There are certain curves that can slide rigidly along
themselves - lines and circles for example. Some other curves of
this type are cylindrical spirals and Archimedes spirals. The
concept can be generalized to more than one dimension - the
surface of a sphere for example or a Euclidean space of any
dimension.
I was wondering if anyone has ever investigated such curves and
come up with a way of enumerating or classifying them. This may
be a trivial problem but I would not know how to begin solving
it.
I haven't heard of the idea before, but
here are some ideas that might help you get started in
classifying them. Do you know about scalar curvature? I think
that for any curve which can slide rigidly along itself the
scalar curvature will have to be constant. Here is my reasoning,
let me know if any part of it doesn't make sense to you:
Firstly, if you can slide one point on the curve anywhere on the
curve, you must be able to slide it everywhere on the curve. Do
you see why this is? Basically, if you can slide a point from A
to B, then by the time A has reached point B, point B has reached
point C (say). But you can repeat the slide that got A to B
because the curve hasn't changed its outward appearance, and so
you can slide A to C. Repeat this until you've got everywhere on
the curve.
The next point is that the condition that you can slide the curve
is just the same as being able to find a rigid transformation
(rotation and translation) taking one point on the curve to any
other point. Here's why: if I can slide the curve then I can
certainly take any point to any other point, and the
transformation at the end has to be rigid. Alternatively, if I
can take any point to any other point on the curve by a rigid
transformation, I can slide one point to any other point by
repeatedly taking my starting point to all of the points between
the starting point and the end point.
So, here's a way of generating a condition that any curve will
have to satisfy: if you can find some property of a point on the
curve that doesn't change if you apply a rigid transformation to
the curve, then that property must be the same everywhere along
the curve. A good example of such a property is the curvature of
the curve at that point. (Have a look at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html
for more on curvature.)
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about curvature so I'm not
sure about this, but I think that in 2D the only constant
curvature curves are lines and circles.
In 3D the problem is more difficult. For example, the spirals you
mention, you could have spirals spiralling around circles,
spirals spiralling around hyperbolae, and so on.
The problem can be generalised to n dimensions in more than one
way. For surfaces (for example) you might only be looking for
surfaces that can be slid around in one way, or you might be
looking for surfaces which can be slid in every way. For surfaces
in 3 dimensions, I suspect you'll find that spheres, planes and
hyperboloids will be the only surfaces that will work sliding in
every way. They each have constant curvature. If you only need to
be able to slide in some way, but not every way, then surfaces
like a torus (the surface of a doughnut with a hole, or a ring)
also work, and so would any 2d curve extruded along a
perpendicular axis infinitely (like a infinite circular or square
cylinder). Either way, it is a more difficult problem in higher
dimensions, definitely.
I hope that helps, and maybe someone will come along and tell us
something about curvature that will help.
Dan Goodman, thank you for your answer. What you say makes
sense and is in agreement with what I felt intuitively but was
not able to put into words. The feeling that I have is that each
point on the curves that I described is locally indistinguishable
from any other point. The translation of this intuition may very
well be completely described in terms of curvature. I will check
your reference.
For higher dimensional surfaces I was only interested in curves
that could be slid along themselves for any possible movement. It
is interesting to ask, however, what the signifcance is that a
curve like a torus can be rigidly slid along itself in some
directions but not in others.
A correction to what I said. An Archimedes spiral can not be slid
along itself. In addition to a sphere a cyllinder has the
property among two dimensional surfaces.
I'm sorry to interfere, but what exactly do you mean by
'sliding'
Yatir
Sliding is not actually well-defined in those examples. In the case of a line, it's a translation parallel to the line. In the case of a circle, it's a rotation about its centre. For a helix it's a combination of both...
I'm pretty sure only a circle or line will work in 2D. Here's my
argument why: consider a point A on the curve and move it to some
other point B near it. The rigid transformation moving A to B we
can call T say. Now, if we do the same slide again we get the
same transformation T, so we can slide the whole space using the
transformation T2 . In other words, we do the same
transformation that took A to B to take B to a third point C, and
so on. If A, B and C lie on a straight line then all the
translations of A are also going to be on this straight line. If
the angle between AB and BC is not 0 then all of the translates
of A will be on a circle. This suggests (but doesn't prove) that
it has to be a straight line or a circle. I haven't got any time
right now, but I think this shouldn't be too difficult to work
into a proof. I'll get back to you. You might like to have a go
at doing it yourself (try thinking about dividing the curve
between A and B into two parts with midpoint D say, so that the
transformation sliding A to D slides D to B, now subdivide this
and so on), you might even find an easier way. Another thing you
could try is using the same argument to extend it to curves in
higher dimensions.
Another way of going about the proof
would be to write down the 2nd order differential equation for
constant curvature, and demonstrate that the equation of a circle
satisfies it. Given that we have two constants in the solution
(i.e. the x,y coordinate of the centre) this must capture all
possible solutions.
Andre
Andre, isn't there a problem with that approach, that the differential equation you get is not linear?
Yes, sorry, that was a sweeping
generalisation too far. In this case, though, we are fine, since
this (nonlinear) DE is directly integrable. The first
substitution is just z=dy/dx leaving a first order differential
equation which can be integrated with one constant of
integration. Getting rid of the z gives the second
constant.
Andre