DOCSLIB.ORG

Divergence-Measure Fields: Gauss-Green Formulas and Normal Traces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Divergence-Measure Fields: Gauss-Green Formulas and Normal Traces Divergence-Measure Fields: Gauss-Green Formulas and Normal Traces Gui-Qiang G. Chen and Monica Torres It is hard to imagine how most fields of science could not exist. Indeed, integration by parts is an indispens- provide the stunning mathematical descriptions of their able fundamental operation, which has been used across theories and results if the integration by parts formula did scientific theories to pass from global (integral) to local (differential) formulations of physical laws. Even though Gui-Qiang G. Chen is Statutory Professor in the Analysis of Partial Differential the integration by parts formula is commonly known as Equations and Director of the Oxford Centre for Nonlinear Partial Differential the Gauss-Green formula (or the divergence theorem, or Os- Equations (OxPDE) at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, trogradsky’s theorem), its discovery and rigorous mathemat- where he is also a Professorial Fellow of Keble College. His email address is ical proof are the result of the combined efforts of many [email protected]. great mathematicians, starting back in the period when the Monica Torres is a professor of mathematics at Purdue University. Her email calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz in the 17th address is [email protected]. century. Communicated by Notices Associate Editor Stephan Ramon Garcia. The one-dimensional integration by parts formula for For permission to reprint this article, please contact: smooth functions was first discovered by Taylor (1715). [email protected]. The formula is a consequence of the Leibniz product rule DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/noti2336 1282 NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 68, NUMBER 8 and the Newton-Leibniz formula for the fundamental the- The formula that is also later known as the divergence orem of calculus. theorem was first discovered by Lagrange1 in 1762 (see Fig- The classical Gauss-Green formula for the multidimen- ure 2), however, he did not provide a proof of the result. sional case is generally stated for 퐶1 vector fields and do- The theorem was later rediscovered by Gauss2 in 1813 (see mains with 퐶1 boundaries. However, motivated by the Figure 3) and Ostrogradsky3 in 1828 (see Figure 4). Os- physical solutions with discontinuity/singularity for par- trogradsky’s method of proof was similar to the approach tial differential equations (PDEs) and calculus of varia- Gauss used. Independently, Green4 (see Figure 5) also re- tions, such as nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws and discovered the divergence theorem in the two-dimensional Euler-Lagrange equations, the following fundamental is- case and published his result in 1828. sue arises: Does the Gauss-Green formula still hold for vec- tor fields with discontinuity/singularity (such as divergence-measure fields) and domains with rough boundaries? The objective of this paper is to provide an answer to this issue and to present a short historical review of the con- tributions by many mathematicians spanning more than two centuries, which have made the discovery of the Gauss- Green formula possible. The Classical Gauss-Green Formula Figure 2. Joseph-Louis Lagrange (January 25, 1736–April 10, 1813). The Gauss-Green formula was originally motivated in the analysis of fluids, electric and magnetic fields, and other problems in the sciences in order to establish the equiva- lence of integral and differential formulations of various physical laws. In particular, the derivations of the Euler equations and the Navier-Stokes equations in fluid dynam- ics and Gauss’s laws for the electronic and magnetic fields are based on the validity of the Gauss-Green formula and associated Stokes theorem. As an example, see Figure 1 for the derivation of the Euler equation for the conservation of mass in the smooth case. Figure 3. Carl Friedrich Gauss (April 30, 1777–February 23, 1855). 1J.-L. Lagrange, “Nouvelles recherches sur la nature et la propagation du son,” in Miscellanea Taurinensia (also known as: M´elangesde Turin), vol. 2, 1762, pp. 11–172. He treated a special case of the divergence theorem and transformed triple integrals into double integrals via integration by parts. 