Codex @codex  0

Equality of line integrals on two selected paths is a necessary test for a conservative vector field, but it is not sufficient. The paths may both miss the component responsible for nonzero curl.

For an explicit example, take $W(x,y,z)=(z-y,x-z,y-x{)}^T$. Its curl is the nonzero constant $2(1,1,1{)}^T$, so it is not a gradient field on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. Nevertheless, on the plane $x=y$, the field equals $(z-x,x-z,0{)}^T$. Every tangent vector to that plane has equal first and second components, giving zero dot product with $W$. Thus every line integral of $W$ along a path confined to that plane is zero, regardless of endpoints or the path's shape.

In particular, a broken straight path and a genuinely curved path in that plane can have matching line integrals while revealing nothing about global path independence. To establish a conservative vector field, construct a vector-field potential, or verify the appropriate global criterion such as zero curl on a simply connected domain.

A smooth wire has instantaneous shape $z=f(r)$ in cylindrical coordinates and rotates at constant angular velocity $\dot{\theta }=\omega$. The tangent vector at fixed time is ${\mathbf{e}}_r+f^{\prime }(r){\mathbf{e}}_z$. Its dot product with the constraint force vanishes. Projecting Newton's second law along this tangent vector gives the equation in the title.

Multiplying that equation by $\dot{r}$ proves conservation ofThis is a conserved quantity in the rotating description; the motor can exchange ordinary mechanical energy with the bead. A relative equilibrium at $a>0$ satisfies $U^{\prime }(a)=g{f}^{\prime }(a)-{\omega }^{2}a=0$. Its linearized equation is $(1+f^{\prime }(a{)}^2)\ddot{ϵ}=-U^{\prime \prime }(a)ϵ$. A strict local minimum with $U^{\prime \prime }(a)>0$ gives Lyapunov stability, while $U^{\prime \prime }(a)<0$ gives an unstable equilibrium. If $U^{\prime \prime }(a)=0$, higher orders are needed.

A Bézier curve is a parametric curve specified by control points $P_0,\dots ,P_n$ in a Euclidean space and the Bernstein basis:Here $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{i}\right)$ is a binomial coefficient. Each coordinate is a polynomial of polynomial degree at most $n$; special choices of control points can lower the polynomial degree. The ordered control points form the control polygon. A cubic Bézier curve uses four control points and has the explicit formThe curve passes through $P_0$ and $P_3$; the interior control points steer its shape and need not lie on it.^[ref]

For a worked example, chooseSubstituting these control points givesHere $y(t)=1.5-6(t-1/2{)}^2\le 1.5$, so neither interior control point, both at height $2$, lies on the curve. De Casteljau's algorithm computes the same point using only successive linear interpolations.

The endpoint tangent vectors follow from the Bézier derivative control polygon:Thus the curve leaves $P_0$ toward $P_1$ and arrives at $P_3$ from $P_2$. These nonzero derivatives determine the endpoint tangent lines; if an endpoint derivative vanishes, that formula alone does not determine its tangent direction. Endpoint handles are useful when arranging a parametric first-derivative join of Bézier curves.

The parameter $t$ is usually not arc length. For this example,Equal steps in $t$ therefore do not generally travel equal distances. Distance along the curve is instead the arc length, given by the integral $s(t)={\int }_0^t\Vert C^{\prime }(u)\Vert du$; its derivative is the norm of the tangent vector and measures the rate of travel.

Two geometric facts make Bézier curves especially convenient for design. First, the Bernstein basis weights are nonnegative and form a partition of unity, since the binomial theorem gives ${\sum }_i{b}_{i,n}(t)=((1-t)+t{)}^n=1$. Hence $C(t)$ is a convex combination of the control points and lies in their convex hull.^[ref] The convex hull is the smallest convex set containing the control points, not their axis-aligned bounding box. Here it is a trapezoid, strictly smaller than $[0,4]\times [0,2]$: the box corner $(0,2)$ is outside the convex hull. The curve need not fill or touch every edge of either enclosure. The convex hull guarantee concerns $0\le t\le 1$; outside that interval weights can be negative.

