DOCSLIB.ORG

The Curved N-Body Problem: Risks and Rewards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Curved N-Body Problem: Risks and Rewards Author's personal copy The Curved N-Body Problem: Risks and Rewards FLORIN DIACU xploring new mathematical territory can be a risky motion of a body about a fixed point) in which the force is adventure. With no landmarks in sight, it’s easy to inversely proportional to the area of a sphere of radius EE err, as all the giants, from Fermat and Newton to equal to the hyperbolic arc distance between the body and Gauss and Poincare´, well knew. Still, an expedition into the the attraction centre. Alas, they never followed this idea to unknown is highly rewarding if planned with care and obtain the equations of motion in analytic form [4, 28]. advanced with restraint, a thing the masters knew too. I One mathematician who appreciated the problem was learned this lesson not only by reading them and about Lejeune Dirichlet. He told friends he had dealt with it during them, but also from experience. his last year in Berlin (1852), but he never published anything in this direction [27]. It was Ernest Schering, a Go¨ttingen A Brief History of the Problem mathematician and reluctant editor of Gauss’s posthumous The curved N-body problem is a short name for the work, who came up with an analytic expression of the 3 equations that describe the motion of gravitating particle potential in 1870 [33]. Since the area of a sphere in H is systems in spaces of constant Gaussian curvature. I dis- proportional to sinh2 r, where r is its radius, Schering pro- covered this universe a few years ago, and found it posed a force, F, inversely proportional to this function, fascinating. Later I also looked into its history, which which led him to a potential, U, that involves coth r, because proved to be as gripping as the universe itself. F = U. But was this the right way to extend Newton’s law? r The classical N-body problem has its roots in the work of After all, there are many ways to do that. Rudolf Lipschitz Isaac Newton, who introduced it in his masterpiece Prin- must have asked this question, for in 1873 he defined a 3 cipia in 1687. His goal was to study the motion of the moon, potential in S proportional to 1= sin r. His attempts to solve and for this he offered a model for the dynamics of celestial the Kepler problem led him to expressions that depend on objects under gravitational attraction. It took about 150 years elliptic integrals, which cannot be explicitly solved, so his until the independent founders of hyperbolic geometry, approach was a dead end. In 1885, Wilhelm Killing returned 3 Ja´nos Bolyai and Nikolai Lobachevsky, thought of extending to the original idea and used cot r for the potential in S [22]. gravitation to spaces of constant curvature [4, 28]. Still, without knowing whether the orbits following this By that time, Gauss had already derived his gravity law, gravitational law are conic sections, as it happens in the which is equivalent to Newton’s, but emphasizes that the Euclidean case, a question mark loomed over this extension gravitational force is inversely proportional to the area of of gravity to spaces of constant curvature. the sphere of radius equal to the distance between the The breakthrough came at the dawn of the 20th century attracting bodies. So it’s no wonder that both Bolyai and thanks to Heinrich Liebmann, a mathematician known Lobachevsky saw the connection between the geometry of today mostly for his work in hyperbolic geometry. In 1902, the space and the laws of physics. They defined a Kepler Liebmann published a paper in which he showed that the 3 problem in the hyperbolic space H (the gravitational orbits of the curved Kepler problem are indeed conic 24 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER Ó 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York DOI 10.1007/s00283-013-9397-1 Author's personal copy sections in the hyperbolic plane and that the coth potential had been my source of inspiration, the only important is a harmonic function in 3D, but not in 2D, the same as in development was the work on the 2-body problem initiated the classical Kepler problem [25]. His next key result was by the Russian school of celestial mechanics, led by Valery related to Bertrand’s theorem, which states that for the Kozlov [23]. These researchers discovered that, unlike in Kepler problem there are only two analytic central poten- Euclidean space, where the Kepler problem and the 2-body tials in the Euclidean space for which all bounded orbits are problem are equivalent, in curved space the equations of closed, one of the potentials being the inverse square law motion are distinct. Moreover, the curved Kepler problem is [2]. In 1903, Liebmann proved a similar theorem for the integrable, whereas the curved 2-body problem is not [34]. 