Parametric curve /derivative problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter ParoxysmX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curve Parametric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the analysis of a parametric curve defined by the equations x(t) = ti + t^(1/3)j. The derivative x'(t) is calculated as dx/dt = i + (1/3)t^(-2/3)j, which does not exist at t=0 due to the term becoming undefined. A new parametrization using e^si + e^(s/3)j is proposed, which ensures the tangent vector is well-defined at all points, including at the origin.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of parametric equations in vector calculus
  • Knowledge of derivatives and their application to vector functions
  • Familiarity with limits and continuity in calculus
  • Basic concepts of exponential functions and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of parametric curves in vector calculus
  • Learn about the concept of limits and continuity at points of discontinuity
  • Explore the use of exponential functions in parametrization
  • Investigate the implications of tangent vectors in higher-dimensional calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those focusing on vector calculus and parametric equations, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to derivatives and parametrization.

ParoxysmX
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider the parametric curve given by the equation

x(t) = ti + t^(1/3)j1. Calculate x'(t). Does the vector exist at t=0?

2. Find a new parametrisation of the curve for which the tangent vector is well
defined at all points. What is the value of the vector at the origin?

The Attempt at a Solution



For q.1, is it as simple as finding dx/dt? which would be 1 + \frac{1}{3\sqrt[3]{t^{2}}}?

As for q.2, I'm completely stumped.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it really is as simple as finding dx/dt. No, what you have is NOT dx/dt. x(t) is a vector and dx/dt is a vector: dx/dt= i+ \frac{1}{3}t^{-2/3}j.

As for (2), e^s exists for all s so try e^si+ e^{s/3}j.
Do you see why that is also a parameterization for the curve?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, it really is as simple as finding dx/dt. No, what you have is NOT dx/dt. x(t) is a vector and dx/dt is a vector: dx/dt= i+ \frac{1}{3}t^{-2/3}j.

Ah yes, my mistake. So this should mean that dx/dt does not exist at t=0, since \frac{1}{3}t^{-2/3}j becomes 1/0, giving i + ∞j.

HallsofIvy said:
As for (2), e^s exists for all s so try e^si+ e^{s/3}j.
Do you see why that is also a parameterization for the curve?

Yeah. dx/ds in this case would be defined at s=0, which is what we want. Is this sort of like 'moving' the origin?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K