Orthogonality of principal curvature directions











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I was trying to find a counterexample to the theorem that states that principal curvature directions are orthogonal.
Obviously such an example doesn't exist but I'm having hard time understanding what's wrong with the following example.



I construct the surface as follows.
I take a planar curve, namely a parabola $a (r^2)$ and revolve it through the $Z$ axis while adjusting the parameter $a$ that controls the curvature of the parabola. The parametrization is given by:



$$ left [X = rcos(theta), quad quad Y = rsin(theta), quad quad Z = ar^2 right],$$
$$a(theta)=0.5(1 + sin(4theta)),$$



where the parametric domain is
$$ theta in [0,pi], quad quad r in [-0.5,0.5].$$



The "problematic" point is the origin $(0,0,0)$.
See a Matlab rendering of the surface in $3D$:



enter image description here



For $theta in {3pi/8,7pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at minimum ($-1$) and we get $a=0$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal
straight lines on the surface (green in the figure).
Hence $kappa_2 = 0$.
For $theta in {pi/8,5pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at maximum ($1$) and we get $a=1$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal parabolas on the surface (red in the figure) with $kappa_1=2$.



Here is a top view of the $XY$ plane:
enter image description here



The "contradiction" seems to be that the curves with minimal and maximal curvatures at the origin are attained at $45$ degrees rather than $90$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • First of all, $theta=-pi/8$ and $theta=15pi/8$ are the same (mod $2pi$), hence the same direction in the plane. Your description is also inaccurate, when you suggest you're looking at a surface of revolution. You're certainly not. Can you please delete your duplicate $theta$ values and specify exactly what point we're looking at? The lines in the surface will only given principal directions when you have a point with $K=0$. I don't see what the problem actually is.
    – Ted Shifrin
    2 days ago










  • Haven't checked the details, but I think what's going on is that your function $Z$ (and thus your surface) is not twice-differentiable at the origin. Thus the directional second derivatives of $Z$ at the origin are not described by a Hessian matrix and the geodesic curvatures are not described by a second fundamental form; so you can't apply orthonormal diagonalization.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • The Hessian of $Z$ is $ left[ begin {array}{cc} 1+sin(4theta) & 4cos( 4theta) r\ 4cos(4theta) r & -8sin(4theta)r^2 end {array} right]$ so $Z$ is twice differentiable.
    – Wazowski
    yesterday










  • I meant $Z$ as a function of $X,Y$, not $r,theta,$ but more importantly: existence of the Hessian/second partial derivatives (which is true for $Z(X,Y)$) does not imply twice-differentiability in the strong sense.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • I edited the question based on Ted Shifrin suggestions. Tried to clarify and simplify things and added some illustrations.
    – Wazowski
    18 hours ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I was trying to find a counterexample to the theorem that states that principal curvature directions are orthogonal.
Obviously such an example doesn't exist but I'm having hard time understanding what's wrong with the following example.



I construct the surface as follows.
I take a planar curve, namely a parabola $a (r^2)$ and revolve it through the $Z$ axis while adjusting the parameter $a$ that controls the curvature of the parabola. The parametrization is given by:



$$ left [X = rcos(theta), quad quad Y = rsin(theta), quad quad Z = ar^2 right],$$
$$a(theta)=0.5(1 + sin(4theta)),$$



where the parametric domain is
$$ theta in [0,pi], quad quad r in [-0.5,0.5].$$



The "problematic" point is the origin $(0,0,0)$.
See a Matlab rendering of the surface in $3D$:



enter image description here



For $theta in {3pi/8,7pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at minimum ($-1$) and we get $a=0$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal
straight lines on the surface (green in the figure).
Hence $kappa_2 = 0$.
For $theta in {pi/8,5pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at maximum ($1$) and we get $a=1$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal parabolas on the surface (red in the figure) with $kappa_1=2$.



Here is a top view of the $XY$ plane:
enter image description here



The "contradiction" seems to be that the curves with minimal and maximal curvatures at the origin are attained at $45$ degrees rather than $90$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • First of all, $theta=-pi/8$ and $theta=15pi/8$ are the same (mod $2pi$), hence the same direction in the plane. Your description is also inaccurate, when you suggest you're looking at a surface of revolution. You're certainly not. Can you please delete your duplicate $theta$ values and specify exactly what point we're looking at? The lines in the surface will only given principal directions when you have a point with $K=0$. I don't see what the problem actually is.
    – Ted Shifrin
    2 days ago