2C. F. Gauss, “Theoria attractionis corporum sphaeroidicorum ellipticorum ho- mogeneorum methodo nova tractata,” Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarium Gottingensis Recentiores 2 (1813), 355–378. In this paper, a special case of the theorem was considered. Figure 1. Conservation of mass: the rate of change of the total 3 d M. Ostrogradsky (presented on November 5, 1828; published in 1831), “Pre- mass in an open set 퐸, ∫ 휌(푡, 푥) d푥, is equal to the total flux d푡 퐸 mière note sur la th´eorie de la chaleur (First note on the theory of heat),” 푛−1 of mass across the boundary 휕퐸, ∫휕퐸 (휌퐯) ⋅ 휈 d ℋ , where 휌 is M´emoiresde l’Acad´emieImp´erialedes Sciences de St. P´etersbourg, Se- the density, 퐯 is the velocity field, and the boundary value of ries 6, 1 (1831), 129–133. He stated and proved the divergence theorem in its (휌퐯) ⋅ 휈 is regarded as the normal trace of the vector field 휌퐯 on Cartesian coordinate form. 휕퐸. The Gauss-Green formula yields the Euler equation for 4G. Green, An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the the conservation of mass: 휌푡 + div(휌퐯) = 0 in the smooth case. Theories of Electricity and Magnetism, T. Wheelhouse, Nottingham, Eng- land, 1828. SEPTEMBER 2021 NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY 1283 The divergence theorem in its vector form for the 푛-dimensional case (푛 ≥ 2) can be stated as ∫ div 푭 d 푦 = − ∫ 푭 ⋅ 휈 d ℋ푛−1, (1) 퐸 휕퐸 where 푭 is a 퐶1 vector field, 퐸 is a bounded open set with piecewise smooth boundary, 휈 is the inner unit normal vec- tor to 퐸, the boundary value of 푭 ⋅ 휈 is regarded as the normal trace of the vector field 푭 on 휕퐸, and ℋ푛−1 is the (푛 − 1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure (that is an exten- sion of the surface area measure for 2-dimensional surfaces to general (푛−1)-dimensional boundaries 휕퐸). The formu- lation of (1), where 푭 represents a physical vector quantity, is also the result of the efforts of many mathematicians5 including Gibbs, Heaviside, Poisson, Sarrus, Stokes, and Volterra. In conclusion, formula (1) is the result of more than two centuries of efforts by great mathematicians! Gauss-Green Formulas and Traces for Lipschitz Figure 4. Mikhail Ostrogradsky (September 24, 1801–January Vector Fields on Sets of Finite Perimeter 1, 1862). We first go back to the issue arisen earlier for extending the Gauss-Green formula to very rough sets. The devel- opment of geometric measure theory in the middle of the 20th century opened the door to the extension of the classi- cal Gauss-Green formula over sets of finite perimeter (whose boundaries can be very rough and contain cusps, corners, among others; cf. Figure 6) for Lipschitz vector fields. Indeed, we may consider the left side of (1) as a lin- 1 푛 ear functional acting on vector fields 푭 ∈ 퐶푐 (ℝ ). If 퐸 is such that the functional: 푭 → ∫퐸 div 푭 d 푦 is bounded on 푛 퐶푐(ℝ ), then the Riesz representation theorem implies that there exists a Radon measure 휇퐸 such that 1 푛 ∫ div 푭 d 푦 = ∫ 푭 ⋅ d 휇퐸 for all 푭 ∈ 퐶푐 (ℝ ), (2) 퐸 ℝ푛 and the set 퐸 is called a set of finite perimeter in ℝ푛. In this case, the Radon measure 휇퐸 is actually the gradient of −휒퐸 (strictly speaking, the gradient is in the distributional sense), where 휒퐸 is the characteristic function of 퐸. A set of density 훼 ∈ [0, 1] of 퐸 in ℝ푛 is defined by |퐵 (푦) ∩ 퐸| 퐸훼 ∶= {푦 ∈ ℝ푛 ∶ lim 푟 = 훼}, (3) 푟→0 |퐵푟(푦)| where |퐵| represents the Lebesgue measure of any Lebesgue measurable set 퐵. Then 퐸0 is the measure-theoretic exte- rior of 퐸, while 퐸1 is the measure-theoretic interior of 퐸. Sets of finite perimeter can be quite subtle. For exam- ple, the countable union of open balls with centers on the 푛 rational points 푦푘, 푘 = 1, 2, … , of the unit ball in ℝ and with radius 2−푘 is a set of finite perimeter. A set of finite Figure 5. The title page of the original essay of George Green perimeter may have a large set of cusps in the topological (July 14, 1793–May 31, 1841). boundary (e.g., ℋ푛−1(퐸0 ∩ 휕퐸) > 0 or ℋ푛−1(퐸1 ∩ 휕퐸) > 0). 5See C. H. Stolze, “A history of the divergence theorem,” in Historia Mathe- matica, 1978, pp. 437–442, and the references therein. 