Curvature of curve: equivalence between tangent vector and angle definitions












8














I know that curvature for some curve $C$ defined parametrically is:



$$kappa=left|{dvec{T}over ds}right|$$



Which basically is the rate at which the tangent vector to the curve changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



In another source, I saw the definition of curvature as the following:



If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are two points on the curve, $|P_1P_2|$ is the arclength between those two points, and $Phi$ is the limit of the angle between tangent vectors at the points $P_1$ and $P_2$ (as it goes to zero I assume), then the curvature is defined as:



$$kappa=lim_{|P_1P_2|to 0}{Phiover |P_1P_2|}$$



Which basically means, the rate at which the angle of tangent vectors in global frame of reference changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



I assume that this second definition can be rewritten using the notation from the first example as:



$$kappa={dphiover ds}$$



Where $phi$ is the angle between the vector tangent to the curve, and some constant global axis of reference (which could be the x axis, but realy it could be any line or vector on the same plane).



Given the second (weird in my opinion) definition of curvature, I can't see how those two definitions can be equivalent. Maybe they are not, I don't know. May be they are; if yes, how?



Also, here's a picture of the section from the book where the second definition appears in (it's not in English):





Note that the text agrees with yet another definition of curvature, which I am aware of: $kappa=frac1r$, where $r$ is radius of curvature.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Note that all of these definitions except $frac{dphi}{ds}$ work just as well in three dimensions as in two dimensions. To use $frac{dphi}{ds}$ in three dimensions you need to find the plane in which the tangent and normal vectors lie, and then you can apply that definition too.
    – David K
    yesterday










  • @DavidK thank you for the info, didn't even think about how that formula can be applied to three dimensions
    – KKZiomek
    yesterday
















8














I know that curvature for some curve $C$ defined parametrically is:



$$kappa=left|{dvec{T}over ds}right|$$



Which basically is the rate at which the tangent vector to the curve changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



In another source, I saw the definition of curvature as the following:



If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are two points on the curve, $|P_1P_2|$ is the arclength between those two points, and $Phi$ is the limit of the angle between tangent vectors at the points $P_1$ and $P_2$ (as it goes to zero I assume), then the curvature is defined as:



$$kappa=lim_{|P_1P_2|to 0}{Phiover |P_1P_2|}$$



Which basically means, the rate at which the angle of tangent vectors in global frame of reference changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



I assume that this second definition can be rewritten using the notation from the first example as:



$$kappa={dphiover ds}$$



Where $phi$ is the angle between the vector tangent to the curve, and some constant global axis of reference (which could be the x axis, but realy it could be any line or vector on the same plane).



Given the second (weird in my opinion) definition of curvature, I can't see how those two definitions can be equivalent. Maybe they are not, I don't know. May be they are; if yes, how?



Also, here's a picture of the section from the book where the second definition appears in (it's not in English):





Note that the text agrees with yet another definition of curvature, which I am aware of: $kappa=frac1r$, where $r$ is radius of curvature.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Note that all of these definitions except $frac{dphi}{ds}$ work just as well in three dimensions as in two dimensions. To use $frac{dphi}{ds}$ in three dimensions you need to find the plane in which the tangent and normal vectors lie, and then you can apply that definition too.
    – David K
    yesterday










  • @DavidK thank you for the info, didn't even think about how that formula can be applied to three dimensions
    – KKZiomek
    yesterday














8












8








8


1





I know that curvature for some curve $C$ defined parametrically is:



$$kappa=left|{dvec{T}over ds}right|$$



Which basically is the rate at which the tangent vector to the curve changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



In another source, I saw the definition of curvature as the following:



If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are two points on the curve, $|P_1P_2|$ is the arclength between those two points, and $Phi$ is the limit of the angle between tangent vectors at the points $P_1$ and $P_2$ (as it goes to zero I assume), then the curvature is defined as:



$$kappa=lim_{|P_1P_2|to 0}{Phiover |P_1P_2|}$$



Which basically means, the rate at which the angle of tangent vectors in global frame of reference changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



I assume that this second definition can be rewritten using the notation from the first example as:



$$kappa={dphiover ds}$$



Where $phi$ is the angle between the vector tangent to the curve, and some constant global axis of reference (which could be the x axis, but realy it could be any line or vector on the same plane).



