Parameterised Curve Proof Part 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter bugatti79
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curve Proof
  • #51
Hmm, your problem statement said nothing about m/s.
So how did you assume it would be m/s?

Anyway, even assuming the speed is in m/s, what's stopping us from defining a new curve that has a unit-less speed of 1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
I like Serena said:
Hmm, your problem statement said nothing about m/s.
So how did you assume it would be m/s?

Anyway, even assuming the speed is in m/s, what's stopping us from defining a new curve that has a unit-less speed of 1?

There was nothing said of m/s, I can't think of velocity being anything other than m/s!

I don't know how you would have a unit less speed. I give up :-)
 
  • #53
Well, let's make a side trip into physics.
Did you know that meters and seconds are actually the same unit with a conversion factor (speed of light in vacuum) between them?
In other words, in a sense m/s is also dimensionless!

This is however not really relevant to your problem.
But if you want to give up, that's up to you of course!
 
  • #54
I like Serena said:
Hmm, your problem statement said nothing about m/s.
So how did you assume it would be m/s?

Anyway, even assuming the speed is in m/s, what's stopping us from defining a new curve that has a unit-less speed of 1?

c would have to be 1 to make ||r_1(t)||=1 if v is dimensionless.
 
  • #55
You wrote before that ||r_1'(s)|| = ||v/c||
So if c = 1, then ||r_1'(s)|| = ||v||, which is presumably not 1.

Btw, you seem to have dropped a quote that should have been there to indicate the derivative.
And you also seem to have replaced the parameter s of r_1(s) by t.
Really!
 
  • #56
I like Serena said:
You wrote before that ||r_1'(s)|| = ||v/c||
So if c = 1, then ||r_1'(s)|| = ||v||, which is presumably not 1.

Btw, you seem to have dropped a quote that should have been there to indicate the derivative.
And you also seem to have replaced the parameter s of r_1(s) by t.
Really!

Well, I think I have exhausted all my possible answers based on my understanding. I don't know h0w ||r_1'(s)||=1 if c is not 1.
 
  • #57
Well, if v is a vector and c is a scalar, what if c=||v||?

And if you want, you can let v keep a unit of [m/s] and have c be dimensionless.
That should satisfy your sense of what speed should be.
 
  • #58
I like Serena said:
Well, if v is a vector and c is a scalar, what if c=||v||?

And if you want, you can let v keep a unit of [m/s] and have c be dimensionless.
That should satisfy your sense of what speed should be.

hmm... so if s(t) is the distance along the curve r_1(s) we would have s(t)=||v||t?

So in a nutshell we were finding a suitable expression for the distance s(t) such that we can maintain the requirement that ||r_1'(s)||=1 for all s?


Is it a similar approach for this last exercise?

reparameterise the curve r(t)=2cos(t)i+2cos(t)j+tk by it arc length. start at t=0
 
  • #59
bugatti79 said:
hmm... so if s(t) is the distance along the curve r_1(s) we would have s(t)=||v||t?

Uummm... s(t) depends on a parameter t that is not in r_1(s)...
But I think what you mean is probably right.

I'd say it something like this:

s is the length of the curve r_1 from 0 to s.

With s(t) = ||v||t, the curve r(t(s)) has this property.


bugatti79 said:
So in a nutshell we were finding a suitable expression for the distance s(t) such that we can maintain the requirement that ||r_1'(s)||=1 for all s?

Yes.

bugatti79 said:
Is it a similar approach for this last exercise?

reparameterise the curve r(t)=2cos(t)i+2cos(t)j+tk by it arc length. start at t=0

Yes.
 
  • #60
bugatti79 said:
Is it a similar approach for this last exercise?

reparameterise the curve r(t)=2cos(t)i+2cos(t)j+tk by it arc length. start at t=0

||r'(t)||=||-2sin(t)-2sin(t)+1||=(-4sin(t)+1)^(1/2).

If we let s(t)=ct then using the same idea we must have c=(-4sin(t)+1)^0.5 in order for ||r_1'(s)||=1...?
 
  • #61
First things first. You seem to have miscalculated when getting the length of r'(t).
You're not supposed to just drop i, j, and k.

What you get, should satisfy ||r_1'(s)|| = 1.
Does it?
 
  • #62
I like Serena said:
First things first. You seem to have miscalculated when getting the length of r'(t).
You're not supposed to just drop i, j, and k.

What you get, should satisfy ||r_1'(s)|| = 1.
Does it?

hmmm...why not? I dropped it based on the definition (in general terms) that if the vector v=(ai+bj+ck) then its magnitude is ||v||=(a^2+b^2+c^2)^0.5...?
 
  • #63
bugatti79 said:
hmmm...why not? I dropped it based on the definition (in general terms) that if the vector v=(ai+bj+ck) then its magnitude is ||v||=(a^2+b^2+c^2)^0.5...?

This is correct, but that's not what you did.
 
  • #64
I like Serena said:
First things first. You seem to have miscalculated when getting the length of r'(t).
You're not supposed to just drop i, j, and k.

