Arxiv:2104.03913V5 [Physics.Class-Ph] 3 May 2021 Entv Ttmn Ftevrainlpolmfrtebrachisto the Constraints

Home , Brachistochrone curve

arXiv:2104.03913v5 [physics.class-ph] 3 May 2021 entv ttmn ftevrainlpolmfrteBrachisto the constraints. for nonholonomic problem with variational the of statement Variations. ternative of dropp Calculus be the can in section versed This reader proofs. a and by definitions precise with terial esta eihrtdfr h atcnuis hspolmwssta was problem This centuries. past the form inherited we that lems es ohlnmcsses aitnprinciple. Hamilton systems, nonholonomic tems, PoetN.19-71-30012). No. (Project RCITCRN RBE N VACONOMIC AND PROBLEM BRACHISTOCHRONE te ato h eti esfra n ae nScin4. Section pro on variational based classical the and of formal one less is Problem is Brachistochrone text The the of part Other al- the justify we section this In mathematical. pure also is 3 Section ma- auxiliary an contains and text other on independent is follows. 4 as Section organized is article The 2010 e od n phrases. and words Key h eerhwsfne yagatfo h usa cec Foun Science Russian the from grant a by funded was research The TKO AHMTCLISIUEO USA CDM FSCIEN OF ACADEMY RUSSIAN OF INSTITUTE MATHEMATICAL STEKLOV 1. ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics h rcitcrn rbe scoeyrltdt aooi me- vakonomic that to shown related is closely It chanics. is Brachistochron proposed. problem the Brachistochrone is for the systems statement nonholonomic clas correct for of The concepts problem fundamental of mechanics. context sical the in Problem tochrone Abstract. nrdcin h ttmn fteProblem the of Statement The Introduction. .V OOOO OCWSAEUNIVERSITY STATE MOSCOW LOMONOSOV V. M. EHNC N AHMTC FACULTY, MATHEMATICS AND MECHANICS ecnie ieetgnrlztoso h Brachis- the of generalizations different consider We ET FTERTCLMECHANICS, THEORETICAL OF DEPT. USA 189 OCW MGU MOSCOW, 119899, RUSSIA, rcitcrn,vknmcmcais oooi sys- holonomic mechanics, vakonomic Brachistochrone, LGZUBELEVICH OLEG MECHANICS [email protected] 1 07,7F57F0,7H0,70H03. 70H30 , 70F25,70F20 70G75, rfso ihi .Sukhinin. F. Mikhail Professor ntemmr of memory the In e - CES chrone dation ted ed b- 2 OLEG ZUBELEVICH by Johann Bernoulli in 1696 and solved almost simultaneously by him and by Christiaan Huygens and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Since that time the problem was discussed in different aspects nu- merous times. We do not even try to touch this long and celebrated history. This article is devoted to comprehension of the Brachistochrone Problem in terms of the modern Lagrangian formalism and to the generalizations which such a comprehension involves. In the sequel we assume all the functions to be smooth. Recall that a function is smooth in the closed interval [s1,s2] if by definition it ∞ belongs to C (s1,s2) and all the derivatives are extended to continuous functions in [s1,s2]. This assumption is overly strong but we keep it for simplicity of the wording. 1.1. Holonomic Version of the Problem. Assume we are given with a Lagrangian mechanical system with a kinetic energy T and a potential energy V : 1 L = T V, T = xT G(x)x , V = V (x). (1.1) − 2 t t By the subscript t we denote the derivative in t. Here x =(x1,...,xm)T are the local coordinates on a configuration manifold M and G(x) is the matrix of a positively definite quadratic form, GT (x)= G(x), det G(x) =0, x M. 6 ∀ ∈ All the functions are smooth. Fix two points x1, x2 M. There are a lot of curves that connect these two points. Let a curve∈ γ be one of them. Assume that this curve is given by the equation

x = x(s), x(s1)= x1, x(s2)= x2. (1.2) So that s is a coordinate in γ. Impose an additional ideal constraint that makes system (1.1) move along the curve γ only. We obtain a one-degree of freedom system with conﬁguration space γ and the generalized coordinate s. Motion of this system along the curve γ is described by the parameter s such that s = s(t) and x = x(s(t)). (1.3) Substituting this formula in (1.1) we obtain the Lagrangian of this new one-degree of freedom system: 1 L′(s,s )= xT (s)G(x(s))x (s) s2 V (x(s)). t 2 s s t − BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 3