1284 NOTICES OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 68, NUMBER 8 The development of the theory of Sobolev spaces has been fundamental in analysis. However, for many further applications, this theory is still not sufficient. For exam- ple, the characteristic function of a set 퐸 of finite perimeter, 휒퐸, is not a Sobolev function. Physical solutions in gas dy- namics involve shock waves and vortex sheets that are dis- continuities with jumps. Thus, a larger space of functions, called the space of functions of bounded variation (퐵푉), is necessary, which consists of all functions in 퐿1 whose derivatives are Radon measures.6 This space has compactness properties that allow, for instance, to show the existence of minimal surfaces and the well-posedness of 퐵푉 solutions for hyperbolic conser- vation laws. Moreover, the Gauss-Green formula (4) is Figure 6. 퐸 is an open set of finite perimeter where cusp 푃 is a also valid for 퐵푉 vector fields over Lipschitz domains. See point of density 0. [13, 14, 20] and the references therein.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Glossary Physics (I-Introduction)
    1 Glossary Physics (I-introduction) - Efficiency: The percent of the work put into a machine that is converted into useful work output; = work done / energy used [-]. = eta In machines: The work output of any machine cannot exceed the work input (<=100%); in an ideal machine, where no energy is transformed into heat: work(input) = work(output), =100%. Energy: The property of a system that enables it to do work. Conservation o. E.: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it may be transformed from one form into another, but the total amount of energy never changes. Equilibrium: The state of an object when not acted upon by a net force or net torque; an object in equilibrium may be at rest or moving at uniform velocity - not accelerating. Mechanical E.: The state of an object or system of objects for which any impressed forces cancels to zero and no acceleration occurs. Dynamic E.: Object is moving without experiencing acceleration. Static E.: Object is at rest.F Force: The influence that can cause an object to be accelerated or retarded; is always in the direction of the net force, hence a vector quantity; the four elementary forces are: Electromagnetic F.: Is an attraction or repulsion G, gravit. const.6.672E-11[Nm2/kg2] between electric charges: d, distance [m] 2 2 2 2 F = 1/(40) (q1q2/d ) [(CC/m )(Nm /C )] = [N] m,M, mass [kg] Gravitational F.: Is a mutual attraction between all masses: q, charge [As] [C] 2 2 2 2 F = GmM/d [Nm /kg kg 1/m ] = [N] 0, dielectric constant Strong F.: (nuclear force) Acts within the nuclei of atoms: 8.854E-12 [C2/Nm2] [F/m] 2 2 2 2 2 F = 1/(40) (e /d ) [(CC/m )(Nm /C )] = [N] , 3.14 [-] Weak F.: Manifests itself in special reactions among elementary e, 1.60210 E-19 [As] [C] particles, such as the reaction that occur in radioactive decay.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Regularized Geometry Estimation from a Single Image
    SURGE: Surface Regularized Geometry Estimation from a Single Image Peng Wang1 Xiaohui Shen2 Bryan Russell2 Scott Cohen2 Brian Price2 Alan Yuille3 1University of California, Los Angeles 2Adobe Research 3Johns Hopkins University Abstract This paper introduces an approach to regularize 2.5D surface normal and depth predictions at each pixel given a single input image. The approach infers and reasons about the underlying 3D planar surfaces depicted in the image to snap predicted normals and depths to inferred planar surfaces, all while maintaining fine detail within objects. Our approach comprises two components: (i) a four- stream convolutional neural network (CNN) where depths, surface normals, and likelihoods of planar region and planar boundary are predicted at each pixel, followed by (ii) a dense conditional random field (DCRF) that integrates the four predictions such that the normals and depths are compatible with each other and regularized by the planar region and planar boundary information. The DCRF is formulated such that gradients can be passed to the surface normal and depth CNNs via backpropagation. In addition, we propose new planar-wise metrics to evaluate geometry consistency within planar surfaces, which are more tightly related to dependent 3D editing applications. We show that our regularization yields a 30% relative improvement in planar consistency on the NYU v2 dataset [24]. 1 Introduction Recent efforts to estimate the 2.5D layout of a depicted scene from a single image, such as per-pixel depths and surface normals, have yielded high-quality outputs respecting both the global scene layout and fine object detail [2, 6, 7, 29]. Upon closer inspection, however, the predicted depths and normals may fail to be consistent with the underlying surface geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 468 (Spring 2013) — Discrete Differential Geometry 1 the Unit Normal Vector of a Surface. 2 Surface Area
