The text we are using for Calculus III introduces the notion of unit tangent vector, principal unit normal vector, and curvature, for smooth curves , and it also mentions that circles and lines are planar curves of constant curvature. (A curve is planar if its image is contained in a plane, i.e., if it describes a two-dimensional trajectory.)

Surprisingly, though, the text does not explain (not even in the exercises) that circles and lines are the only smooth planar curves of constant curvature. The argument for this is simple enough, so I will show it here:

Recall that if is a smooth curve, we set

where denotes arc length. We can define the curvature of as

Assume that is constantly equal to zero. Then , so is constant, so for some constant vector . This is the parametric equation of a line, so we have shown that the only curves with zero curvature are straight lines. Notice that for this we did not need to assume that is a planar curve. From now on we may assume that this is the case and that is constant and different from zero.

In terms of , we can equivalently compute as

We then set to be the unit vector in the direction of , so

or, equivalently in terms of ,

so . Recall that , since is constant, so its derivative is zero.

Since is also constant, again we have that . Since is also perpendicular to and we are assuming that moves on a plane, this means that is a multiple of ,

where is some scalar function. To compute , notice that . But also , so , or . Since , we finally find that

Recall also that the osculating circle to the curve at the point is the circle of the same curvature as at and centered in the direction of the vector at , so its center is given by

since the curvature of a circle is the inverse of its radius. In particular, since is constant, all the osculating circles to have the same radius. Now we prove that is constant (from the assumptions that is planar and is constant). To see this, compute to find

or .

But this completes the proof, because then , since , i.e., the curve lies on a circle of radius

On the other hand, there are curves of constant curvature other than lines and circles, if the curve is not confined to a plane. The helix is an example.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm and is filed under 275: Calculus III. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

For positive integers $a_1,\dots,a_n$, recall that the multicolor Ramsey number $R(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ is the smallest integer $N$ such that if the edges of the complete graph $K_N$ are colored with the $n$ colors $1,\dots,n$, then there is some $i\le n$ and a set of $a_i$ vertices, all of whose edges received color $i$. A maximal Ramsey$(a_1,\dots,a_n)$-colorin […]

Georgii: Let me start with some brief remarks. In a series of three papers: a. Wacław Sierpiński, "Contribution à la théorie des séries divergentes", Comp. Rend. Soc. Sci. Varsovie 3 (1910) 89–93 (in Polish). b. Wacław Sierpiński, "Remarque sur la théorème de Riemann relatif aux séries semi-convergentes", Prac. Mat. Fiz. XXI (1910) 17–20 […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Stefan, "low" cardinalities do not change by passing from $L({\mathbb R})$ to $L({\mathbb R})[{\mathcal U}]$, so the answer to the second question is that the existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter does not imply the existence of a Vitali set. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${ […]

Marginalia to a theorem of Silver (see also this link) by Keith I. Devlin and R. B. Jensen, 1975. A humble title and yet, undoubtedly, one of the most important papers of all time in set theory.

Equality is part of the background (first-order) logic, so it is included, but there is no need to mention it. The situation is the same in many other theories. If you want to work in a language without equality, on the other hand, then this is mentioned explicitly. It is true that from extensionality (and logical axioms), one can prove that two sets are equ […]

$L$ has such a nice canonical structure that one can use it to define a global well-ordering. That is, there is a formula $\phi(u,v)$ that (provably in $\mathsf{ZF}$) well-orders all of $L$, so that its restriction to any specific set $A$ in $L$ is a set well-ordering of $A$. The well-ordering $\varphi$ you are asking about can be obtained as the restriction […]

Gödel sentences are by construction $\Pi^0_1$ statements, that is, they have the form "for all $n$ ...", where ... is a recursive statement (think "a statement that a computer can decide"). For instance, the typical Gödel sentence for a system $T$ coming from the second incompleteness theorem says that "for all $n$ that code a proof […]

When I first saw the question, I remembered there was a proof on MO using Ramsey theory, but couldn't remember how the argument went, so I came up with the following, that I first posted as a comment: A cute proof using Schur's theorem: Fix $a$ in your semigroup $S$, and color $n$ and $m$ with the same color whenever $a^n=a^m$. By Schur's theo […]

It depends on what you are doing. I assume by lower level you really mean high level, or general, or 2-digit class. In that case, 54 is general topology, 26 is real functions, 03 is mathematical logic and foundations. "Point-set topology" most likely refers to the stuff in 54, or to the theory of Baire functions, as in 26A21, or to descriptive set […]