We want to choose the curve γ so that system (1.1) spends minimal time passing along γ from x1 to x2 at the energy level h: 1 xT (s)G(x(s))x (s) s2 + V (x(s)) = h. (1.4) 2 s s t Let us assume that V (x) < h, x M. (1.5) ∀ ∈ Separating variables in (1.4) we see that the time of passing is given by the formula s2 xT (s)G(x(s))x (s) τ(γ)= s s ds. 2(h V (x(s)) Zs1 s − Therefore we are looking for a stationary point of the functional τ under the boundary conditions (1.2). By other words, the Brachistochrone curve is a geodesic of the Rie- mann metric G(x) . (1.6) 2(h V (x)) − From proposition 7 (see below) it follows that we can equivalently seek for a stationary point of the functional s2 xT (s)G(x(s))x (s) s2 T T(x( )) = s s ds = ds · 2(h V (x(s))) h V Zs1 − Zs1 − with the same boundary conditions. By the Hamilton principle it follows that the Brachistochrone curve is a trajectory of a dynamical system with Lagrangian T (x, x )= . L s h V − Introduce a function 1 W = . −h V Metric (1.6) presents as follows − G(x) 1 = ( W )G. 2(h V (x)) 2 − − By the principle of least action in the Moupertuis-Euler-Lagrange- Jacobi form [4] we conclude that the Brachistochrone is a trajectory of a system with Lagrangian L˜ = T W − at the zero energy level: T + W =0. 4 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

1.2. Holonomic Constraints. Assume that the Brachistochrone problem is stated for the system with Lagrangian (1.1) and with ideal constraints w(x)=0, (1.7) where w = (w1,...wn)T (x), n

2. The Brachistochrone Problem with Differential Constraints 2.1. Discussion. Assume that the Lagrangian system (1.1) is equipped with ideal diﬀerential constraints

B(x)xt =0. (2.1) Here 1 1 1 b1(x) b2(x) bm(x) 2 2 ··· 2 b1(x) b2(x) bm(x) B(x)=  . . ···. .  . . .. . bn(x) bn(x) bn (x)  1 2 ··· m  is a matrix such that   rang B(x)= n < m, x M. ∀ ∈ System (2.1) can equivalently be expressed in terms of diﬀerential forms n ωi(x)= bi (x)dxk, = ker ωi(x) T M. k Tx ⊂ x i=1 \ Namely, x (t) belongs to an element of the diﬀerential system t Tx(t) {Tx} which is determined by equation (2.1), dim x = m n. Recall that if system (2.1) can equivalentlyT be presented− in the form (1.7) then it is referred to as a holonomic system. Otherwise (2.1) is a nonholonomic system. What the word ”equivalently” means and when such a presentation is possible is a content of the Frobenius theorem [11]. As above we substitute equation (1.3) into Lagrangian (1.1) and separating the variables in the energy integral (1.4) we get the functional τ. Then we notice condition (1.5). BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 5

But now we must pick only motions that satisfy constraints (2.1). Substituting (1.3) in (2.1) we have

B(x(s(t))xs(s(t))st =0. It follows that B(x)xs =0, (2.2) or equivalently xs(s) x(s). We postpone the discussion∈ T of the boundary conditions for a while but note that by the same reason (proposition 7) we can replace τ with T. We have obtained the problem of stationary points for the functional T defined on a set of curves x = x(s) that obey constraints (2.2). Such a problem is called the Lagrange problem or the problem of vakonomic mechanics. This problem provoked a lot of confusion and mistakes in classical mechanics. Many researches thought that such a variational problem is equivalent to the Lagrange-d’Alembert equations for the mechanical system with the Lagrangian and ideal constraints (2.2) (the variable s plays a role of time). If constrainsL (2.2) are nonholonomic it is not so. Here is what in this concern Bloch, Baillieul, Crouch and Marsden write in [6]: It is interesting to compare the dynamic nonholonomic equations, that is, the Lagrange-d’Alembert equations with the corresponding variational nonholonomic equations. The distinction between these two different systems of equations has a long and distinguished history going back to the review article of Korteweg [7] and is discussed in a more modern context in Arnold, Kozlov, and Neishtadt [5]. (For Kozlov’s work on vakonomic systems see, e.g., [8] and [9]) As Korteweg points out, there were many confusions and mistakes in the literature because people were using the incorrect equations, namely the variational equations, when they should have been using the Lagrange- d’Alembert equations; some of these misunderstandings persist, remark- ably, to the present day. The upshot of the distinction is that the Lagrange-d’Alembert equations are the correct mechanical dynamical equations, while the corresponding variational problem is asking a different question, namely one of optimal control. Perhaps it is surprising, at least at first, that these two procedures give different equations. What, exactly, is the difference in the two procedures? The distinction is one of whether the constraints are imposed before or after taking variations. These two operations do not, in general, commute. With the dynamic Lagrange-d’Alembert equations, we 6 OLEG ZUBELEVICH impose constraints only on the variations, whereas in the variational problem we impose the constraints on the velocity vectors of the class of allowable curves. In case of differential constraints (2.2) the situation with boundary conditions is much more complicated than (1.2). The main question is as follows. Assume that the points x1, x2 M are connected with a curve x(s). This curve is a stationary point∈ of τ or T on the set of curves that satisfy constraints (2.2) and connect x1, x2. Is the collection of other smooth paths that connect x1, x2 and satisfy (2.2) large enough to reduce the variational problem to the differential equations? Or by other words, is this collection large enough to construct the Lagrange multipliers method? In general the answer is ”no”. See remark 1 below. The author does not know whether the situation will be fixed if we demand the constraints to be completely nonholonomic. Such questions seem to be closely related to the Rashevsky-Chow theorem [10], [3]. To avoid these hard questions we suggest considering the Brachis- tochrone Problem with another boundary conditions which guarantee the correct employment of the Lagrange multipliers method in the case of nonholonomic constraints.