  • Haven't checked the details, but I think what's going on is that your function $Z$ (and thus your surface) is not twice-differentiable at the origin. Thus the directional second derivatives of $Z$ at the origin are not described by a Hessian matrix and the geodesic curvatures are not described by a second fundamental form; so you can't apply orthonormal diagonalization.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • The Hessian of $Z$ is $ left[ begin {array}{cc} 1+sin(4theta) & 4cos( 4theta) r\ 4cos(4theta) r & -8sin(4theta)r^2 end {array} right]$ so $Z$ is twice differentiable.
    – Wazowski
    yesterday










  • I meant $Z$ as a function of $X,Y$, not $r,theta,$ but more importantly: existence of the Hessian/second partial derivatives (which is true for $Z(X,Y)$) does not imply twice-differentiability in the strong sense.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • I edited the question based on Ted Shifrin suggestions. Tried to clarify and simplify things and added some illustrations.
    – Wazowski
    18 hours ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I was trying to find a counterexample to the theorem that states that principal curvature directions are orthogonal.
Obviously such an example doesn't exist but I'm having hard time understanding what's wrong with the following example.



I construct the surface as follows.
I take a planar curve, namely a parabola $a (r^2)$ and revolve it through the $Z$ axis while adjusting the parameter $a$ that controls the curvature of the parabola. The parametrization is given by:



$$ left [X = rcos(theta), quad quad Y = rsin(theta), quad quad Z = ar^2 right],$$
$$a(theta)=0.5(1 + sin(4theta)),$$



where the parametric domain is
$$ theta in [0,pi], quad quad r in [-0.5,0.5].$$



The "problematic" point is the origin $(0,0,0)$.
See a Matlab rendering of the surface in $3D$:



enter image description here



For $theta in {3pi/8,7pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at minimum ($-1$) and we get $a=0$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal
straight lines on the surface (green in the figure).
Hence $kappa_2 = 0$.
For $theta in {pi/8,5pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at maximum ($1$) and we get $a=1$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal parabolas on the surface (red in the figure) with $kappa_1=2$.



Here is a top view of the $XY$ plane:
enter image description here



The "contradiction" seems to be that the curves with minimal and maximal curvatures at the origin are attained at $45$ degrees rather than $90$.










share|cite|improve this question















I was trying to find a counterexample to the theorem that states that principal curvature directions are orthogonal.
Obviously such an example doesn't exist but I'm having hard time understanding what's wrong with the following example.



I construct the surface as follows.
I take a planar curve, namely a parabola $a (r^2)$ and revolve it through the $Z$ axis while adjusting the parameter $a$ that controls the curvature of the parabola. The parametrization is given by:



$$ left [X = rcos(theta), quad quad Y = rsin(theta), quad quad Z = ar^2 right],$$
$$a(theta)=0.5(1 + sin(4theta)),$$



where the parametric domain is
$$ theta in [0,pi], quad quad r in [-0.5,0.5].$$



The "problematic" point is the origin $(0,0,0)$.
See a Matlab rendering of the surface in $3D$:



enter image description here



For $theta in {3pi/8,7pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at minimum ($-1$) and we get $a=0$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal
straight lines on the surface (green in the figure).
Hence $kappa_2 = 0$.
For $theta in {pi/8,5pi/8}$ the $sin(4theta)$ in the expression for $a(theta)$ is at maximum ($1$) and we get $a=1$.
The restriction of $theta$ to these two values corresponds to two orthogonal parabolas on the surface (red in the figure) with $kappa_1=2$.



Here is a top view of the $XY$ plane:
enter image description here



The "contradiction" seems to be that the curves with minimal and maximal curvatures at the origin are attained at $45$ degrees rather than $90$.







differential-geometry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 18 hours ago

























asked 2 days ago









Wazowski

8718




8718












  • First of all, $theta=-pi/8$ and $theta=15pi/8$ are the same (mod $2pi$), hence the same direction in the plane. Your description is also inaccurate, when you suggest you're looking at a surface of revolution. You're certainly not. Can you please delete your duplicate $theta$ values and specify exactly what point we're looking at? The lines in the surface will only given principal directions when you have a point with $K=0$. I don't see what the problem actually is.
    – Ted Shifrin
    2 days ago










  • Haven't checked the details, but I think what's going on is that your function $Z$ (and thus your surface) is not twice-differentiable at the origin. Thus the directional second derivatives of $Z$ at the origin are not described by a Hessian matrix and the geodesic curvatures are not described by a second fundamental form; so you can't apply orthonormal diagonalization.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • The Hessian of $Z$ is $ left[ begin {array}{cc} 1+sin(4theta) & 4cos( 4theta) r\ 4cos(4theta) r & -8sin(4theta)r^2 end {array} right]$ so $Z$ is twice differentiable.
    – Wazowski
    yesterday