Given the second (weird in my opinion) definition of curvature, I can't see how those two definitions can be equivalent. Maybe they are not, I don't know. May be they are; if yes, how?



Also, here's a picture of the section from the book where the second definition appears in (it's not in English):





Note that the text agrees with yet another definition of curvature, which I am aware of: $kappa=frac1r$, where $r$ is radius of curvature.










share|cite|improve this question















I know that curvature for some curve $C$ defined parametrically is:



$$kappa=left|{dvec{T}over ds}right|$$



Which basically is the rate at which the tangent vector to the curve changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



In another source, I saw the definition of curvature as the following:



If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are two points on the curve, $|P_1P_2|$ is the arclength between those two points, and $Phi$ is the limit of the angle between tangent vectors at the points $P_1$ and $P_2$ (as it goes to zero I assume), then the curvature is defined as:



$$kappa=lim_{|P_1P_2|to 0}{Phiover |P_1P_2|}$$



Which basically means, the rate at which the angle of tangent vectors in global frame of reference changes, as the arclength of the curve changes.



I assume that this second definition can be rewritten using the notation from the first example as:



$$kappa={dphiover ds}$$



Where $phi$ is the angle between the vector tangent to the curve, and some constant global axis of reference (which could be the x axis, but realy it could be any line or vector on the same plane).



Given the second (weird in my opinion) definition of curvature, I can't see how those two definitions can be equivalent. Maybe they are not, I don't know. May be they are; if yes, how?



Also, here's a picture of the section from the book where the second definition appears in (it's not in English):





Note that the text agrees with yet another definition of curvature, which I am aware of: $kappa=frac1r$, where $r$ is radius of curvature.







calculus differential-geometry vectors curves curvature






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Kenny Wong

17.2k21135




17.2k21135










asked 2 days ago









KKZiomek

2,0611339




2,0611339








  • 1




    Note that all of these definitions except $frac{dphi}{ds}$ work just as well in three dimensions as in two dimensions. To use $frac{dphi}{ds}$ in three dimensions you need to find the plane in which the tangent and normal vectors lie, and then you can apply that definition too.
    – David K
    yesterday










  • @DavidK thank you for the info, didn't even think about how that formula can be applied to three dimensions
    – KKZiomek
    yesterday














  • 1




    Note that all of these definitions except $frac{dphi}{ds}$ work just as well in three dimensions as in two dimensions. To use $frac{dphi}{ds}$ in three dimensions you need to find the plane in which the tangent and normal vectors lie, and then you can apply that definition too.
    – David K
    yesterday










  • @DavidK thank you for the info, didn't even think about how that formula can be applied to three dimensions
    – KKZiomek
    yesterday








1




1




Note that all of these definitions except $frac{dphi}{ds}$ work just as well in three dimensions as in two dimensions. To use $frac{dphi}{ds}$ in three dimensions you need to find the plane in which the tangent and normal vectors lie, and then you can apply that definition too.
– David K
yesterday




Note that all of these definitions except $frac{dphi}{ds}$ work just as well in three dimensions as in two dimensions. To use $frac{dphi}{ds}$ in three dimensions you need to find the plane in which the tangent and normal vectors lie, and then you can apply that definition too.
– David K
yesterday












@DavidK thank you for the info, didn't even think about how that formula can be applied to three dimensions
– KKZiomek
yesterday




@DavidK thank you for the info, didn't even think about how that formula can be applied to three dimensions
– KKZiomek
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7














Let's work with the first definition. We have
begin{align} kappa (s) &= left| frac{dvec T}{ds}(s)right| \ &= lim_{delta sto 0}frac 1 {delta s}left| vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s) right| \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s)).(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s))} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{| vec T(s + delta s)|^2 + | vec T(s) |^2 - 2vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s)}end{align}

But the curve is parameterised by arc length! So
$$ | vec T(s + delta s)|^2 = | vec T(s)|^2 = 1$$
and
$$ vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s) = cos Phi(s, s + delta s),$$
where $Phi(s, s + delta s)$ is the angle between $vec T(s)$ and $vec T(s + delta s)$.



