Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Logic behind definition of Reparametrization

  1. Aug 18, 2015 #1
    What is the intuitive logic behind setting up the definition of reparametrization as being a bijective map and all that(the inverse map being smooth) and not alone that the reparametrisation must give us the same image curve.e.g if we see (t,t^2) as being describing the same curve as (t^3,t^6) but bijective map definition restricts(t^3,t^6) as being the reparametrisation even though physically it(t^3,t^6) describes that same curve??
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 21, 2015 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Just to clarify your question, are you saying that (t3,t6) is not a reparametrization of (t,t2)? It seems like it is.
  4. Aug 26, 2015 #3
    Yeah that's the thing it is not a reparametrisation of (t,t^2)...this is why i am asking ??
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Logic behind definition of Reparametrization
  1. Definition of manifold (Replies: 4)

  2. Manifold definition (Replies: 42)

  3. Submanifold definition (Replies: 17)