2.2. The boundary Conditions and the Lagrange multipliers method. Let Σ M be a smooth n dimensional submanifold such that ⊂ − x Σ= T M = T Σ . ∈ ⇒ x x ⊕ Tx For briefness of the story sake we proceed with local constructions. Any point x Σ has a neighborhood U M such that there are local coordinates∈x in U: ⊂ y1 .  .  yn y x =  1  = , (2.3)  z  z  .   .   −   zm n    and   U Σ= z = z , B(x)x = R(x)y + Q(x)z , ∩ { 2} s s s where z is a constant vector; R is an n n matrix and 2 × det R(x) =0, x U. 6 ∀ ∈ BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 7

Let us impose the boundary conditions: x(s )= x =(yT , zT )T U, z(s )= z . (2.4) 1 1 1 1 ∈ 2 2 We put no restrictions on y(s2). The geometric sense of these conditions is clear: the left end of the curve x(s) is nailed at x1 while the right one can slide along the surface Σ: x(s )= x , x(s ) Σ. (2.5) 1 1 2 ∈ Observe that boundary conditions (2.4) differ from ones in the vakonomic mechanics [5]. In vakonomic mechanics the ends of the trajectory are fixed and the variations are not supposed to satisfy the equations of constraints. They satisfy the constraints in some asymptotic sense. Theorem 1. Let x˜(s) be a stationary point of the functional T on the set of functions x(s) that satisfy (2.2), (2.4). Then there is a smooth function λ(s)=(λ1,...,λn)(s) such that x˜ satisfies the equations ∗ ∗ d ∂ ∂ ∗ L L =0, (s, x, xs)= (x, xs)+ λ(s)B(x)xs, (2.6) ds ∂xs − ∂x L L and ∂ L (˜x(s2), x˜s(s2)) + λ(s2)R(˜x(s2))=0. (2.7) ∂ys This theorem is a direct consequence from theorem 4. Condition (2.7) can be presented in an invariant form: ∂ ∗ L (s2, x˜(s2), x˜s(s2))v =0, v Tx˜(s2)Σ. ∂xs ∀ ∈ By proposition 1 the stationary pointx ˜ preserves the ”energy”: x˜T (s)G(˜x(s))˜x (s) s s = const. 2(h V (˜x(s))) − Show that system (2.6), (2.2) can be presented in the normal form that is xss = Ψ(x, xs,λ), λs = Λ(x, xs,λ). (2.8) Indeed, system (2.6) takes the form G −1 xT + λ B˜ = α(x, x ,λ), B˜ = B . (2.9) ss s s h V − Differentiate (2.2) to have

Bxss + γ(x, xs)=0. (2.10) Substituting the second derivatives from (2.9) to (2.10) we obtain T λsBB˜ = ψ(x, xs,λ). (2.11) 8 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

T It is clear det BB˜ = 0 and we can express λs from (2.11) and plug it in (2.9). 6 The way we construct (2.8) shows that the vector-function

f(x, xs)= B(x)xs is a first integral of (2.8). Observe also that equations (2.8) are invariant under the substitution s s, λ λ. 7→ − 7→ − If we choose y(s2) and zs(s2) then λ(s2) and ys(s2) are defined from equations (2.7), (2.2); and at least for s2 s1 small, we can solve the Cauchy problem for (2.9), (2.11) backwards.− Thus the problem is to find y(s2) and zs(s2) so that the boundary conditions x(s1) = x1 are satisfied. These observations prompt the following theorem.