Plugging this in, we get
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{2 - 2 cos Phi(s, s + delta s)} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} 2 sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right) \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times frac{sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right)}{frac{Phi(s, s + delta s)}{2}}
end{align}

Clearly, $lim_{delta s to 0} Phi(s, s + delta s) = 0$, so
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times lim_{Phi to 0} frac{sin left( frac { Phi } {2}right)}{frac{Phi}{2}} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times 1 \ &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s}end{align}

which agrees with the second definition.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
    – Noble Mushtak
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
    – Kenny Wong
    2 days ago



















5














By your first statement, $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ where $kappa$ is the curvature and $N$ is the unit normal vector. Now, let's consider $T(s)$ and $T(s+Delta s)$, so that we can compare the angles between tangent vectors. Now, $T(s)$, $T(s+Delta s)$, and $N(s)$ are all unit vectors, so we can draw the following picture representing all of these vectors:



enter image description here



Here, $Delta theta$ is the angle between the two tangent vectors and $Delta T=T(s+Delta s)-T(s)$. From the diagram, we can find that $Delta Tcdot T(s)=1-cos Delta theta$ and $Delta Tcdot N(s)=sin dtheta$. From the x-component, we get the following equation:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot T(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot T(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{1-cos(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=0$$



This was pretty obvious since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ is orthogonal to $T(s)$, so nothing new there. However, from the y-component, we get:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot N(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{sin(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=1$$



Now, let's use chain rule to figure out what $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ is:



$$frac{dT}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)=frac{dT}{dtheta}frac{dtheta}{ds} rightarrow frac{dT}{dtheta}=frac{kappa(s)N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}$$



Finally, let's plug this value for $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ into the equation with the dot product:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=1rightarrow frac{kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}=1rightarrow frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)=kappa(s)$$



(Note that the last step uses $N(s)cdot N(s)=1$ since $N(s)$ is a unit vector.)



At this point, we have shown $frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)$, which is what we originally set out to prove. Q.E.D.



Of course, this isn't exactly a formal proof since it assumes $T(s+Delta s)$ is in the plane spanned by $T(s)$ and $N(s)$, which isn't necessarily true. However, I think this is a fair approximation since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$, so $T(s+Delta s)approx T(s)+Delta sT'(s)=T(s)+[Delta skappa(s)]N(s)$. In any case, I feel like this geometric argument gives a better visual intuition for why $|T'(s)|=frac{dtheta}{ds}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
    – KKZiomek
    2 days ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053446%2fcurvature-of-curve-equivalence-between-tangent-vector-and-angle-definitions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7














Let's work with the first definition. We have
begin{align} kappa (s) &= left| frac{dvec T}{ds}(s)right| \ &= lim_{delta sto 0}frac 1 {delta s}left| vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s) right| \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s)).(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s))} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{| vec T(s + delta s)|^2 + | vec T(s) |^2 - 2vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s)}end{align}

But the curve is parameterised by arc length! So
$$ | vec T(s + delta s)|^2 = | vec T(s)|^2 = 1$$
and
$$ vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s) = cos Phi(s, s + delta s),$$
where $Phi(s, s + delta s)$ is the angle between $vec T(s)$ and $vec T(s + delta s)$.



Plugging this in, we get
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{2 - 2 cos Phi(s, s + delta s)} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} 2 sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right) \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times frac{sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right)}{frac{Phi(s, s + delta s)}{2}}
end{align}

Clearly, $lim_{delta s to 0} Phi(s, s + delta s) = 0$, so
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times lim_{Phi to 0} frac{sin left( frac { Phi } {2}right)}{frac{Phi}{2}} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times 1 \ &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s}end{align}

which agrees with the second definition.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
    – Noble Mushtak
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
    – Kenny Wong
    2 days ago
















7














Let's work with the first definition. We have
begin{align} kappa (s) &= left| frac{dvec T}{ds}(s)right| \ &= lim_{delta sto 0}frac 1 {delta s}left| vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s) right| \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s)).(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s))} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{| vec T(s + delta s)|^2 + | vec T(s) |^2 - 2vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s)}end{align}

But the curve is parameterised by arc length! So
$$ | vec T(s + delta s)|^2 = | vec T(s)|^2 = 1$$
and
$$ vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s) = cos Phi(s, s + delta s),$$
where $Phi(s, s + delta s)$ is the angle between $vec T(s)$ and $vec T(s + delta s)$.