What you get, should satisfy ||r_1'(s)|| = 1.
Does it?

Ok, I shouldn't have added like terms, they need to be kept separated?

||r'(t)||=||-2sin(t)-2sin(t)+1||=(-2sin^2(t) -2sin^2(t)+1)^(1/2).


It can only satisfy ||r_1'(s)|| = 1 if we make c=(-2sin^2(t) -2sin^2(t)+1)^(1/2) if we let s(t)=ct...?
 
  • #65
When taking the derivative you should not drop the i, j, or k.
That happens later, when you calculate the length.

When calculating the squares, you need to add parentheses to indicate you square the entire term and not just the sine.
 
  • #66
I like Serena said:
Uummm... s(t) depends on a parameter t that is not in r_1(s)...
But I think what you mean is probably right.

I'd say it something like this:

s is the length of the curve r_1 from 0 to s.

With s(t) = ||v||t, the curve r(t(s)) has this property.




Yes.



Yes.

Ok, I see the error.

||r'(t)||=||-2sin(t)i-2sin(t)j+1k||=(8sin^2(t)+1)^(1/2).

If we let s(t)=ct then using the same idea we must have c=8sin^2(t)+1)^(1/2) in order for ||r_1'(s)||=1...?


Is this the same as saying ||r_1'(s)||=1 is satisfied?
 
  • #67
bugatti79 said:
Ok, I see the error.

||r'(t)||=||-2sin(t)i-2sin(t)j+1k||=(8sin^2(t)+1)^(1/2).

Good!


bugatti79 said:
If we let s(t)=ct then using the same idea we must have c=8sin^2(t)+1)^(1/2) in order for ||r_1'(s)||=1...?


Is this the same as saying ||r_1'(s)||=1 is satisfied?

No.
If you let s(t)=ct, then r_1(s)=r(t(s))=r(s/c).
Can you calculate r_1'(s) for this case?
Please substitute and write out the entire formula.
 
  • #68
I like Serena said:
Good!




No.
If you let s(t)=ct, then r_1(s)=r(t(s))=r(s/c).
Can you calculate r_1'(s) for this case?
Please substitute and write out the entire formula.

r_1'(s)=(dr/dt)(dt/ds) = (-2sin(t)i-2sin(t)j+1k)(1/c)...?
 
  • #69
bugatti79 said:
r_1'(s)=(dr/dt)(dt/ds) = (-2sin(t)i-2sin(t)j+1k)(1/c)...?

This is only true if c is a constant.
With your solution c is not a constant but a function of t.

What you need to do is define (dt/ds) such that it yields ||r_1'(s)||=1, and then integrate it.
 
  • #70
I like Serena said:
Yes. You really need to start making distinctions between vectors, scalars, infinitesimal vectors, and infinitesimal scalars. :wink:

Anyway, your arc speed is ||r'(t)||=||v||.

For your reparameterisation you want it to be 1.

So perhaps s(t) is something like s(t)=c t for some constant c.
What will the arc speed become with this parameterisation?


I like Serena said:
This is only true if c is a constant.
With your solution c is not a constant but a function of t.

What you need to do is define (dt/ds) such that it yields ||r_1'(s)||=1, and then integrate it.

but in the previous case you had the same eqn s(t)=ct and you treated c as a constant, is it not a function of t here also...?
 
  • #71
Yes, well, I speculated it might be a constant.
And yay! It was. :biggrin:

I'm afraid in this case it isn't.
I didn't know before that you would come up with harder and harder problems.
I think this one doesn't even have a neat simple solution.
 
  • #72
I like Serena said:
Yes, well, I speculated it might be a constant.
And yay! It was. :biggrin:

I'm afraid in this case it isn't.
I didn't know before that you would come up with harder and harder problems.
I think this one doesn't even have a neat simple solution.

Ok. One final question and I will leave this one..:-) How did you determine it was a constant in the first case and not in the second?

THanks in advance!
 
  • #73
The derivative of r(t)=u+vt was r'(t)=v which is a constant.


Let's step through the process, shall we?

What you need, is:
|| r_1'(s) || = 1

So:
|| r'(t(s)) t'(s) || = 1

Assuming t'(s) is positive, that means:
|| r'(t(s))|| = 1 / t'(s) = s'(t)

This can also be written as:
s'(t) = ||r'(t)||

Integrate both sides with respect to t, and you find s(t).

In your previous problem, you had ||r'(t)||=||v||, which is constant and as such easy to integrate.
 
  • #74
I like Serena said:
The derivative of r(t)=u+vt was r'(t)=v which is a constant.


Let's step through the process, shall we?

What you need, is:
|| r_1'(s) || = 1

So:
|| r'(t(s)) t'(s) || = 1

Assuming t'(s) is positive, that means:
|| r'(t(s))|| = 1 / t'(s) = s'(t)

This can also be written as:
s'(t) = ||r'(t)||

Integrate both sides with respect to t, and you find s(t).

In your previous problem, you had ||r'(t)||=||v||, which is constant and as such easy to integrate.

Ok, Thanks Alot! :-)
 
Back
Top