Theorem 2. Assume that x1 is close enough to Σ and s2 s1 > 0 is small enough. Then the problem (2.6), (2.7), (2.5), (2.2) ha−s a unique smooth solution. 2.3. Proof of Theorem 2. Integrating (2.8) twice we get

s1 s y1 =(s1 s2)ys(s2)+ y(s2)+ ds dξ Ψy(x(ξ), xs(ξ),λ(ξ)), − s2 s2 sZ1 sZ z1 =(s1 s2)zs(s2)+ z2 + ds dξ Ψz(x(ξ), xs(ξ),λ(ξ)). − s2 s2 Z Z (2.12) T T T Here Ψ = (Ψy , Ψz ) . Without loss of generality put x1 = 0. Then the closeness of x1 to Σ means that z2 is small. Taking into| account| (2.2) rewrite (2.12) as 0= (s s )R−1(x(s ))Q(x(s ))z (s )+ y(s ) − 1 − 2 2 2 s 2 2 s1 s + ds dξ Ψy(x(ξ), xs(ξ),λ(ξ)), s2 s2 (2.13) Z Z s1 s 0=(s s )z (s )+ z + ds dξ Ψ (x(ξ), x (ξ),λ(ξ)). 1 − 2 s 2 2 z s Zs2 Zs2 Introduce notations: ε = s s , z = εzˆ , y(s )= εα , z (s )= α ; 2 − 1 2 2 2 1 s 2 2 and put C(ε,εα )= R−1(x)Q(x) . 1 T T T − x=ε(α1 ,zˆ2 )

BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 9

System (2.13) takes the form

F1(ε,α1,α2)= C(ε,εα1)α2 + α1 + O(ε)=0, − (2.14) F (ε,α ,α )= α +ˆz + O(ε)=0. 2 1 2 − 2 2 Here we little bit informally write s1 s 2 ds dξ Ψ(x(ξ), xs(ξ),λ(ξ)) = O(ε ). Zs2 Zs2 The proof is accomplished by application of the Implicit Function Theorem to (2.14):

∂Fi det =0, ε =0, α2 =z ˆ2, α1 = C(0, 0)ˆz2. ∂αj 6 3. Minimum of the Functional T

Here we prove that if x1 is close enough to Σ then the functional T attains a minimum in the class of curves x(s) such that (2.5) and (2.2) holds. The uniqueness follows from theorem 2. In this section all the inessential positive constants we denote by c,c1,c2,.... 3.1. The Main Spaces. For details on the Sobolev spaces see [1]. 1 Let H (s1,s2) be the standard Sobolev space of vectors x(s)=(x1,...,xm)T (s) such that m s2 2 i 2 i 2 x 1 = (x (s)) +(x (s)) ds < . (3.1) k kH (s1,s2) s ∞ i=1 s1 X Z 1 Recall that the space H (s1,s2) is compactly embedded in C[s1,s2]. Introduce a subspace H = x H1(s ,s ) x(s )=0 . 0 { ∈ 1 2 | 1 } A function m s2 x 2 = xi (s) 2ds k k s i=1 Zs1 X is a norm in H0 and this norm is equivalent to the norm (3.1). Moreover, x c √s s x . (3.2) k kC[s1,s2] ≤ 1 2 − 1k k Let a set H consist of functions x(s)=(yT , zT )T (s) such that J ⊂ 0 z(s2)= z2 and for almost all s (s ,s ) equation (2.2) holds. ∈ 1 2 10 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

3.2. Theorem of Existence of Minimum. Let U Rm be a coordinate patch in M with coordinates (2.3). Let stand⊂ for the standard m m |·| Euclidean norm in R and let Br(x) R stand for the open ball of radius r and with center in x. ⊂ Take a point x′ U Σ such that V (x′) < h. Then for some ρ> 0 we have ∈ ∩ ′ Bρ(x ) U ′ ∗ ⊂ and max V (x) x Bρ(x ) = V < h. Assume that the point x1 is close to x{′ such| that∈ x x′} < µ < ρ. | 1 − | Without loss of generality put x1 = 0. This particularly implies z < µ. (3.3) | 2| Assume that for all x M and for all ξ Rm we have ∈ ∈ ξT G(x)ξ c ξ 2. (3.4) ≥ 2| | In addition to (1.5) assume that V (x) c , x M. (3.5) ≥ 9 ∀ ∈ Theorem 3. If µ > 0 is small enough then the functional T attains its minimum in the set of functions x :[s ,s ] U, x( ) . 1 2 → · ∈J It is not hard to show that the minimumx ˜, as long as it exists, is actually smooth. Particularlyx ˜ satisﬁes equation (2.6). 3.3. Proof of Theorem 3. Construct a function x (s)=(yT , zT )T (s) + + + ∈J as follows s s z (s)= − 1 z + s s 2 2 − 1 and y+ is determined from the Cauchy problem z (y ) = A(s,y ) 2 , y (s )=0, + s + s s + 1 2 − 1 here A(s,y)= R−1(x)Q(x) . T T T − x=(y ,z+(s))

By the standard estimates we yield s s y (s) c − 1 µ, s [s ,s ]. | + | ≤ 3 s s ∈ 1 2 2 − 1 Here we use formula (3.3). Thus x (s) 0 small enough we obtain | + | 4 x (s) B (x′), s [s ,s ], x . + ∈ ρ ∀ ∈ 1 2 + ∈J BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 11