Plugging this in, we get
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{2 - 2 cos Phi(s, s + delta s)} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} 2 sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right) \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times frac{sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right)}{frac{Phi(s, s + delta s)}{2}}
end{align}

Clearly, $lim_{delta s to 0} Phi(s, s + delta s) = 0$, so
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times lim_{Phi to 0} frac{sin left( frac { Phi } {2}right)}{frac{Phi}{2}} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times 1 \ &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s}end{align}

which agrees with the second definition.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
    – Noble Mushtak
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
    – Kenny Wong
    2 days ago














7












7








7






Let's work with the first definition. We have
begin{align} kappa (s) &= left| frac{dvec T}{ds}(s)right| \ &= lim_{delta sto 0}frac 1 {delta s}left| vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s) right| \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s)).(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s))} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{| vec T(s + delta s)|^2 + | vec T(s) |^2 - 2vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s)}end{align}

But the curve is parameterised by arc length! So
$$ | vec T(s + delta s)|^2 = | vec T(s)|^2 = 1$$
and
$$ vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s) = cos Phi(s, s + delta s),$$
where $Phi(s, s + delta s)$ is the angle between $vec T(s)$ and $vec T(s + delta s)$.



Plugging this in, we get
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{2 - 2 cos Phi(s, s + delta s)} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} 2 sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right) \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times frac{sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right)}{frac{Phi(s, s + delta s)}{2}}
end{align}

Clearly, $lim_{delta s to 0} Phi(s, s + delta s) = 0$, so
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times lim_{Phi to 0} frac{sin left( frac { Phi } {2}right)}{frac{Phi}{2}} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times 1 \ &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s}end{align}

which agrees with the second definition.






share|cite|improve this answer












Let's work with the first definition. We have
begin{align} kappa (s) &= left| frac{dvec T}{ds}(s)right| \ &= lim_{delta sto 0}frac 1 {delta s}left| vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s) right| \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s)).(vec T(s + delta s) - vec T(s))} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{| vec T(s + delta s)|^2 + | vec T(s) |^2 - 2vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s)}end{align}

But the curve is parameterised by arc length! So
$$ | vec T(s + delta s)|^2 = | vec T(s)|^2 = 1$$
and
$$ vec T(s).vec T(s + delta s) = cos Phi(s, s + delta s),$$
where $Phi(s, s + delta s)$ is the angle between $vec T(s)$ and $vec T(s + delta s)$.



Plugging this in, we get
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} sqrt{2 - 2 cos Phi(s, s + delta s)} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac 1 {delta s} 2 sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right) \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times frac{sin left( frac { Phi(s, s + delta s) } {2}right)}{frac{Phi(s, s + delta s)}{2}}
end{align}

Clearly, $lim_{delta s to 0} Phi(s, s + delta s) = 0$, so
begin{align}
kappa &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times lim_{Phi to 0} frac{sin left( frac { Phi } {2}right)}{frac{Phi}{2}} \
&= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s} times 1 \ &= lim_{delta s to 0} frac {Phi(s, s + delta s)} {delta s}end{align}

which agrees with the second definition.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Kenny Wong

17.2k21135




17.2k21135












  • How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
    – Noble Mushtak
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
    – Kenny Wong
    2 days ago


















  • How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
    – Noble Mushtak
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
    – Kenny Wong
    2 days ago
















How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
– Noble Mushtak
2 days ago






How do you get from $sqrt{2-2cosPhi}$ to $2sinleft(frac{Phi}{2}right)$?
– Noble Mushtak
2 days ago