    CS 468 (Spring 2013) | Discrete Differential Geometry Lecture 7 Student Notes: The Second Fundamental Form Lecturer: Adrian Butscher; Scribe: Soohark Chung 1 The unit normal vector of a surface. Figure 1: Normal vector of level set. • The normal line is a geometric feature. The normal direction is not (think of a non-orientable surfaces such as a mobius strip). If possible, you want to pick normal directions that are consistent globally. For example, for a manifold, you can pick normal directions pointing out. • Locally, you can find a normal direction using tangent vectors (though you can't extend this globally). • Normal vector of a parametrized surface: E1 × E2 If TpS = spanfE1;E2g then N := kE1 × E2k This is just the cross product of two tangent vectors normalized by it's length. Because you take the cross product of two vectors, it is orthogonal to the tangent plane. You can see that your choice of tangent vectors and their order determines the direction of the normal vector. • Normal vector of a level set: > [DFp] N := ? TpS kDFpk This is because the gradient at any point is perpendicular to the level set. This makes sense intuitively if you remember that the gradient is the "direction of the greatest increase" and that the value of the level set function stays constant along the surface. Of course, you also have to normalize it to be unit length. 2 Surface Area. • We want to be able to take the integral of the surface. One approach to the problem may be to inegrate a parametrized surface in the parameter domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Curl, Divergence and Laplacian
    Curl, Divergence and Laplacian What to know: 1. The definition of curl and it two properties, that is, theorem 1, and be able to predict qualitatively how the curl of a vector field behaves from a picture. 2. The definition of divergence and it two properties, that is, if div F~ 6= 0 then F~ can't be written as the curl of another field, and be able to tell a vector field of clearly nonzero,positive or negative divergence from the picture. 3. Know the definition of the Laplace operator 4. Know what kind of objects those operator take as input and what they give as output. The curl operator Let's look at two plots of vector fields: Figure 1: The vector field Figure 2: The vector field h−y; x; 0i: h1; 1; 0i We can observe that the second one looks like it is rotating around the z axis. We'd like to be able to predict this kind of behavior without having to look at a picture. We also promised to find a criterion that checks whether a vector field is conservative in R3. Both of those goals are accomplished using a tool called the curl operator, even though neither of those two properties is exactly obvious from the definition we'll give. Definition 1. Let F~ = hP; Q; Ri be a vector field in R3, where P , Q and R are continuously differentiable. We define the curl operator: @R @Q @P @R @Q @P curl F~ = − ~i + − ~j + − ~k: (1) @y @z @z @x @x @y Remarks: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Multidisciplinary Design Project Engineering Dictionary Version 0.0.2
    Multidisciplinary Design Project Engineering Dictionary Version 0.0.2 February 15, 2006 . DRAFT Cambridge-MIT Institute Multidisciplinary Design Project This Dictionary/Glossary of Engineering terms has been compiled to compliment the work developed as part of the Multi-disciplinary Design Project (MDP), which is a programme to develop teaching material and kits to aid the running of mechtronics projects in Universities and Schools. The project is being carried out with support from the Cambridge-MIT Institute undergraduate teaching programe. For more information about the project please visit the MDP website at http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk