We will briefly comment on vector function integration 11.2: 3, 11, 19, 25 and move on to arc length and arc length parameterization in 11.3.
Recall that a curve is a continuous where
is an interval. Even continuous curve can be a bit complicated, for example, the Peano curve, fills space! – hence clearly has no well defined notion of length.The Peano curve is really wierd since it is a “one dimensional” object that has volume! A slightly less wierd curve with no notion of length is the Koch curve – since each little bit is infinitely long.
One way that a curve can have a well defined notion of lenght is that it be rectifiable. To define rectifiability we need to recall some notions learned – I hope – when you learned integration. A partition of an interval [a,b] is a sequence
, the size of the parition is
, and is denoted
, the norm of the partition is the maximum of the lengths of the subintervals determined by the partition and is denoted
. Given a partition
of [a,b] we get an approximation to the length of the curve by
. A partition
is a refinement of
if
. clearly:
- if
and
are two partitions we can find
refining both
- if
is a refinement of
, then
So we would have a reasonable notion of length if is finite. (This is the same as demanding
exists.)
Definition. Let be continuous (a curve). Then
is rectifiable iff
exists. If
is rectifiable, then
is the length of
.
If is rectifiable and
, then set
to be the length of the curve got by restricting
to [a,t]. For
in [a,b],
is the length of the curve got by restricting
to [c,d]. It is not hard to see that
is continuous and non-decreasing.
There is an exact characterization of rectifiability, but that is for some later course. The following gives a sufficient (not necessary) condition:
Theorem. If is continuously differentiable on [a,b], then
is rectifiable. Moreover,
so
is continuously differentiable.
Proof. For rectififiability we simply need to show that there is a such that for any partition of [a,b],
. We have
Since each is differentiable on
MVT gives
such that
. So we get
Using the triangle inequality we have so
Since is continuous on [a,b] it has a maximum value (EVT) so in particular
for all
. Thus
So we have the desired upper bound.
For the rest we actually compute from the definition of derivative. The key point is that as above, from MVT for the interval
, we have
from MVT so that
so
But so
as
and since
is continuous at
we have for each j,
, so
. The same argument works for
and so we have:
hence . QED