Proof the shortest path on a sphere is the great circle.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the statement that the shortest path on a sphere is the great circle. Participants explore various proofs, assumptions, and the implications of uniqueness in the context of this geometric claim.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that many proofs rely on assumptions such as differentiability and uniqueness of the shortest path, which they find unconvincing.
  • Another participant asserts that the shortest path is not unique when the two points are polar opposites, challenging the assumption of uniqueness in some proofs.
  • A different participant suggests that defining "length" is crucial and references a paper that discusses differentiability of shortest paths.
  • One participant draws an analogy to 2D geometry, questioning whether the same principles apply to spherical triangles.
  • Several participants propose a practical method using a string to find the shortest path, but acknowledge that this only yields a geodesic and may not represent the shortest path in all cases.
  • Concerns are raised about the stability of the string method in finding the shortest path, particularly in non-friction scenarios.
  • One participant critiques the title of the thread, suggesting it should clarify that the shortest path is part of a great circle rather than implying it is the only path.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the uniqueness of the shortest path and the assumptions underlying various proofs. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Some proofs discussed depend on assumptions that may not be universally accepted, such as differentiability and uniqueness. The implications of these assumptions on the validity of the proofs are not settled.

trytodoit
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
There are plenty of proofs for the statement, but I do not find one which is not rely on other assumptions. Here are some common proofs of this statement:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Circle#Derivation_of_shortest_paths
This proof require the path to be differentiable, which is not a part of the statement.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1180923/shortest-path-on-a-sphere
There are several proofs in the page, they are rely on the uniqueness of the shortest path. They thought the uniqueness is intuitive, but I cannot persuade myself on this assumption.

Can anyone provide me a strict proof without other assumption of the statement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The shortest path is NOT unique, if the two points are polar opposites.
 
HallsofIvy said:
The shortest path is NOT unique, if the two points are polar opposites.
Yes, therefore the proofs assuming uniqueness of the shortest path are not that intuitive as it sounds. Any better proof for this simple statement.
 
I guess the first thing to do is to actually define what you mean with "length". The following link may help http://www.math.psu.edu/petrunin/papers/alexandrov/bbi.pdf

In particular, you might be interested in section 5.2.2 which proves that every shortest path is differentiable.
 
Last edited:
Woo, it looks quite hard to proof this statement.
 
In 2D.. Say you have two points A and B joined by a straight line. If you add another point C to form a triangle then it should be easy to show that the path ACB is longer than AB. Is it the same for a spherical triangle?
 
This is Physics forum! We don't need no stinkin' mathematics!

Select two points on a sphere. Take a string, anchor it on one of the points, ensure that it crosses the other point, and tighten it. When you cannot tighten it more, you have found the shortest way between the points.
 
Svein said:
This is Physics forum! We don't need no stinkin' mathematics!

Select two points on a sphere. Take a string, anchor it on one of the points, ensure that it crosses the other point, and tighten it. When you cannot tighten it more, you have found the shortest way between the points.

That only gives a geodesic though, not generally a shortest path :sorry: Indeed, you can imagine two points on the sphere close together, and the string going all around the poles.
 
micromass said:
That only gives a geodesic though, not generally a shortest path :sorry: Indeed, you can imagine two points on the sphere close together, and the string going all around the poles.
Yes, but that is a very unstable situation. If the sphere is of the "no-friction" type that occurs in a typical physics problem, the tiniest shake of your hands will make the string slip around the sphere.

And "The term "geodesic" comes from geodesy, the science of measuring the size and shape of Earth; in the original sense, a geodesic was the shortest route between two points on the Earth's surface " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic).
 
  • #10
Svein said:
Yes, but that is a very unstable situation. If the sphere is of the "no-friction" type that occurs in a typical physics problem, the tiniest shake of your hands will make the string slip around the sphere.

And "The term "geodesic" comes from geodesy, the science of measuring the size and shape of Earth; in the original sense, a geodesic was the shortest route between two points on the Earth's surface " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic).

In my opinion, you cannot define the shortest path by tight the string. For the sphere, it happens to be only two stable states, as mentioned by @micromass, but generally you still cannot say a stable state of the tight string is the shortest path for all kinds of shapes. Even worse, according to the pdf provided by @micromass, for general shapes, the shortest path maybe non-smooth and not unique. Tight the string may be useful in finding a local extremes, but not quite helpful for finding the shortest path.
 
  • #11
HallsofIvy said:
The shortest path is NOT unique, if the two points are polar opposites.
The title of this thread is "proof that the shortest path on a sphere is the great circle". It does not say anything about uniqueness. On the other hand, the title is incorrect as it stands. A better title would be: "Proof that the shortest path between two points on a sphere is part of a great circle".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
25K