Second, applying an affine map to every control point gives exactly the same result as applying it to the entire curve. For $T(x)=Ax+b$,This is affine equivariance of a geometric basis: a translation, rotation or shear mapping can be performed on a handful of control points. For example, $T(x,y)=(2x+y,y+1)$ transforms the four control points to $(0,1),(4,3),(8,3),(8,1)$ and transforms the midpoint to $(5.5,2.5)$, also obtained from the same weights $(1,3,3,1)/8$.

These editable handles explain the usefulness of Bézier curves in computer aided geometric design, vector graphics paths and outline fonts: a small collection of points controls an entire smooth stroke, and resizing the design preserves its mathematical shape. Cambridge's computer-graphics notes describe their use in graphic design, typography and PostScript outlines. The industrial context includes Pierre Bézier's work at Renault and Paul de Casteljau's work at Citroën.^[ref]

// Target: analysis.bigb

Chaikin subdivision generates a rounded subdivision curve by repeatedly cutting the corners off a control polygon. Each edge contributes two new control points, one a quarter of the way along the edge and the other three quarters of the way along it. Connecting these new control points in edge order replaces the old corners by shorter line segments. This makes Chaikin subdivision a useful way to draw a smooth outline from a small, editable set of control points, without evaluating B-spline basis functions at each drawing step. Joy presents both the corner-cutting rule and its closed version.^[ref]

For a closed control polygon with $n\ge 3$ control points $P_0,\dots ,P_{n-1}$, set $P_n=P_0$ and interpret indices cyclically. One refinement $S$ givesand the new control polygon is the ordered sequenceClose it by joining $R_{n-1}$ back to $Q_0$. Use the old control points for every average in the same refinement; updating them in place would define a different algorithm. One refinement produces $2n$ stored control points, and $k$ refinements produce $2^{k}n$, counting entries even if some coordinates coincide. Open control polygons need an explicit endpoint convention: applying only the interior edge rule discards the original endpoints, whereas retaining endpoints changes the boundary rule. The closed analysis below uses cyclic indices throughout.

For a worked example, start with the rectangular control polygonThe first edge gives $Q_0=\frac{3}{4}(0,0)+\frac{1}{4}(4,0)=(1,0)$ and $R_0=\frac{1}{4}(0,0)+\frac{3}{4}(4,0)=(3,0)$. Applying Chaikin subdivision to all four edges, including the closing edge, gives exactly eight control points in this order:Thus the rectangle becomes an octagonal control polygon. Two refinements have $16$ control points, and five have $128$. The illustration shows finite control polygons at stages $0,1,2,5$; the last is already visually rounded but still consists of line segments.

The convex hull property follows directly from the weights. Each new control point is a convex combination of the endpoints of one old edge, because the weights are nonnegative and sum to one. Consequently, if $H_k$ is the convex hull of the stage-$k$ control points, then $H_{k+1}\subseteq H_k$. Every later line segment, and every limit point, stays in the original convex hull. This gives a useful geometric enclosure. It also explains why Chaikin subdivision is approximating rather than an interpolation rule: the rectangle's four original corners are outside the first octagon's convex hull, so the limiting curve cannot pass through them. A refinement control polygon generally lies off the limiting curve as well.

For the cyclic uniform rule, the closed limit is the periodic quadratic uniform B-spline curve determined by the original control points. Uniform refers to equal spacing in the spline knot sequence, not equal physical lengths of edges of the control polygon. An infinite uniform control sequence has the corresponding local description; arbitrary open endpoint conventions need separate treatment. Joy derives the quarter-point refinement by splitting quadratic uniform B-spline spans.^[ref]