Observe that c µ2 T(x ) 5 . (3.6) + ≤ s s 2 − 1 Let u be a minimizing sequence for T : { k} T(u ) inf . k → Then for all big enough k it follows that

T(u ) T(x ). k ≤ + Consequently, from formulas (3.6), (3.4) and (3.2) one concludes

2 c7 uk µ2 k kC[s1,s2] c u 2 . s s ≤ 6k kk ≤ s s 2 − 1 2 − 1 This particularly implies

u c µ k kkC[s1,s2] ≤ 8 and for µ> 0 small enough we obtain

u (s) B (x′), s [s ,s ]. k ∈ ρ ∀ ∈ 1 2 The further argument is completely standard [12]: since the sequence 1 uk is bounded in H (s1,s2) it contains a subsequence uki that is { } 1 { } convergent in C[s1,s2] and weakly in H (s1,s2). Therefore the exists an elementu ˜ H such that ∈ 0 s2 u u˜ 0, ((u ) u˜ )T ϕds 0, ϕ L2(s ,s ). k ki − kC[s1,s2] → ki s − s → ∀ ∈ 1 2 Zs1 The elementu ˜ is exactly the desired minimumx ˜. This follows from the inequality: s2 G u G u T T 1 T ( ki ) (˜) (uki ) (˜u)+ u˜s u˜sds ≥ 2 h V (u i ) − h V (˜u) Zs1 k s2 − − T G(uki ) G(˜u) + u˜s (uki )s u˜s ds s1 h V (uki ) − h V (˜u) − Z s − − 2 G(˜u) + u˜T (u ) u˜ ds. s h V (˜u) ki s − s Zs1 − The last three integrals vanish as ki . The theorem is proved. →∞ 12 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

4. Some Useful Facts From the Calculus of Variations Here we collect several standard facts from the Calculus of Varia- tions. Let Ω Rm be an open domain with standard coordinates ⊂ x =(x1,...,xm)T . To proceed with formulations we split the vector x in two parts as above (2.3). Let F : Ω Rm R be a smooth function. We are about× to→ state the variational problem for the functional s2 x( ) = F (x(s), x (s))ds (4.1) F · s Zs1 with boundary conditions

z(s1)= z1, z(s2)= z2, y(s1)= y1, s1

∂a m det (x, xs) =0, (x, xs) Ω R (4.4) ∂ys 6 ∈ × and equation (4.3) can equivalently be written as

ys = Φ(y,z,zs). Deﬁnition 1. Let a smooth function x˜ :[s ,s ] Ω, x˜(s)=(˜yT , z˜T )T (s) 1 2 → be such that T T T a(˜x(s), x˜s(s))=0, x˜(s1)= x1 =(y1 , z1 ) , z˜(s2)= z2. We shall say that x˜ is a stationary point of functional (4.1) with constraints (4.3) and boundary conditions (4.2) if the following holds. For any smooth function X :[s ,s ] ( ε ,ε ) Rm, X(s,ε)=(Y T ,ZT )T (s,ε), ε > 0 1 2 × − 0 0 → 0 such that 1) X [s1,s2] ( ε0,ε0) Ω; 2) X(s, 0)=×x ˜(s−), s [s⊂,s ]; ∈ 1 2 BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 13

3) Z(s ,ε)= z , Z(s ,ε)= z ,Y (s ,ε)= y , ε ( ε ,ε ) ; 1 1 2 2 1 1 ∈ − 0 0 4) a(X(s,ε),Xs(s,ε))=0, (s,ε) [s1,s2] ( ε0,ε0) we have ∈ × − d X( ,ε) =0. dε ε=0F ·

The functions X with properties 1)-4) are referred to as variations.

Theorem 4 ([2]). If the function x˜ is a stationary point of functional (4.1) with constraints (4.3) and boundary conditions (4.2) then there is a smooth function λ(s)=(λ1,...,λn)(s) such that x˜ satisfies the equations ∗ ∗ d ∂F ∂F ∗ =0, F (s, x, xs)= F (x, xs)+ λ(s)a(x, xs), ds ∂xs − ∂x and ∂F ∂a (˜x(s2), x˜s(s2)) + λ(s2) (˜x(s2), x˜s(s2))=0. (4.5) ∂ys ∂ys This theorem remains valid if the functions a, F depend on s. For completeness of the exposition sake we prove this theorem in section 4.2. 4.1. The Homogeneous Case. In this section it is reasonable to assume the second argument of the functions a, F to be defined on a conic domain K Rm. All the formulated above results and the argument of section 4.2⊂ remain valid under such an assumption. Recall that by definition the domain K is a conic domain iff x K = αx K, α> 0. ∈ ⇒ ∈ ∀ Proposition 1. Assume that the function a is homogeneous in the second argument: a(x, αx )= αa(a, x ), α> 0, (x, x ) Ω K. (4.6) s s ∀ ∀ s ∈ × Then the stationary point x˜ preserves the ”energy”: ∂F H(x, xs)= xs F ∂xs − that is H(˜x(s), x˜s(s)) = const. Proof of Proposition 1. Consider a function X(s,ε)=˜x(s + εϕ(s)) with a smooth function ϕ such that supp ϕ [s + s′,s s′] and ⊂ 1 2 − ε ,s′ > 0 | | are small enough. The function X satisfies all the conditions of Definition 1. Property (4.6) is needed to check condition 4) of Definition 1. 14 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