2 2 cotangent potential in H and S [26]. These properties When I wanted to extend the curved 2-body problem to established the law proposed by Bolyai and Lobachevsky any number N C 2 of bodies, the only reference point I had as the natural extension of gravity to spaces of constant was the paper of the Spanish mathematicians. I learned curvature, and explained why the inverse square of the arc about the work of Schering, Killing, and Liebmann only distance, which seems more natural but doesn’t have these months after discovering this new universe. But before features, is not the way to go. getting into mathematical details, I will recount how every- This great news, which meant that my research on the thing started. curved N-body problem was on the right track, also made me curious about Liebmann. I learned that he had been Beginnings briefly the rector of the University of Heidelberg, my own We feel restless without a good problem to solve, a point in doctoral Alma Mater, but had been ousted from his post life we can reach for various reasons, including loss of soon after the Nazis came to power, during their abomi- interest in what we’ve been doing. Most of us hit this wall nable purge of Jewish intellectuals. In 2009, I visited sooner or later, and so did I. Finding a new appealing Heidelberg again, and learned from my Ph.D. supervisor, subject can be challenging under such circumstances. But Willi Ja¨ger, about the Liebmann Remembrance Colloquium in this case chance favoured me. of 2008. Liebmann’s son Karl-Otto, also an academic, had I had worked in the dynamics of particle systems for more donated on this occasion an oil portrait of his father to the than 20 years. I started with the classical N-body problem university. This painting has now a place of honour in the and later introduced the Manev model and its generalization, Faculty of Mathematics. the quasihomogeneous law, which includes those of New- Not much was done after Liebmann’s breakthrough. ton, Birkhoff, Coulomb, Schwarzschild, Lennard-Jones, Van Before the recent publication of a paper by the Spanish der Waals, and a few others. The mathematical community mathematicians Carin˜ena, Ran˜ada, and Santander [3], which embraced the topic and produced some 200 papers so far. But a few years ago I felt tired of studying the same equations and ready for a new challenge. ......................................................................... I was teaching a course in non-Euclidean geometry, focusing on the hyperbolic plane and using synthetic FLORIN DIACU obtained his mathematics methods and complex functions in the Poincare´ and Klein- diploma from the University of Bucharest in Beltrami disks and the Poincare´ upper-half plane. I also AUTHOR Romania and his Ph.D. degree from the used Weierstrass’s model (often wrongly attributed to Lor- 2 University of Heidelberg in Germany. He entz), the natural analogue to the sphere S of elliptic has been teaching at the University of Vic- geometry. To define it, take the upper sheet of the toria in Canada for more than two decades. Apart from mathematics research, he enjoys writing nonfiction and poetry. His latest book, Megadisasters—The Science of Predicting the Next Catastrophe, published by Princeton University Press in North America and Oxford University Press in the rest of the English-speaking world, won a ‘‘Best Academic Book Award’’ in 2011. In his leisure time he enjoys reading, playing tennis, and hiking. Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences and Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Victoria Figure 1. Weierstrass’s model of the hyperbolic plane (given Victoria, BC by the upper sheet of the hyperboloid of two sheets) is Canada V8W 3R4 equivalent to the Poincare´ disk model, a fact that can be e-mail: [email protected] proved by stereographic projection. Ó 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York, Volume 35, Number 3, 2013 25 Author's personal copy 2 hyperboloid of two sheets, H x; y; z x2 y2 z2 Deriving the Equations of Motion ¼fð Þj þ À ¼ 1; z [ 0 (see Figure 1). The geodesics are the hyperbo- In 2D, the right setting for the problem is on spheres and À g las obtained by intersecting this surface with the planes that hyperbolic spheres, i.e., contain the frame’s origin. Through a point outside a 2 2 2 2 1 S x; y; z x y z jÀ and geodesic, we can draw two parallel geodesics that meet the j ¼fð Þj þ þ ¼ g 2 2 2 2 1 original one at infinity, each at a different end, so the main Hj x; y; z x y z jÀ ; z [ 0 ; axiom of hyperbolic geometry is satisfied.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Three Body Problem
    PHYS 7221 - The Three-Body Problem Special Lecture: Wednesday October 11, 2006, Juhan Frank, LSU 1 The Three-Body Problem in Astronomy The classical Newtonian three-body gravitational problem occurs in Nature exclusively in an as- tronomical context and was the subject of many investigations by the best minds of the 18th and 19th centuries. Interest in this problem has undergone a revival in recent decades when it was real- ized that the evolution and ultimate fate of star clusters and the nuclei of active galaxies depends crucially on the interactions between stellar and black hole binaries and single stars. The general three-body problem remains unsolved today but important advances and insights have been enabled by the advent of modern computational hardware and methods. The long-term stability of the orbits of the Earth and the Moon was one of the early concerns when the age of the Earth was not well-known. Newton solved the two-body problem for the orbit of the Moon around the Earth and considered the e®ects of the Sun on this motion. This is perhaps the earliest appearance of the three-body problem. The ¯rst and simplest periodic exact solution to the three-body problem is the motion on collinear ellipses found by Euler (1767). Also Euler (1772) studied the motion of the Moon assuming that the Earth and the Sun orbited each other on circular orbits and that the Moon was massless. This approach is now known as the restricted three-body problem. At about the same time Lagrange (1772) discovered the equilateral triangle solution described in Goldstein (2002) and Hestenes (1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Laplace-Runge-Lenz Vector