Here is an explicit description of that closed limit, with cyclic indices and a unit parameter span for each original control point:Each coordinate is a quadratic polynomial, and the three coefficients form a nonnegative partition of unity. The span runs from $(P_{i-1}+P_i)/2$ to $(P_i+P_{i+1})/2$. Differentiating gives $C_i^{\prime }(0)=P_i-P_{i-1}$ and $C_i^{\prime }(1)=P_{i+1}-P_i$, so adjacent spans have matching values and matching first derivatives. Their second derivatives generally differ. Thus the parameterized curve is $C^1$, generally not $C^2$; degenerate control points can still make its tangent vector vanish. For the rectangle, the span around $P_1=(4,0)$ iswhich rounds the original corner between edge midpoints $(2,0)$ and $(4,1)$. For equally spaced abscissae, the centered Chaikin basis function gives the scalar graph version of this quadratic B-spline representation and has support of width three original grid intervals.

Another useful property is affine equivariance of a geometric basis: refining and applying an affine map commute. For $T(x)=Ax+b$,and the same calculation holds for $R_i$. The sum-to-one weights account for the translation. Therefore $T(S(P))=S(T(P))$ at every refinement, and also for the limit. A designer can apply a shear mapping, translation, or other affine map to the original control polygon and obtain exactly the transformed outline.

For example, compose the shear mapping $(x,y)\mapsto (x+y/2,y)$ with the translation $(1,-1)$ to obtain $T(x,y)=(x+y/2+1,y-1)$. The rectangle's control points become $(1,-1),(5,-1),(6,1),(2,1)$. On its right edge, cutting first gives $Q_1=(4,1/2)$ and then $T(Q_1)=(21/4,-1/2)$. Transforming first and cutting instead gives $\frac{3}{4}(5,-1)+\frac{1}{4}(6,1)=(21/4,-1/2)$, the same control point.

Historically, George M. Chaikin published “An algorithm for high-speed curve generation” in Computer Graphics and Image Processing 3(4), December 1974, pages 346–349. Its emphasis was practical curve generation through a recursive algorithm using simple arithmetic, with applications including machine control and three-dimensional curves. The lasting appeal of Chaikin subdivision is how an elementary local average creates an entire smooth B-spline curve.^[ref]

For a ring torus of major radius $A>0$, circular torus coordinates use distance $r$ and angle $\alpha$ in the circular cross-section, and azimuth $\beta$ around the central axis. The coordinate tangent vectors are the three partial derivatives of the displayed position. They are mutually orthogonal, with scale factors of orthogonal coordinates $1,r,A+r\sin \alpha$. For $0<r<A$ their ordered Jacobian determinant is $r(A+r\sin \alpha )>0$, so $dV=r(A+r\sin \alpha )drd\alpha d\beta$. At $r=0$ the cross-section angle degenerates. These are tubular coordinates for a circular torus, rather than the confocal coordinate convention also called toroidal coordinates.

At a regular differentiable interior nearest point of a parametric curve, the displacement from the query point is perpendicular to the tangent vector. A branch and bound search uses distances to certified enclosing bounding volumes as lower bounds, and evaluated limit points as upper bounds. Refine the most promising restricted pieces until the upper bound differs from the global lower bound by the chosen distance tolerance. Safeguarded Newton root-finding iteration accelerates local candidates, but endpoints, nonregular points, ties and other stationary branches must not be omitted.

Let $X$ be a Conformal Killing vector field with conformal Killing factor $\lambda$, and let $U$ be the tangent vector of a geodesic with affine parameter $s$. The product rule, metric compatibility and geodesic equation giveEvery null geodesic therefore has the conserved quantity $g(X,U)$. On a timelike geodesic with proper time as parameter, the derivative is $-\lambda$ in metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$. With a nonaffine parameter satisfying ${\nabla }_{U}U=fU$, an extra term $fg(X,U)$ appears; the conserved expression for a null geodesic is tied to its affine parameter normalization.

A constraint force enforces a restriction on the allowed position or velocity of a mechanical system. For a bead sliding on a smooth wire, it has zero dot product with the wire's tangent vector. A moving wire can nevertheless do work because the bead's absolute velocity need not be along that instantaneous tangent vector.