Furthermore we have 2 X =x ˜(s)+ εϕ(s)˜xs(s)+ O(ε ), 2 Xs =x ˜s(s)+ ε ϕs(s)˜xs(s)+ ϕ(s)˜xss(s) + O(ε ) and d (X( ,ε)) dε ε=0F · s2 d ∂F (˜x, x˜s) = ϕ(s) F (˜x, x˜s)+ ϕs(s) x˜s(s) ds s1 ds ∂xs Z s2 = H(˜x(s), x˜s(s))ϕs(s)ds =0. Zs1 Here we use integration by parts. Since ϕ is an arbitrary function the proposition is proved.

4.1.1. The Both Functions a, F are Homogeneous in xs. Proposition 2. Let x˜(s) be a stationary point of . Deﬁne a function F x¯(ξ)=˜x(f(ξ)), where f :[ξ ,ξ ] [s ,s ] is a smooth function, 1 2 → 1 2 fξ(ξ) > 0, f(ξr)= sr, r =1, 2. Then x¯ is a stationary point of with the integral taken over [ξ ,ξ ]. F 1 2 Indeed, such a reparameterization neither changes the shape of constraints (4.3) nor the shape of integral (4.1):

s2 ξ2 F (X(s,ε),Xs(s,ε))ds = F (X¯(ξ,ε), X¯ξ(ξ,ε))dξ, Zs1 Zξ1 X¯(ξ,ε)= X(f(ξ),ε).

Proposition 3. If F (˜x(s), x˜s(s)) > 0, s [s1,s2] then for any constant c> 0 we can choose a parametrization∈ of x˜ such that F (¯x(ξ), x¯ (ξ)) = c, ξ [ξ ,ξ ]. ξ ∈ 1 2 Indeed, the desired parametrization is obtained from the equation dξ 1 = F (˜x(s), x˜ (s)). ds c s Introduce a functional s2 x( ) = F (x(s), x (s)) 2ds P · s Zs1 with the same constraints and boundary conditions (4.3), (4.2). BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 15

Proposition 4. Let x˜(s) be a stationary point of and assume that x˜(s) is parametrized in accordance with PropositionF 3:

F (˜x(s), x˜s(s)) = c. Then x˜(s) is a stationary point of . P Indeed, d d X( ,ε) =2c X( ,ε) =0. (4.7) dε ε=0P · dε ε=0F · ∗ Proposition 5. Let x (s) be a stationary point of . Then F is the energy integral: P ∗ ∗ F (x (s), xs(s)) = const.

Indeed, since F is homogeneous in xs it follows that ∂F xs = F. ∂xs And the assertion follows from Proposition 1: 2 ∂F 2 2 H = xs F = F . ∂xs − Proposition 6. Let x∗(s) be a stationary point of such that ∗ ∗ P F (x (s), xs(s)) = c> 0. Then it is a stationary point of . F Indeed, it follows from (4.7). Summing up we obtain the following proposition.

Proposition 7. If x˜(s) is a stationary point of and F (˜x(s), x˜s(s)) > 0 then after some reparametrization it is a stationaryF point of . ∗ ∗ ∗ P If x (s) is a stationary point of and F (x (s), xs(s)) = c> 0 then it is a stationary point of . P F 4.2. Proof of Theorem 4. Introduce a notation d ∂F ∂F d ∂F ∂F [F ]y = + , [F ]z = + −ds ∂ys ∂y −ds ∂zs ∂z and correspondingly [F ]x = ([F ]y, [F ]z). Let us put Z(s,ε)=˜z(s)+ εδz(s), supp δz [s ,s ]. (4.8) ⊂ 1 2 Then the function Y is uniquely determined from the following Cauchy problem

Ys(s,ε)=Φ(Y (s,ε),Z(s,ε),Zs(s,ε)),Y (s1,ε)= y1. (4.9) 16 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