    Laplace-Runge-Lenz Vector Alex Alemi June 6, 2009 1 Alex Alemi CDS 205 LRL Vector The central inverse square law force problem is an interesting one in physics. It is interesting not only because of its applicability to a great deal of situations ranging from the orbits of the planets to the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, but also because it exhibits a great deal of symmetry. In fact, in addition to the usual conservations of energy E and angular momentum L, the Kepler problem exhibits a hidden symmetry. There exists an additional conservation law that does not correspond to a cyclic coordinate. This conserved quantity is associated with the so called Laplace-Runge-Lenz (LRL) vector A: A = p × L − mkr^ (LRL Vector) The nature of this hidden symmetry is an interesting one. Below is an attempt to introduce the LRL vector and begin to discuss some of its peculiarities. A Some History The LRL vector has an interesting and unique history. Being a conservation for a general problem, it appears as though it was discovered independently a number of times. In fact, the proper name to attribute to the vector is an open question. The modern popularity of the use of the vector can be traced back to Lenz’s use of the vector to calculate the perturbed energy levels of the Kepler problem using old quantum theory [1]. In his paper, Lenz describes the vector as “little known” and refers to a popular text by Runge on vector analysis. In Runge’s text, he makes no claims of originality [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Euclid's Error: Non-Euclidean Geometries Present in Nature And
    International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2010 Euclid’s Error: Non-Euclidean Geometries Present in Nature and Art, Absent in Non-Higher and Higher Education Cristina Alexandra Sousa Universidade Portucalense Infante D. Henrique, Portugal Abstract This analysis begins with an historical view of surfaces, we are faced with the impossibility of Geometry. One presents the evolution of Geometry solving problems through the same geometry. (commonly known as Euclidean Geometry) since its Unlike what happens with the initial four beginning until Euclid’s Postulates. Next, new postulates of Euclid, the Fifth Postulate, the famous geometric worlds beyond the Fifth Postulate are Parallel Postulate, revealed a lack intuitive appeal, presented, discovered by the forerunners of the Non- and several were the mathematicians who, Euclidean Geometries, as a result of the flaw that throughout history, tried to show it. Many retreated many mathematicians encountered when they before the findings that this would be untrue, some attempted to prove Euclid’s Fifth Postulate (the had the courage and determination to make such a Parallel Postulate). Unlike what happens with the falsehood, thus opening new doors to Geometry. initial four Postulates of Euclid, the Fifth Postulate One puts up, then, two questions. Where can be revealed a lack of intuitive appeal, and several were found the clear concepts of such Geometries? And the mathematicians who, throughout history, tried to how important is the knowledge and study of show it. Geometries, beyond the Euclidean, to a better understanding of the world around us? The study, After this brief perspective, a reflection is made now developed, seeks to answer these questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sebastian's Space and Forms
    GENERAL ARTICLE Sebastian’s Space and Forms Michele eMMer A strong message that mathematics revealed in the late nineteenth and non-Euclidean hyperbolic geometry) “imaginary geometry,” the early twentieth centuries is that geometry and space can be the because it was in such strong contrast with common sense. realm of freedom and imagination, abstraction and rigor. An example For some years non-Euclidean geometry remained marginal of this message lies in the infi nite variety of forms of mathematical AbStrAct inspiration that the Mexican sculptor Sebastian invented, rediscovered to the fi eld, a sort of unusual and curious genre, until it was and used throughout all his artistic activity. incorporated into and became an integral part of mathema- tics through the general ideas of G.F.B. Riemann (1826–1866). Riemann described a global vision of geometry as the study of intellectUAl ScAndAl varieties of any dimension in any kind of space. According to At the beginning of the twentieth century, Robert Musil re- Riemann, geometry had to deal not necessarily with points or fl ected on the role of mathematics in his short essay “Th e space in the traditional sense but with sets of ordered n-ples. Mathematical Man,” writing that mathematics is an ideal in- Th e erlangen Program of Felix Klein (1849–1925) descri- tellectual apparatus whose task is to anticipate every possible bed geometry as the study of the properties of fi gures that case. Only when one looks not toward its possible utility, were invariant with respect to a particular group of transfor- but within mathematics itself one sees the real face of this mations.
