Geodesic & Asymptotic Curves: Proving Segment of Straight Line

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geodesic
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a regular curve on a smooth surface is both a geodesic and an asymptotic curve if and only if it is a segment of a straight line. The subject area includes differential geometry and the properties of curves on surfaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of a curve being a segment of a straight line and explore definitions of geodesics and asymptotic curves. There are attempts to relate the second derivative of the curve to its geometric properties, and questions arise regarding the conditions under which these definitions hold.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing definitions and attempting to connect different characterizations of geodesics and asymptotic curves. Some participants express uncertainty about specific conditions and seek clarification on definitions and implications.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the need to show equivalence between different definitions of geodesics, and participants are working within the constraints of their respective textbooks, which may present varying definitions.

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 [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a segment of a straight line iff [itex]\ddot{\gamma} = 0[/itex], and all regular curves can be reparametrised to be unit speed. What are the definitions of "geodesic" and "asymptotic curve"?
 
Last edited:
Suppose [tex]\alpha[/tex] a unit speed curve, then it is a geodesic if the covariant derivative [tex]D\alpha/dt=0[/tex] and it is an asymptotic curve if [tex]II(\alpha '(s))=0[/tex] for all s, where II is the second fundamental form and the normal curvature k_n at a point on the curve. Since [tex]k_n=k<n,N>=0[/tex] where k is the curvature of [tex]\alpha[/tex] 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.
 

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
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K