1




1




@NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
– Kenny Wong
2 days ago




@NobleMushtak I used $1 - cos x = 2 sin^2 (tfrac x 2)$.
– Kenny Wong
2 days ago











5














By your first statement, $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ where $kappa$ is the curvature and $N$ is the unit normal vector. Now, let's consider $T(s)$ and $T(s+Delta s)$, so that we can compare the angles between tangent vectors. Now, $T(s)$, $T(s+Delta s)$, and $N(s)$ are all unit vectors, so we can draw the following picture representing all of these vectors:



enter image description here



Here, $Delta theta$ is the angle between the two tangent vectors and $Delta T=T(s+Delta s)-T(s)$. From the diagram, we can find that $Delta Tcdot T(s)=1-cos Delta theta$ and $Delta Tcdot N(s)=sin dtheta$. From the x-component, we get the following equation:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot T(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot T(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{1-cos(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=0$$



This was pretty obvious since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ is orthogonal to $T(s)$, so nothing new there. However, from the y-component, we get:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot N(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{sin(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=1$$



Now, let's use chain rule to figure out what $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ is:



$$frac{dT}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)=frac{dT}{dtheta}frac{dtheta}{ds} rightarrow frac{dT}{dtheta}=frac{kappa(s)N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}$$



Finally, let's plug this value for $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ into the equation with the dot product:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=1rightarrow frac{kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}=1rightarrow frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)=kappa(s)$$



(Note that the last step uses $N(s)cdot N(s)=1$ since $N(s)$ is a unit vector.)



At this point, we have shown $frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)$, which is what we originally set out to prove. Q.E.D.



Of course, this isn't exactly a formal proof since it assumes $T(s+Delta s)$ is in the plane spanned by $T(s)$ and $N(s)$, which isn't necessarily true. However, I think this is a fair approximation since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$, so $T(s+Delta s)approx T(s)+Delta sT'(s)=T(s)+[Delta skappa(s)]N(s)$. In any case, I feel like this geometric argument gives a better visual intuition for why $|T'(s)|=frac{dtheta}{ds}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
    – KKZiomek
    2 days ago


















5














By your first statement, $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ where $kappa$ is the curvature and $N$ is the unit normal vector. Now, let's consider $T(s)$ and $T(s+Delta s)$, so that we can compare the angles between tangent vectors. Now, $T(s)$, $T(s+Delta s)$, and $N(s)$ are all unit vectors, so we can draw the following picture representing all of these vectors:



enter image description here



Here, $Delta theta$ is the angle between the two tangent vectors and $Delta T=T(s+Delta s)-T(s)$. From the diagram, we can find that $Delta Tcdot T(s)=1-cos Delta theta$ and $Delta Tcdot N(s)=sin dtheta$. From the x-component, we get the following equation:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot T(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot T(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{1-cos(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=0$$



This was pretty obvious since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ is orthogonal to $T(s)$, so nothing new there. However, from the y-component, we get:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot N(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{sin(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=1$$



Now, let's use chain rule to figure out what $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ is:



$$frac{dT}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)=frac{dT}{dtheta}frac{dtheta}{ds} rightarrow frac{dT}{dtheta}=frac{kappa(s)N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}$$



Finally, let's plug this value for $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ into the equation with the dot product:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=1rightarrow frac{kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}=1rightarrow frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)=kappa(s)$$



(Note that the last step uses $N(s)cdot N(s)=1$ since $N(s)$ is a unit vector.)



At this point, we have shown $frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)$, which is what we originally set out to prove. Q.E.D.



Of course, this isn't exactly a formal proof since it assumes $T(s+Delta s)$ is in the plane spanned by $T(s)$ and $N(s)$, which isn't necessarily true. However, I think this is a fair approximation since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$, so $T(s+Delta s)approx T(s)+Delta sT'(s)=T(s)+[Delta skappa(s)]N(s)$. In any case, I feel like this geometric argument gives a better visual intuition for why $|T'(s)|=frac{dtheta}{ds}$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
    – KKZiomek
    2 days ago
















5












5








5






By your first statement, $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ where $kappa$ is the curvature and $N$ is the unit normal vector. Now, let's consider $T(s)$ and $T(s+Delta s)$, so that we can compare the angles between tangent vectors. Now, $T(s)$, $T(s+Delta s)$, and $N(s)$ are all unit vectors, so we can draw the following picture representing all of these vectors:



enter image description here



Here, $Delta theta$ is the angle between the two tangent vectors and $Delta T=T(s+Delta s)-T(s)$. From the diagram, we can find that $Delta Tcdot T(s)=1-cos Delta theta$ and $Delta Tcdot N(s)=sin dtheta$. From the x-component, we get the following equation:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot T(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot T(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{1-cos(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=0$$