    [Show full text]
  • From One to Many Geometries Transcript
    From One to Many Geometries Transcript Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2012 - 1:00PM Location: Museum of London 11 December 2012 From One to Many Geometries Professor Raymond Flood Thank you for coming to the third lecture this academic year in my series on shaping modern mathematics. Last time I considered algebra. This month it is going to be geometry, and I want to discuss one of the most exciting and important developments in mathematics – the development of non–Euclidean geometries. I will start with Greek mathematics and consider its most important aspect - the idea of rigorously proving things. This idea took its most dramatic form in Euclid’s Elements, the most influential mathematics book of all time, which developed and codified what came to be known as Euclidean geometry. We will see that Euclid set out some underlying premises or postulates or axioms which were used to prove the results, the propositions or theorems, in the Elements. Most of these underlying premises or postulates or axioms were thought obvious except one – the parallel postulate – which has been called a blot on Euclid. This is because many thought that the parallel postulate should be able to be derived from the other premises, axioms or postulates, in other words, that it was a theorem. We will follow some of these attempts over the centuries until in the nineteenth century two mathematicians János Bolyai and Nikolai Lobachevsky showed, independently, that the Parallel Postulate did not follow from the other assumptions and that there was a geometry in which all of Euclid’s assumptions, apart from the Parallel Postulate, were true.
    [Show full text]
  • Models in Geometry and Logic: 1870-1920 ∗
    Models in Geometry and Logic: 1870-1920 ∗ Patricia Blanchette University of Notre Dame 1 Abstract Questions concerning the consistency of theories, and of the independence of axioms and theorems one from another, have been at the heart of logical investigation since the beginning of logic. It is well known that our own contemporary methods for proving independence and consistency owe a good deal to developments in geometry in the middle of the nineteenth century, and especially to the role of models in estab- lishing the consistency of non-Euclidean geometries. What is less well understood, and is the topic of this essay, is the extent to which the concepts of consistency and of independence that we take for granted today, and for which we have clear techniques of proof, have been shaped in the intervening years by the gradual de- velopment of those techniques. It is argued here that this technical development has brought about significant conceptual change, and that the kinds of consistency- and independence-questions we can decisively answer today are not those that first motivated metatheoretical work. The purpose of this investigation is to help clarify what it is, and importantly what it is not, that we can claim to have shown with a modern demonstration of consistency or independence.1 ∗This is the nearly-final version of the paper whose official version appears in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science - proceedings of the 15th International Congress, edited by Niiniluoto, Sepp¨al¨a,Sober; College Publications 2017, pp 41-61 1Many thanks to the organizers of CLMPS 2015 in Helsinki, and also to audience members for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuous Transition of Hamiltonian Vector Fields Through Manifolds of Constant Curvature
    THE CONTINUOUS TRANSITION OF HAMILTONIAN VECTOR FIELDS THROUGH MANIFOLDS OF CONSTANT CURVATURE Florin Diacu, Slim Ibrahim, and Je˛drzej Śniatycki Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences and Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Victoria P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, Canada, V8W 2Y2 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] September 6, 2018 Abstract. We ask whether Hamiltonian vector fields defined on spaces of constant Gaussian curvature κ (spheres, for κ> 0, and hyperbolic spheres, for κ < 0), pass continuously through the value κ = 0 if the potential functions Uκ,κ ∈ R, that define them satisfy the property limκ→0 Uκ = U0, where U0 corresponds to the Euclidean case. We prove that the answer to this question is positive, both in the 2- and 3-dimensional cases, which are of physical interest, and then apply our conclusions to the gravitational N-body problem. 1. Introduction The attempts to extend classical equations of mathematical physics from Eu- clidean space to more general manifolds is not new. This challenging trend started in the 1830s with the work of János Bolyai and Nikolai Lobachevsky, who tried to generalize the 2-body problem of celestial mechanics to hyperbolic space, [2], [14]. This particular topic is much researched today in the context of the N-body problem in spaces of constant curvature, [4], [5], [6], [7], [10], [11], [12]. But ex- arXiv:1510.06327v1 [math.DS] 21 Oct 2015 tensions to various manifolds have also been pursued for PDEs, even beyond the boundaries of classical mechanics, such as for Schrödinger’s equation [1], [3], [13], and the Vlasov-Poisson system, [9], to mention just a couple.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobachevsky, Nikolai