Remark 1. That is why we can not impose condition x(s2)= x2 as it is usually done for the holonomic case. The value Y (s2,ε) has already been uniquely defined by other boundary conditions and the constraints. In other words if we add the condition Y (s2,ε) = y2 to the conditions 1)-4) of Definition 1 then the set of variations X(s,ε) may turn up to be insufficiently large to prove theorem 4. { } For example, consider a plane R2 = x =(y, z)T . There is a unique T { T } smooth path from x1 = (0, 0) to x2 = (0, 1) that satisfies the equation ys = 0. (Much more complicated example by C. Caratheodory see in [5].) Cauchy problem (4.9) has the suitable solution at least for ε and s s small. Observe also that | | 2 − 1 Yε(s1,ε)=0. (4.10) Using the standard integration by parts technique and from formulas (4.10), (4.8) we obtain d X( ,ε) dε ε=0F · s2 ∂F = [F ]zδz + [F ]yYε ds + (˜x(s2), x˜s(s2))Yε(s2, 0)=0. s1 ∂ys Z (4.11) The function λ(s) is still undefined but due to condition (4.4) the value λ(s2) is determined uniquely from (4.5). From condition 4) of definition 1 it follows that

s2 A(ε)= λ(s)a(X(s,ε),Xs(s,ε))ds =0. Zs1 By the same argument as above we have d s2 A = [λa]zδz + [λa]yYε ds dε ε=0 s1 Z ∂a + λ(s2) (˜x(s2), x˜s(s2))Yε(s2, 0)=0. (4.12) ∂ys Summing formulas (4.12) and (4.11) we yield

s2 ∗ ∗ [F ]zδz + [F ]yYε ds =0. (4.13) s1 Z To construct the function λ consider an equation ∗ [F ]y =0. (4.14) BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 17

This is a system of linear ordinary diﬀerential equations for λ. Due to assumption (4.4) this system can be presented in the normal form that is

λs = Λ(s,λ).

Since we know λ(s2), by the existence and uniqueness theorem we obtain λ(s) as a solution to the IVP for (4.14). Equation (4.13) takes the form

s2 ∗ [F ]zδzds =0. Zs1 ∗ Since δz is an arbitrary function we get [F ]z = 0. Together with (4.14) this proves the theorem.

5. Appendix: Generalizations and the Hamiltonian point of view This section is independent on the previous text and contains a method of reduction of the vaconomic mechanics problems to the Hamil- ton equations. Let M be a smooth m dimensional manifold with local coordinates x = (x1,...,xm)T . We− assume all the objects below to be smooth enough for the formulas to make sense. Let L : T M R, L = L(x, v) be a Lagrangian function. Assume that the mapping→ ∂L (x, v) (x, y), y = (x, v) (5.1) 7→ ∂v is a diﬀeomorphism of T M to T ∗M and equation (5.1) implies v = f(x, y), f =(f 1,...,f m)T . Here (x, y) are the local coordinates in T ∗M. Assume also that ∂2L A(x, v)= (x, v) ∂v2 is a matrix of positively deﬁnite quadratic form; ∂f = A−1. (5.2) ∂y Introduce 1 forms − i i j b = bj(x)dx , i =1,...,n

t2 F : S R, F x( ) = L x(t), x˙(t) dt → · Zt1 then there is a vector λ(t)=(λ1,...,λn)(t) such that the functionx ˜(t) satisﬁes the Lagrange equations d ∂L∗ ∂L∗ x, x,˙ λ(t) x, x,˙ λ(t) =0, (5.4) dt ∂v − ∂x with L∗(x,v,λ)= L(x, v)+ λB(x)v, L∗ : T M Rn R. × → The main object of our study is system (5.3), (5.4). Loosely speak- ing our aim is to show that this system is described in terms of a Hamiltonian system in some 2m dimensional symplectic manifold. As far as the author knows this− simple but important fact has not been noticed anywhere. BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 19

5.1. The Main Construction. Let H∗ : Q R, Q = T ∗M Rn → × stand for the standard Legendre transformation of L∗: ∂L∗ p =(p ,...,p )= (x,v,λ), v = f˜(x,p,λ), where 1 m ∂v f˜(x,p,λ) := f x, p λB(x) ; ∗ − H (x,p,λ)= pf˜(x,p,λ) L x, f˜(x,p,λ) λB(x)f˜(x,p,λ). − − The following well-known fact holds true. Let the function λ = λ(t) be fixed then the function x(t) is a solution to equations (5.4) iff the functions ∂L∗ x(t), p(t)= x(t), x˙(t),λ(t) ∂x˙ are the solution to the Hamilton equations ∂H∗ ∂H∗ x˙ = x,p,λ(t) , p˙ = x,p,λ(t) . (5.5) ∂p − ∂x Equation (5.3) takes the form B(x)f˜(x,p,λ)=0. (5.6) To determine the function λ(t) one must differentiate this equation in t and substitutex, ˙ p˙ from (5.5). This procedure gives an equation of the form ∂f R(x,p,λ)λ˙ T = ψ(x,p,λ), R(x,p,λ)= B(x) x, p λB(x) BT (x). ∂y − Recall that A is a matrix of positive definite quadratic form. So that by formula (5.2) we have det R(x,p,λ) = 0; (5.7) 6 and the last equation takes the form λ˙ = Λ(x,p,λ). (5.8) System (5.5), (5.8) is an ODE system on the manifold Q with the local coordinates (x,p,λ). Observe that the way we construct system (5.5), (5.8) implies that the vector function C(x,p,λ)= B(x)f˜(x,p,λ) is a first integral of this system. This in particular means that a solution (x,p,λ)(t) to system (5.5), (5.8) satisfies (5.6) identically provided the solution’s initial conditions satisfy (5.6). 20 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