  • I meant $Z$ as a function of $X,Y$, not $r,theta,$ but more importantly: existence of the Hessian/second partial derivatives (which is true for $Z(X,Y)$) does not imply twice-differentiability in the strong sense.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • I edited the question based on Ted Shifrin suggestions. Tried to clarify and simplify things and added some illustrations.
    – Wazowski
    18 hours ago


















  • First of all, $theta=-pi/8$ and $theta=15pi/8$ are the same (mod $2pi$), hence the same direction in the plane. Your description is also inaccurate, when you suggest you're looking at a surface of revolution. You're certainly not. Can you please delete your duplicate $theta$ values and specify exactly what point we're looking at? The lines in the surface will only given principal directions when you have a point with $K=0$. I don't see what the problem actually is.
    – Ted Shifrin
    2 days ago










  • Haven't checked the details, but I think what's going on is that your function $Z$ (and thus your surface) is not twice-differentiable at the origin. Thus the directional second derivatives of $Z$ at the origin are not described by a Hessian matrix and the geodesic curvatures are not described by a second fundamental form; so you can't apply orthonormal diagonalization.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • The Hessian of $Z$ is $ left[ begin {array}{cc} 1+sin(4theta) & 4cos( 4theta) r\ 4cos(4theta) r & -8sin(4theta)r^2 end {array} right]$ so $Z$ is twice differentiable.
    – Wazowski
    yesterday










  • I meant $Z$ as a function of $X,Y$, not $r,theta,$ but more importantly: existence of the Hessian/second partial derivatives (which is true for $Z(X,Y)$) does not imply twice-differentiability in the strong sense.
    – Anthony Carapetis
    yesterday












  • I edited the question based on Ted Shifrin suggestions. Tried to clarify and simplify things and added some illustrations.
    – Wazowski
    18 hours ago
















First of all, $theta=-pi/8$ and $theta=15pi/8$ are the same (mod $2pi$), hence the same direction in the plane. Your description is also inaccurate, when you suggest you're looking at a surface of revolution. You're certainly not. Can you please delete your duplicate $theta$ values and specify exactly what point we're looking at? The lines in the surface will only given principal directions when you have a point with $K=0$. I don't see what the problem actually is.
– Ted Shifrin
2 days ago




First of all, $theta=-pi/8$ and $theta=15pi/8$ are the same (mod $2pi$), hence the same direction in the plane. Your description is also inaccurate, when you suggest you're looking at a surface of revolution. You're certainly not. Can you please delete your duplicate $theta$ values and specify exactly what point we're looking at? The lines in the surface will only given principal directions when you have a point with $K=0$. I don't see what the problem actually is.
– Ted Shifrin
2 days ago












Haven't checked the details, but I think what's going on is that your function $Z$ (and thus your surface) is not twice-differentiable at the origin. Thus the directional second derivatives of $Z$ at the origin are not described by a Hessian matrix and the geodesic curvatures are not described by a second fundamental form; so you can't apply orthonormal diagonalization.
– Anthony Carapetis
yesterday






Haven't checked the details, but I think what's going on is that your function $Z$ (and thus your surface) is not twice-differentiable at the origin. Thus the directional second derivatives of $Z$ at the origin are not described by a Hessian matrix and the geodesic curvatures are not described by a second fundamental form; so you can't apply orthonormal diagonalization.
– Anthony Carapetis
yesterday














The Hessian of $Z$ is $ left[ begin {array}{cc} 1+sin(4theta) & 4cos( 4theta) r\ 4cos(4theta) r & -8sin(4theta)r^2 end {array} right]$ so $Z$ is twice differentiable.
– Wazowski
yesterday




The Hessian of $Z$ is $ left[ begin {array}{cc} 1+sin(4theta) & 4cos( 4theta) r\ 4cos(4theta) r & -8sin(4theta)r^2 end {array} right]$ so $Z$ is twice differentiable.
– Wazowski
yesterday












I meant $Z$ as a function of $X,Y$, not $r,theta,$ but more importantly: existence of the Hessian/second partial derivatives (which is true for $Z(X,Y)$) does not imply twice-differentiability in the strong sense.
– Anthony Carapetis
yesterday






I meant $Z$ as a function of $X,Y$, not $r,theta,$ but more importantly: existence of the Hessian/second partial derivatives (which is true for $Z(X,Y)$) does not imply twice-differentiability in the strong sense.
– Anthony Carapetis
yesterday














I edited the question based on Ted Shifrin suggestions. Tried to clarify and simplify things and added some illustrations.
– Wazowski
18 hours ago




I edited the question based on Ted Shifrin suggestions. Tried to clarify and simplify things and added some illustrations.
– Wazowski
18 hours ago















active

oldest

votes











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',
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%2f2997086%2forthogonality-of-principal-curvature-directions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997086%2forthogonality-of-principal-curvature-directions%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

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater

Актюбинская область