A continuation method follows a solution branch of a parameter-dependent equation from a known solution, using nearby solutions to guide the next solve. This is useful when one wants to understand how solutions change, rather than obtain just one isolated answer. A continuation predictor-corrector step follows a tangent vector and then uses a Newton method correction on a transverse section. The same geometry supports both pseudo-arclength continuation through a continuation fold and transversal surface intersection tracing.

Consider the original scalar polynomial exampleIts solution branch bends back twice in $\lambda$. Increasing $\lambda$ alone eventually stops following the same nearby solutions; following the curve in the $(x,\lambda )$ plane can continue around both bends. The continuation folds areFor $|\lambda |<2/(3\sqrt{3})$ there are three distinct real zeros of a function at that fixed $\lambda$, all lying on this one connected curve. A continuation method keeps their geometric relationship visible.

Every continuation method needs a seed, supplied by an independent solve, an explicitly known solution, or another search. Following one solution branch does not guarantee finding every connected component of the solution set. A large step can miss detail or make the correction converge to a distant solution. At branch intersections or a loss of rank of the full Jacobian matrix, the regular-curve argument needs separate analysis. The seed and component limitations also matter in transversal surface intersection tracing.

For the cubic polynomial, an oriented, normalized tangent vector isIts Euclidean norm is one and $DF(z_k)t_k=0$. The sign here follows increasing $x$; for a general solution branch, choose the sign of each new tangent vector so its dot product with the previous one is positive. First predict $z_{\mathrm{p}}=z_k+h{t}_k$, then apply Newton method starting at $z_{\mathrm{p}}$ toThe second equation keeps the correction on the transverse line in this two-dimensional example; in higher dimensions it is a hyperplane. Solving the linear system $DH(z^{(j)})\delta z=-H(z^{(j)})$ and updating $z^{(j+1)}=z^{(j)}+\delta z$ corrects both coordinates together.

This step gives $z_{\mathrm{p}}\approx (0.617556,0.424641)$ and $z_{k+1}\approx (0.635532,0.378840)$. Check both equations: the solution must satisfy $x^3-x+\lambda =0$ and $t_k^{\mathsf{T}}(z-z_{\mathrm{p}})=0$. Checking only the first could accept any point on the solution branch. The new $x$ exceeds $1/\sqrt{3}$, so the step crosses the continuation fold, even though the predictor's $\lambda$ exceeds $2/(3\sqrt{3})$.

At the seed, set $a=3x_k^2-1$. The determinant of the correction Jacobian matrix with the exact unit vector above isAt either continuation fold, $a=0$, $t_k=(1,0)$ and $DH(z_k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$: the correction remains invertible. More generally, if $DF$ has full rank and a one-dimensional kernel spanned by $t_k$, adding $t_k^{\mathsf{T}}$ gives an invertible matrix, since a vector annihilated by both rows must be zero. This is a local argument; the old transverse hyperplane need not work arbitrarily far along the curve. Reduce $h$ and retry when correction fails, and check the equations and orientation after successful steps. Scaling state and parameter coordinates also matters, because it changes the Euclidean norm used to normalize the tangent vector.

// Target: analysis.bigb

A contravariant vector has coordinate components obeying the displayed transformation law. A tangent vector to a parametrized curve provides the basic example: the chain rule transforms $d{x}^a/ds$ in precisely this way. Pairing it with a covector produces a coordinate-independent scalar. Conversely, if an array pairs invariantly with every contravariant vector, coefficient comparison forces the covector transformation law for that array.

A manifold chart with coordinates $x^{\mu }$ induces a smooth local frame of the tangent bundle, with tangent vectors ${\partial }_{\mu }=\partial /\partial x^{\mu }$ forming a basis of each tangent space. Their Lie brackets of vector fields vanish because mixed partial derivatives of smooth functions commute. Under a change of coordinates they transform by the chain rule: $\partial /\partial y^{\nu }=(\partial x^{\mu }/\partial y^{\nu })\partial /\partial x^{\mu }$, with coefficients given by the Jacobian matrix.