or contact Dr. Peter Long Prof. Alex Slocum Cambridge University Engineering Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology Trumpington Street, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge. Cambridge MA 02139-4307 CB2 1PZ. USA e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] tel: +44 (0) 1223 332779 tel: +1 617 253 0012 For information about the CMI initiative please see Cambridge-MIT Institute website :- http://www.cambridge-mit.org CMI CMI, University of Cambridge Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10 Miller’s Yard, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Mill Lane, Cambridge MA 02139-4307 Cambridge. CB2 1RQ. USA tel: +44 (0) 1223 327207 tel. +1 617 253 7732 fax: +44 (0) 1223 765891 fax. +1 617 258 8539 . DRAFT 2 CMI-MDP Programme 1 Introduction This dictionary/glossary has not been developed as a definative work but as a useful reference book for engi- neering students to search when looking for the meaning of a word/phrase. It has been compiled from a number of existing glossaries together with a number of local additions.
    [Show full text]
  • AN INTRODUCTION to the CURVATURE of SURFACES by PHILIP ANTHONY BARILE a Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School-Camden Rutgers
    AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CURVATURE OF SURFACES By PHILIP ANTHONY BARILE A thesis submitted to the Graduate School-Camden Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Program in Mathematics written under the direction of Haydee Herrera and approved by Camden, NJ January 2009 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS An Introduction to the Curvature of Surfaces by PHILIP ANTHONY BARILE Thesis Director: Haydee Herrera Curvature is fundamental to the study of differential geometry. It describes different geometrical and topological properties of a surface in R3. Two types of curvature are discussed in this paper: intrinsic and extrinsic. Numerous examples are given which motivate definitions, properties and theorems concerning curvature. ii 1 1 Introduction For surfaces in R3, there are several different ways to measure curvature. Some curvature, like normal curvature, has the property such that it depends on how we embed the surface in R3. Normal curvature is extrinsic; that is, it could not be measured by being on the surface. On the other hand, another measurement of curvature, namely Gauss curvature, does not depend on how we embed the surface in R3. Gauss curvature is intrinsic; that is, it can be measured from on the surface. In order to engage in a discussion about curvature of surfaces, we must introduce some important concepts such as regular surfaces, the tangent plane, the first and second fundamental form, and the Gauss Map. Sections 2,3 and 4 introduce these preliminaries, however, their importance should not be understated as they lay the groundwork for more subtle and advanced topics in differential geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Normals and Tangent Planes
    Surface Normals and Tangent Planes Normal and Tangent Planes to Level Surfaces Because the equation of a plane requires a point and a normal vector to the plane, …nding the equation of a tangent plane to a surface at a given point requires the calculation of a surface normal vector. In this section, we explore the concept of a normal vector to a surface and its use in …nding equations of tangent planes. To begin with, a level surface U (x; y; z) = k is said to be smooth if the gradient U = Ux;Uy;Uz is continuous and non-zero at any point on the surface. Equivalently,r h we ofteni write U = Uxex + Uyey + Uzez r where ex = 1; 0; 0 ; ey = 0; 1; 0 ; and ez = 0; 0; 1 : Supposeh now thati r (t) =h x (ti) ; y (t) ; z (t) hlies oni a smooth surface U (x; y; z) = k: Applying the derivative withh respect to t toi both sides of the equation of the level surface yields dU d = k dt dt Since k is a constant, the chain rule implies that U v = 0 r where v = x0 (t) ; y0 (t) ; z0 (t) . However, v is tangent to the surface because it is tangenth to a curve on thei surface, which implies that U is orthogonal to each tangent vector v at a given point on the surface. r That is, U (p; q; r) at a given point (p; q; r) is normal to the tangent plane to r 1 the surface U(x; y; z) = k at the point (p; q; r).
