1
$\begingroup$

i was reading the book of Docarmo of differential geometry and I Have a question at the end of the proof that given the curvature and the torsion of a curve, the curve it´s unique , I only omitted the part where it shows that a rigid motion does not alter the curvature and torsionenter image description here

My question is in the red rectangle, why this equality it´s true? i did not understand it, sorry for my questions...

1 Answers 1

1

The author proved that the derivative of $|t-\bar{t}|^2+|n-\bar{n}|^2+|b-\bar{b}|^2$ is $0$. When the derivative of a function is $0$, it means the function is constant. But since the expression is identifiably $0$ at the initial point $s_0$, it must be identically $0$ for all $s$. The only way that's possible is if its constituent parts $|t-\bar{t}|^2,|n-\bar{n}|^2,|b-\bar{b}|^2$ are all $0$. The only way $|t-\bar{t}|^2$ is always $0$ is if $t=\bar{t}$ always holds. But $t=d\alpha/ds$ and $\bar{t}=d\bar{\alpha}/ds$, so we have the equality in red.

  • 0
    If I derivate the curve with respect the parameter, why it return an scalar t? i don´t understand it2011-08-10
  • 2
    $t$ is not a scalar, it's the tangent vector, which is **by definition** $d\alpha/ds$. How can you even read about Frenet math if you don't know what $t,n,$ or $b$ stand for?2011-08-10
  • 0
    @anon: I found the notation of Do Carmo slightly confusing myself, in any event; I'd have used capital letters for those three vectors, since I use $t$ as a generic non-arclength parameter when I deal with curves...2011-08-10
  • 0
    @J.M.: I agree that lowercase was a very poor choice on the author's part (reading it felt like scraping a chalkboard), but the author also quite explicitly and clearly defines $t,n,b$ as the Frenet frame so there shouldn't be any confusion in the final analysis.2011-08-10
  • 1
    Ok, hah sorry for that, and thanks, a problem of notation2011-08-10
  • 0
    Yeah, he did say "Frenet trihedrons $t(s)$...", and it would've made Frenet-Serret as he wrote it messier if he explicitly put in $t(s)$ instead of plainly $t$... but I still somewhat sympathize with Daniel's confusion.2011-08-10
  • 0
    Fair enough, I'm probably being a bit uncharitable.2011-08-10