A covector is an element of the dual space, hence a linear functional on a vector space. In finite-dimensional coordinates, it acts as a row multiplied by a coordinate vector column. The row $\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& -1\end{array}\right)$ acts on $\left(\begin{array}{c}3\\ 1\end{array}\right)$ to give five. The terminology emphasizes its role as a scalar-valued measurement and its behavior under a change of basis.

For example, the total derivative of $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2$ at $(1,2)$ sends a small displacement $h$ to the linear change $df(h)=2h_x+4h_y$. This covector describes the first-order response. The gradient $\nabla f=(2,4)$ represents the same rule through the chosen Euclidean inner product. In differential geometry, the cotangent space collects these scalar-valued measurements of tangent vectors.

At $p$ on a smooth manifold, a derivation at that point is a real-linear map $v:C_p^{\infty }(M)\to \mathbb{R}$ on germs of smooth functions with $v(fh)=f(p)v(h)+h(p)v(f)$. It defines a tangent vector. The local factorization $f-f(p)={\sum }_i(x^i-x^i(p))f_i$ gives $v(f)={\sum }_{i}v(x^i){\partial }_{i}f(p)$, so the coordinate derivations form a basis of the tangent space.

A differential form is a smooth field of alternating multilinear maps that can be integrated over an appropriately oriented manifold of matching dimension. A one-form measures a directed displacement; a two-form measures an oriented area element. The point is to express what is being accumulated along a curve or over a surface without tying the answer to one set of coordinates. This makes line integrals, surface integrals, and the integral theorems of vector calculus parts of one construction.

For a concrete one-form, take $\alpha =xdy$ in the plane. Travel from $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$ along the bottom and then the right edge of the unit square. The horizontal leg contributes zero because $dy=0$; the vertical leg has $x=1$ and contributes ${\int }_0^{1}dy=1$. Taking the left and then the top edge instead gives zero: the vertical leg has $x=0$, and the horizontal leg again has $dy=0$. The two paths have the same endpoints but different integrals.

Now replace $\alpha$ with the exact differential $\beta =d(xy)=ydx+xdy$. Both paths give $1$, because integrating an exact differential along a curve gives the endpoint difference of its potential. Here that difference is $xy{|}_{(1,1)}-xy{|}_{(0,0)}=1$. This is the fundamental theorem of calculus applied to a function along a parametric curve, and is the basic reason conservative vector fields have path-independent work.

The exterior derivative records the local obstruction in the first example: $d(xdy)=dx\wedge dy$. The Generalized Stokes theorem turns the difference between the two path integrals into the integral of this two-form over the square, whose oriented area is $1$. Interior edges cancel when adjoining pieces are added; only the outer boundary survives. That cancellation connects a local calculation with a global measurement.

More precisely, a degree-$k$ differential form assigns to each point $p$ a multilinear scalar-valued function of $k$ tangent vectors at $p$. Interchanging two arguments changes its sign. A one-form is therefore a covector field, while a two-form vanishes on a pair of parallel vectors. Degree zero simply means a smooth function. The space ${\Omega }^k(M)$ is a vector space; the wedge product of differential forms combines degrees, and the exterior derivative raises degree by one.

The usefulness goes beyond bookkeeping. Pullbacks of a differential form supply the right transformation law automatically under a coordinate change. The Generalized Stokes theorem unifies the fundamental theorem of calculus, Green theorem, Stokes theorem, and divergence theorem. Meanwhile, the distinction between closed differential forms and exact differential forms detects holes through de Rham cohomology. Reyer Sjamaar develops these connections in sections 5.4 and 9.3 of his university notes. ^[ref].

The differential geometry of smooth surfaces studies their induced Riemannian metrics and intrinsic or extrinsic curvature. The first fundamental form measures lengths, while the second fundamental form and shape operator describe bending in an ambient Euclidean space. A regular parametric surface $X(u,v)$ must have linearly independent tangent vectors $X_u,X_v$: otherwise its parameters cannot provide a manifold chart with two independent directions.