    [Show full text]
  • Tilted Planes and Curvature in Three-Dimensional Space: Explorations of Partial Derivatives
    Tilted Planes and Curvature in Three-Dimensional Space: Explorations of Partial Derivatives By Andrew Grossfield, Ph. D., P. E. Abstract Many engineering students encounter and algebraically manipulate partial derivatives in their fluids, thermodynamics or electromagnetic wave theory courses. However it is possible that unless these students were properly introduced to these symbols, they may lack the insight that could be obtained from a geometric or visual approach to the equations that contain these symbols. We accept the approach that just as the direction of a curve at a point in two-dimensional space is described by the slope of the straight line tangent to the curve at that point, the orientation of a surface at a point in 3-dimensional space is determined by the orientation of the plane tangent to the surface at that point. A straight line has only one direction described by the same slope everywhere along its length; a tilted plane has the same orientation everywhere but has many slopes at each point. In fact the slope in almost every direction leading away from a point is different. How do we conceive of these differing slopes and how can they be evaluated? We are led to conclude that the derivative of a multivariable function is the gradient vector, and that it is wrong and misleading to define the gradient in terms of some kind of limiting process. This approach circumvents the need for all the unnecessary delta-epsilon arguments about obvious results, while providing visual insight into properties of multi-variable derivatives and differentials. This paper provides the visual connection displaying the remarkably simple and beautiful relationships between the gradient, the directional derivatives and the partial derivatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Against 3 N-Dimensional Space
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 07/18/12, NEWGEN 7 A g a i n s t 3N - D i m e n s i o n a l S p a c e Bradley Monton 1 Quantum Mechanics Is False Question 1: How many dimensions does space have? I maintain that the answer is “three.” (I recognize the possibility, though, that we live in a three-dimen- sional hypersurface embedded in a higher-dimensional space; I’ll set aside that possibility for the purposes of this chapter.) Why is the answer “three”? I have more to say about this later, but the short version of my argument is that our everyday commonsense constant experience is such that we’re living in three spatial dimensions, and nothing from our experience provides powerful enough reason to give up that prima facie obvious epistemic starting point. (My foils, as you presumably know from reading this volume, are those such as David Albert [1996] who hold that actually space is 3N -dimensional, where N i s t h e n u m - ber of particles [falsely] thought to exist in [nonexistent] three-dimensional space.) Question 2: How many dimensions does space have, according to quantum mechanics? If quantum mechanics were a true theory of the world, then the answer to Question 2 would be the same as the answer to Question 1. But quan- tum mechanics is not true, so the answers need not be the same. Why is quantum mechanics false? Well, our two most fundamental worked-out physical theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are incompatible, and the evidence in favor of general relativity suggests that quantum mech- anics is false.
    [Show full text]
  • Normal Curvature of Surfaces in Space Forms
    Pacific Journal of Mathematics NORMAL CURVATURE OF SURFACES IN SPACE FORMS IRWEN VALLE GUADALUPE AND LUCIO LADISLAO RODRIGUEZ Vol. 106, No. 1 November 1983 PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 106, No. 1, 1983 NORMAL CURVATURE OF SURFACES IN SPACE FORMS IRWEN VALLE GUADALUPE AND LUCIO RODRIGUEZ Using the notion of the ellipse of curvature we study compact surfaces in high dimensional space forms. We obtain some inequalities relating the area of the surface and the integral of the square of the norm of the mean curvature vector with topological invariants. In certain cases, the ellipse is a circle; when this happens, restrictions on the Gaussian and normal curvatures give us some rigidity results. n 1. Introduction. We consider immersions /: M -> Q c of surfaces into spaces of constant curvature c. We are going to relate properties of the mean curvature vector H and of the normal curvature KN to geometric properties, such as area and rigidity of the immersion. We use the notion of the ellipse of curvature studied by Little [10], Moore and Wilson [11] and Wong [12]. This is the subset of the normal space defined as (α(X, X): X E TpM, \\X\\ — 1}, where a is the second fundamental form of the immersion and 11 11 is the norm of the vectors. Let χ(M) denote the Euler characteristic of the tangent bundle and χ(N) denote the Euler characteristic of the plane bundle when the codimension is 2. We prove the following generalization of a theorem of Wintgen [13]. n THEOREM 1. Let f\M-*Q cbean isometric immersion of a compact oriented surf ace into an orientable n-dimensional manifold of constant curva- ture c.