This was pretty obvious since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ is orthogonal to $T(s)$, so nothing new there. However, from the y-component, we get:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot N(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{sin(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=1$$



Now, let's use chain rule to figure out what $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ is:



$$frac{dT}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)=frac{dT}{dtheta}frac{dtheta}{ds} rightarrow frac{dT}{dtheta}=frac{kappa(s)N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}$$



Finally, let's plug this value for $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ into the equation with the dot product:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=1rightarrow frac{kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}=1rightarrow frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)=kappa(s)$$



(Note that the last step uses $N(s)cdot N(s)=1$ since $N(s)$ is a unit vector.)



At this point, we have shown $frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)$, which is what we originally set out to prove. Q.E.D.



Of course, this isn't exactly a formal proof since it assumes $T(s+Delta s)$ is in the plane spanned by $T(s)$ and $N(s)$, which isn't necessarily true. However, I think this is a fair approximation since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$, so $T(s+Delta s)approx T(s)+Delta sT'(s)=T(s)+[Delta skappa(s)]N(s)$. In any case, I feel like this geometric argument gives a better visual intuition for why $|T'(s)|=frac{dtheta}{ds}$.






share|cite|improve this answer














By your first statement, $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ where $kappa$ is the curvature and $N$ is the unit normal vector. Now, let's consider $T(s)$ and $T(s+Delta s)$, so that we can compare the angles between tangent vectors. Now, $T(s)$, $T(s+Delta s)$, and $N(s)$ are all unit vectors, so we can draw the following picture representing all of these vectors:



enter image description here



Here, $Delta theta$ is the angle between the two tangent vectors and $Delta T=T(s+Delta s)-T(s)$. From the diagram, we can find that $Delta Tcdot T(s)=1-cos Delta theta$ and $Delta Tcdot N(s)=sin dtheta$. From the x-component, we get the following equation:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot T(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot T(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{1-cos(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=0$$



This was pretty obvious since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$ is orthogonal to $T(s)$, so nothing new there. However, from the y-component, we get:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{Delta Tcdot N(s)}{Delta theta}=lim_{Delta thetarightarrow 0}frac{sin(Delta theta)}{Delta theta}=1$$



Now, let's use chain rule to figure out what $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ is:



$$frac{dT}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)=frac{dT}{dtheta}frac{dtheta}{ds} rightarrow frac{dT}{dtheta}=frac{kappa(s)N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}$$



Finally, let's plug this value for $frac{dT}{dtheta}$ into the equation with the dot product:



$$frac{dT}{dtheta}cdot N(s)=1rightarrow frac{kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)}{frac{dtheta}{ds}}=1rightarrow frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)N(s)cdot N(s)=kappa(s)$$



(Note that the last step uses $N(s)cdot N(s)=1$ since $N(s)$ is a unit vector.)



At this point, we have shown $frac{dtheta}{ds}=kappa(s)$, which is what we originally set out to prove. Q.E.D.



Of course, this isn't exactly a formal proof since it assumes $T(s+Delta s)$ is in the plane spanned by $T(s)$ and $N(s)$, which isn't necessarily true. However, I think this is a fair approximation since $T'(s)=kappa(s)N(s)$, so $T(s+Delta s)approx T(s)+Delta sT'(s)=T(s)+[Delta skappa(s)]N(s)$. In any case, I feel like this geometric argument gives a better visual intuition for why $|T'(s)|=frac{dtheta}{ds}$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









Noble Mushtak

13.9k1734




13.9k1734












  • Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
    – KKZiomek
    2 days ago




















  • Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
    – KKZiomek
    2 days ago


















Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
– KKZiomek
2 days ago






Thank you for the answer. I accepted the other answer only because it was more straightforward, at least to me
– KKZiomek
2 days ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053446%2fcurvature-of-curve-equivalence-between-tangent-vector-and-angle-definitions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Human spaceflight

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

張江高科駅