Let N denote the zero level manifold of C(x): N = (x,p,λ) Q C(x,p,λ)=0 . { ∈ | } Proposition 8. The set N is a smooth 2m dimensional submanifold of Q; this submanifold is locally presented as− a graph of a function: λ = ϕ(x, p). (5.9) Indeed, this follows from the Implicit Function Theorem and formula (5.7) : ∂C = R. ∂λ Remark 2. Formula (5.9) implies that (x, p) are the local coordinates in N. The manifold T ∗M has the standard symplectic structure: Ω= dxi dp . ∧ i This 2 form is trivially extended to the cross product Q. Therefore we proceed− with considering of Ω in Q. Proposition 9. The manifold N is a symplectic manifold with a symplectic form given by the following restriction ω = Ω . |N The coordinates (x, p) are symplectic coordinates in N. Indeed, this is a direct consequence of proposition 8 and remark 2. Let v(z) T Q, z =(x,p,λ) ∈ z denote the vector field of system (5.5), (5.8). Since C is a first integral we have z N v(z) T N. ∈ ⇒ ∈ z Theorem 5. The vector field u = v N is a Hamiltonian vector field in N. The Hamiltonian of u is | H = H∗ : N R. |N → In the local coordinates (x, p) this Hamiltonian is given by the formula H(x, p)= H∗ x,p,ϕ(x, p) .

Proof of Theorem 5. Let iv stand for the interior product. The following formula is the main: ∗ ∗ ∂H ivΩ= dH dλj. (5.10) − ∂λj This formula is checked by direct calculation. BRACHISTOCHRONE PROBLEM AND VACONOMIC MECHANICS 21

The formulas ∂H∗ ∂H∗ = B(x)f˜(x,p,λ), =0 ∂λ − ∂λ N are evident. Restricting the both sides of formula (5.10) to N we obtain

iuω = dH. The theorem is proved. 5.2. Example. Let the Lagrangian L be given by the formula 1 L(x, x˙)= x˙ T G(x)x, ˙ 2 where G(x) is a Riemann metric in M. After some calculation one yields 1 H(x, p)= pP(x)G−1(x)pT , 2 where −1 P(x)= E G−1(x)BT (x) B(x)G−1(x)BT (x) B(x), − P(x): T M T M. x → x is the orthogonal projection: P(x)T M = . x Tx Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thank Professor V. V. Ko- zlov for useful discussions. References

[1] R. A. Adams J.J.F. Fournier: Sobolev Spaces, Elsevier, 2nd Edn. 2003.. [2] N. I. Akhiezer: The Calculus of Variations. Blaisdell, New York, 1962. [3] W.L. Chow, Uber Systeme von linearen partiellen Diﬀerentialgleichungen er- ster Ordnung, Math. Ann. 117 (1940) 98-115. [4] V. I. Arnold: Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, 2nd ed., Springer, New York 1989. [5] V. I. Arnold, V. V. Kozlov, and A. I. Neishtadt: Dynamical Systems III, Springer- Verlag, Encyclopedia of Math., 3 1988. [6] A. M. Bloch, J. Baillieul, P. Crouch, J. Marsden: Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control (Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics). Springer, 2000. [7] D. Korteweg: Uber eine ziemlich verbreitete unrichtige Behandlungsweise eines Problemes der rollenden Bewegung und insbesondere ¨uber kleine rollende Schwingungen um eine Gleichgewichtslage, Nieuw Archiefvoor Wiskunde. 4, 130–155 1899. [8] V. V. Kozlov: Realization of nonintegrable constraints in classical mechanics, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 28, 735–737 1983. 22 OLEG ZUBELEVICH

[9] V. V. Kozlov: The problem of realizing constraints in dynamics, J. Appl. Math. Mech. 56 (4), 594–600 1992. [10] P.K. Rashevsky: Any two points of a totally nonholonomic space may be connected by an admissible line, Uch. Zap. Ped. Inst. im. Liebknechta, Ser. Phys. Math. 2 (1938) (in Russian). [11] S. Sternberg: Lectures on Differential Geometry. 1964 by Presentice-Hall, inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [12] Michael E. Taylor: Partial differential equations III. Nonlinear equations. Sec- ond edition. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 117. Springer, New York, 2011 Email address: [email protected]