Parametrizations and regular curves

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buri
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curves Regular
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the necessity of a variable change in the proof that a parametrized curve has a unit-speed reparametrization if and only if it is regular. Participants question whether the proof could reach the same conclusion without this change and discuss the implications of using the chain rule. The use of absolute value for |dt/ds| is clarified as it pertains to treating t as a single-variable function, which simplifies the norm calculation. Ultimately, it is emphasized that the chain rule is essential for demonstrating the relationship between regularity and reparameterization. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these mathematical concepts in the context of parametrized curves.
Buri
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
I'd like to have someone explain to me the purpose of the variable change in the proof of the following theorem:

A parametrized curve has a unit-speed reparametrization if and only if it is regular.

Proof: Suppose first that a parametrized curve γ: (a,b) → R^n has a unit-speed reparametrization μ, with reparametrization map φ. Letting t = φ(s) we have μ(s) = γ(t) and so

dμ/ds = (dγ/dt)(dt/ds)

Therefore, ||dμ/ds|| = ||dγ/dt|| ⋅ |dt/ds|

Since μ has unit speed, ||dμ/ds|| = 1, so dγ/dt cannot be zero.
===============

I don't see why it was necessary? Couldn't we have just concluded the exact same thing without the variable change? Another thing, I notice that they use absolute value for |dt/ds| this is because t = φ(s) is a single variable function right? So it's like a 'constant'? Was it just to make this more explicit? Because the norm properties don't have ||fg|| = ||f|| ||g||.

Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone?
 
Can anyone help me out on this?
 
Buri said:
===============

I don't see why it was necessary? Couldn't we have just concluded the exact same thing without the variable change?

How would you make the conclusion without the chain rule?

Another thing, I notice that they use absolute value for |dt/ds| this is because t = φ(s) is a single variable function right? So it's like a 'constant'?

You are just taking the norm of a scalar time a vector.
 
lavinia said:
How would you make the conclusion without the chain rule?

I'm saying we're not supposed to use the Chain Rule. The Chain Rule is obviously necessary, but we could apply the chain rule without having to make such a variable change.


lavinia said:
You are just taking the norm of a scalar time a vector.

I know the norm property for this, but I don't see how dt/ds is a scalar? Could you explain?
 
When you say scalar, I suppose you mean that it is a function of one variable plus its a vector valued function - its a 1-tuple. So its norm just simply behaves as a normal absolute value.
 
Buri said:
When you say scalar, I suppose you mean that it is a function of one variable plus its a vector valued function - its a 1-tuple. So its norm just simply behaves as a normal absolute value.

right
 
Buri said:
When you say scalar, I suppose you mean that it is a function of one variable plus its a vector valued function - its a 1-tuple. So its norm just simply behaves as a normal absolute value.

If the curve is not regular then no reparameterization can regularize it. This follows from the chain rule. I suspect any other proof is equivalent.

If the curve is reparameterized by arc length then this reparameterized curve is regular. But the original curve may not be. To show that it is - use the chain rule.
 
lavinia said:
If the curve is not regular then no reparameterization can regularize it. This follows from the chain rule. I suspect any other proof is equivalent.

If the curve is reparameterized by arc length then this reparameterized curve is regular. But the original curve may not be. To show that it is - use the chain rule.

I don't think you understood my problem. I know you need to use the chain rule. But I don't see the purpose of the variable change in the proof since you can apply the chain rule without making the variable change. So my question was what was the purpose of it...
 
  • #10
Buri said:
I don't think you understood my problem. I know you need to use the chain rule. But I don't see the purpose of the variable change in the proof since you can apply the chain rule without making the variable change. So my question was what was the purpose of it...

How do you apply the Chain rule without the change of variables? Can you show me?
 

Similar threads

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