second derivative is perpendicular to the surface. Since the second derivative is kn, this is equivalent to saying that kn = aN for some real a.

k<n,N> = <kn,N> = <aN,N> = a<N,N>

if the curve is asymptotic, then k<n,N> = 0, which would imply a = 0, implying that the second derivative is 0, which I claimed to be equivalent to saying that the curve is part of a line segment. So somehow, you need to show that your book's definition of "geodesic" is equivalent to my book's.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K