Minimal Function: Arc-Length c & Calc of Variations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Doe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the function of arc-length c that minimizes the integral \(\int^b_{a}{y dx}\) and the application of calculus of variations to derive the catenary. Participants explore various approaches to the problem, including constraints and the physical interpretation of the integral in terms of gravitational potential energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the function minimizing the integral is the catenary, while others challenge the choice of integral and suggest alternatives.
  • One participant questions the necessity of a constraint equation in the context of minimizing the potential energy of the chain.
  • Another participant explains that the integral represents the contribution to gravitational potential energy of an infinitesimal part of the chain.
  • There are discussions about the geometric interpretation of the integral \(\int^b_{a}{y \sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}dx}\) and its relation to the height of the chain.
  • Some participants express confusion over the definitions and roles of variables in the calculus of variations framework.
  • Mathematical derivations are presented, including partial derivatives and conditions for minimization, but without consensus on the correctness of the approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct integral to minimize or the appropriate method to apply. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of constraint functions and the implications of varying mass in the context of gravitational potential energy. The discussion also reflects differing interpretations of the calculus of variations methodology.

John_Doe
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
The function of arc-length [tex]c[/tex] that minimises [tex]\int^b_{a}{y dx}[/tex] is the catenary, but why? I have tried using calculus of variations, [tex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial y} - \frac{d}{dx}(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \dot{y}}) + \lambda (\frac{\partial g}{\partial y}) = 0[/tex], however I don't know which constraint function to use.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Surely that is the wrong integral to look at (clearly the constant function y(x)=0 for all x minimizes the integral) (edit: and equally clearly I've just said something stupid, haven't I? That integral has no minimum: assumin y(a)=y(b)=0, and why not, that a=0, b=pi then -ksin(x) can be made arbitrarily small by making k arbitrarily large).

Try instead minimizing

[tex]\int y \sqrt{1+y'^2}dx[/tex]

with boundary conditions y(a)=y(b)
 
Last edited:
Why is the arc-length multiplied by [tex]y[/tex]?
 
Long answer with hand waving justification: Well, assuming a uniformly dense, unifrom cross section, the contribution of an infinitesimal bit of chain, dx, is the length of the chain times a constant (cross section times density) times the (gravitational) potential which is, ignoring constants

[tex]y \sqrt{1+y'^2} dx[/tex]

adding/integrating all those gives the answer.

Short answer for those who understand mechanics: y is the gravitational potential.
 
[tex]y[/tex] is the minimal function, [tex]\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}dx[/tex] is the arc-length. What is [tex]y \sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}dx[/tex]?
Why don't I need a constraint equation?
 
Last edited:
it is the contribution to the gravitational potential of a small part of the chain (potential times the infinitesimal length of the chain)

suppose i raise a mass of m kgs a distance of d metres, what is the increase in its gravitational potential energy? in your idea it is just d and independent of m, which is (sadly) not true.

you do not want to minimize y, you want to minimize the potential energy *of the chain*, that is the integral of y.arclength.dx

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CalculusofVariations.html

what do you mean by constraint equation? boundary conditions? perhaps the method you've been taught differs from the one I know.
 
[tex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial y} - \frac{d}{dx}(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \dot{y}}) + \lambda (\frac{\partial g}{\partial y}) = 0[/tex]

The constaint equation is [tex]g(y,\dot{y}, x) = 0[/tex]
 
Then you are doing something that differs from the method as I know it. It wouldn't hurt you to write more words, eg, try explaining the method you've been taught. I already understood that g from your first post was 'the constraint' equation, but had no idea what that meant. Seaching many sites on calc of variations doesn't reveal what the constraint function is either
 
I originally thought that the way to tackle the problem would be to set [tex]\int^b_{a}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}dx} = c[/tex] as a constraint equation, and minimise [tex]\int^b_{a}{ydx}[/tex].

Can you explain geometrically [tex]\int^b_{a}{y \sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}dx[/tex]?
 
  • #10
I thought I already did? length of an infinitesimal part of the chain (which is thus proportional to the mass of the infinitesimal part of the chain) times the potential that that infinitesimal mass contributes added up (integrated) over the whole length. i think that's the third time I've explained it. hopefully it is correct: I've taken this from the only source I could with enough detail in. (google is your friend.)

It appears you're trying to solve this by a combination of calculus of variation and lagrangian multipliers.
 
  • #11
How is [tex]y[/tex] the gravitational potential?
 
  • #12
it's the 'height' of the chain, relative to the 'ground' or reference level y=0. an object of mass m and distance d above the 'ground' has gravitational potential energy m*d*g relative to the 'ground' .(Don't conflate the potential of the field with the potential energy of something in the field, something I hoped i'd managed not to do), though reading back my last post i think i failed to do so, hence the probable confusion)

g is just a constant, and the mass is a constant times the arclength, plus the lagrange equation is homogenous (minmizing L(x,y,y') is the same as minmizing kL for any constant k) so we can divide by constants hence we need to minimize y.arclength over the arc.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
[tex]f = y\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{y}} = \sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}[/tex] [tex]\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{\dot{y}}} = \frac{y\dot{y}}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{d}{dx}(\frac{y\dot{y}}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}}) = \frac{\dot{y}^2 + y\ddot{y} - \frac{y\dot{y}^2\ddot{y}}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}}}{1 + \dot{y}^2} = \frac{(\dot{y}^2 + y\ddot{y})\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2} - y\dot{y}^2\ddot{y}}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}^3}[/tex]
[tex]\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2} - \frac{(\dot{y}^2 + y\ddot{y})\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2} - y\dot{y}^2\ddot{y}}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}^3} = 0[/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #14
try this additional method for the special case when L_x=0 like this

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/BeltramiIdentity.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
matt grime said:
suppose i raise a mass of m kgs a distance of d metres, what is the increase in its gravitational potential energy? in your idea it is just d and independent of m, which is (sadly) not true.

Thats interesting, why not if m is just a constant ?
 
  • #16
Then you need to do another integral/differential equation if m varies with time, or position or something. See for instance the standard mechanics 101 exercise of the work done to launch a rocket with burning fuel making the mass change.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
[tex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = \dot{y} \sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2} + \frac{y \dot{y}}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}} = \dot{y} \frac{1 + \dot{y}^2 + y}{\sqrt{1 + \dot{y}^2}}[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K