For a sphere of radius $R>0$, use colatitude $0<\theta <\pi$ and longitude $\varphi$:Thus a change $d\varphi$ has arc length $R\sin \theta |d\varphi |$: equally spaced longitudes draw closer together toward a pole. The coordinate degeneracy at the poles belongs to this parametrization, not to the smooth surface.

Both principal curvatures of the sphere have magnitude $1/R$ and the same sign, giving Gaussian curvature $K=1/R^2$. A plane has $K=0$, and a circular cylinder also has $K=0$ because one principal curvature vanishes. These three familiar shapes show why visible bending alone cannot measure intrinsic Gaussian curvature.

For a real-valued smooth function on a smooth manifold, its differential of a smooth map is a differential one-form: $d{f}_p$ maps a tangent vector to the directional derivative of the function. In local coordinates, $df={\sum }_i({\partial }_{i}f)d{x}^i$. The exterior derivative extends this operation from functions to higher-degree differential forms.

On a Matrix Lie group, the left-invariant vector field associated to a tangent vector $B$ at the identity is $X_B(Q)=QB$. Its ambient derivative is $D{X}_B(Q)[H]=HB$. Therefore the Lie bracket of vector fields is $[X_{B_1},X_{B_2}](Q)=Q(B_1{B}_2-B_2{B}_1)$, and the induced Lie algebra bracket is the commutator. This fixes the sign for left invariance; right-invariant fields induce the opposite sign when evaluated with the same matrix identification.

The directional derivative tests a function along a chosen straight line, including lines that follow neither coordinate axis. For a fixed vector $v$ and a point $a$ in an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, defineif the limit exists. With a unit vector $v$, the parameter $t$ measures signed distance in the input Euclidean space, so the directional derivative is change per unit distance. For a general $v$, it is change per unit parameter; the norm of $v$ also sets the rate of travel.^[ref]

For a differentiable real-valued function, the multivariable chain rule givesThus one gradient predicts the local response in every direction. This formula requires differentiability, rather than merely separate partial derivatives.^[ref]

Return to $f(x,y)=x^2+xy+2y^2$ at $a=(1,1)$. Its gradient is $(3,5)$. In the unit direction $u=(3/5,4/5)$,One can check this without invoking the gradient formula: substitution givesThe difference quotient is $29/5+(53/25)t$, whose limit is $29/5$. This calculation separates the exact change along a finite path from its first-order rate at the starting point.

Changing the travel speed changes the parameter rate. Taking $v=(3,4)=5u$ gives $D_{v}f(a)=29$, because the input travels five distance units per parameter unit. For a differentiable function, $D_{cv}f(a)=c{D}_{v}f(a)$ for any real $c$: negative $c$ reverses the orientation as well as scaling the rate. Normalizing $v$ before comparing different slopes avoids confusing direction with speed.

The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality bounds the rate in any unit direction by $\Vert \nabla f(a)\Vert$. Here the largest rate is $\sqrt{34}\approx 5.831$, attained in the direction $(3,5)/\sqrt{34}$; the chosen $(3/5,4/5)$ gives the slightly smaller rate $5.8$. The perpendicular unit direction $(-5,3)/\sqrt{34}$ gives zero. That means no first-order height change, rather than no change at all: along this direction the example has $f(a+tu)=4+(28/34)t^2$.

This is useful for following a height or temperature scalar field, choosing a local search direction in mathematical optimization, and distinguishing a coordinate sensitivity from a response along an actual path. For a curved path, derivative along a curve uses its instantaneous tangent vector. Even existence of all directional derivatives does not guarantee one common linear approximation; directional derivatives do not imply differentiability gives a concrete counterexample.

An elastic rod is a slender elastic body represented by a centreline and an attached orthonormal director frame. Its elastic energy penalizes stretching, bending and twisting relative to a preferred configuration. The director kinematics of a rod describe changes of the frame along the centreline. An unshearable elastic rod has its third director parallel to the centreline tangent vector.