    [Show full text]
  • Normal and Geodesic Curvatures, As Well As Some Material About the Second Fundamental Form and the Christoffel Symbols
    Math 120A Discussion Session Week 6 Notes February 14, 2019 This week we'll repeat some of what you heard in lecture about normal and geodesic curvatures, as well as some material about the second fundamental form and the Christoffel symbols. Normal and geodesic curvatures 3 Earlier in the quarter we spent some time defining the curvature κ of a curve in R and then the 2 planar curvature k of a curve in R . The planar curvature allowed us to extract a little more information than the original curvature. For instance, by integrating the planar curvature over a 2 closed curve in R we were able to obtain a topological invariant, the rotation index. The reason we were able to make sense of planar curvature is that in two dimensions we can choose a preferred normal vector for our curves. Specifically, if t(s) was the unit tangent vector to α at α(s) then the unit normal vector was obtained by rotating t(s) 90◦ counterclockwise. 3 Now suppose x: U! R parametrizes a patch on a surface S. So x produces coordinates on S, allowing us to (locally) treat S as the two-dimensional object that it is. In particular, we can use x to choose a preferred normal vector for curves in S. The parametrization x gives us a unit normal vector n(u; v) to our surface S. Let α(s) be a unit-speed curve in S, and let fT; N; Bg be its Frenet-Serret frame. Now consider the vector S(s) := n(α(s)) × T(s): This vector is perpendicular to n | thus tangent to S | and perpendicular to T.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Ray Tracing
    Advanced Ray Tracing (Recursive)(Recursive) RayRay TracingTracing AntialiasingAntialiasing MotionMotion BlurBlur DistributionDistribution RayRay TracingTracing RayRay TracingTracing andand RadiosityRadiosity Assumptions • Simple shading (OpenGL, z-buffering, and Phong illumination model) assumes: – direct illumination (light leaves source, bounces at most once, enters eye) – no shadows – opaque surfaces – point light sources – sometimes fog • (Recursive) ray tracing relaxes those assumptions, simulating: – specular reflection – shadows – transparent surfaces (transmission with refraction) – sometimes indirect illumination (a.k.a. global illumination) – sometimes area light sources – sometimes fog Computer Graphics 15-462 3 Ray Types for Ray Tracing Four ray types: – Eye rays: originate at the eye – Shadow rays: from surface point toward light source – Reflection rays: from surface point in mirror direction – Transmission rays: from surface point in refracted direction Computer Graphics 15-462 4 Ray Tracing Algorithm send ray from eye through each pixel compute point of closest intersection with a scene surface shade that point by computing shadow rays spawn reflected and refracted rays, repeat Computer Graphics 15-462 5 Ray Genealogy EYE Eye Obj3 L1 L2 Obj1 Obj1 Obj2 RAY TREE RAY PATHS (BACKWARD) Computer Graphics 15-462 6 Ray Genealogy EYE Eye Obj3 L1 L1 L2 L2 Obj1 T R Obj2 Obj3 Obj1 Obj2 RAY TREE RAY PATHS (BACKWARD) Computer Graphics 15-462 7 Ray Genealogy EYE Eye Obj3 L1 L1 L2 L2 Obj1 T R L1 L1 Obj2 Obj3 Obj1 L2 L2 R T R X X Obj2 X RAY TREE RAY PATHS (BACKWARD) Computer Graphics 15-462 8 When to stop? EYE Obj3 When a ray leaves the scene L1 L2 When its contribution becomes Obj1 small—at each step the contribution is attenuated by the K’s in the illumination model.
    [Show full text]