    NIKOLAI LOBACHEVSKY ( December 1, 1792 – February 24, 1856) by HEINZ KLAUS STRICK, Germany NIKOLAI IVANOVICH LOBACHEVSKY was born in Nizhny Novgorod. When his father died in 1799, his mother moved to Kazan on the central Volga. There he began studying medicine at the newly founded university at the age of 15, but switched to mathematics a year later. His professor was MARTIN BARTELS, a friend of CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS. He had previously worked as a teacher in Germany and was now appointed as a mathematics professor in Kazan. LOBACHEVSKY finished his mathematics studies at the age of 19 and at the age of 24 he was appointed professor at the University of Kazan. Later he became the dean and rector of the university. At the age of 22 he was already concerned with the question of the meaning of the so-called axiom of parallels, that is, the fifth postulate of EUCLID's geometry. Many mathematicians had been concerned with this postulate since antiquity, but it was only LOBACHEVSKY, GAUSS and JANOS BOLYAI who achieved decisive new insights almost simultaneously. However, they were not recognised during their lifetime. LOBACHEVSKY himself also received high honours, such as elevation to the hereditary nobility; however, this was not because of his discovery / invention of a new geometry. His Geometric Investigations of the Theory of Parallels, published in 1840, was viewed by most as the crazy ideas of an otherwise deserving scientist. EUCLID had around 300 BC in the first volume of his Elements proposed a system of five postulates from which all geometrical propositions should be derived: (1) Two points can always be connected by a line.
    [Show full text]
  • Generalisations of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz Vector
    Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics Volume 10, Number 3 (2003), 340–423 Review Article Generalisations of the Laplace–Runge–Lenz Vector 1 2 3 1 4 P G L LEACH † † † and G P FLESSAS † † 1 † GEODYSYC, School of Sciences, University of the Aegean, Karlovassi 83 200, Greece 2 † Department of Mathematics, University of the Aegean, Karlovassi 83 200, Greece 3 † Permanent address: School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Natal, Durban 4041, Republic of South Africa 4 † Department of Information and Communication Systems Engineering, University of the Aegean, Karlovassi 83 200, Greece Received October 17, 2002; Revised January 22, 2003; Accepted January 27, 2003 Abstract The characteristic feature of the Kepler Problem is the existence of the so-called Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector which enables a very simple discussion of the properties of the orbit for the problem. It is found that there are many classes of problems, some closely related to the Kepler Problem and others somewhat remote, which share the possession of a conserved vector which plays a significant rˆole in the analysis of these problems. Contents arXiv:math-ph/0403028v1 15 Mar 2004 1 Introduction 341 2 Motions with conservation of the angular momentum vector 346 2.1 The central force problem r¨ + fr =0 .....................346 2.1.1 The conservation of the angular momentum vector, the Kepler problemandKepler’sthreelaws . .346 2.1.2 The model equation r¨ + fr =0.....................350 2.2 Algebraic properties of the first integrals of the Kepler problem . 355 2.3 Extension of the model equation to nonautonomous systems.........356 Copyright c 2003 by P G L Leach and G P Flessas Generalisations of the Laplace–Runge–Lenz Vector 341 3 Conservation of the direction of angular momentum only 360 3.1 Vector conservation laws for the equation of motion r¨ + grˆ + hθˆ = 0 .
    [Show full text]
  • Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
    Kepler's laws of planetary motion In astronomy, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are three scientific laws describing the motion ofplanets around the Sun. 1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the twofoci . 2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.[1] 3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. Most planetary orbits are nearly circular, and careful observation and calculation are required in order to establish that they are not perfectly circular. Calculations of the orbit of Mars[2] indicated an elliptical orbit. From this, Johannes Kepler inferred that other bodies in the Solar System, including those farther away from the Sun, also have elliptical orbits. Kepler's work (published between 1609 and 1619) improved the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus, explaining how the planets' speeds varied, and using elliptical orbits rather than circular orbits withepicycles .[3] Figure 1: Illustration of Kepler's three laws with two planetary orbits. Isaac Newton showed in 1687 that relationships like Kepler's would apply in the 1. The orbits are ellipses, with focal Solar System to a good approximation, as a consequence of his own laws of motion points F1 and F2 for the first planet and law of universal gravitation. and F1 and F3 for the second planet. The Sun is placed in focal pointF 1. 2. The two shaded sectors A1 and A2 Contents have the same surface area and the time for planet 1 to cover segmentA 1 Comparison to Copernicus is equal to the time to cover segment A .
    [Show full text]
  • Physics 3550, Fall 2012 Two Body, Central-Force Problem Relevant Sections in Text: §8.1 – 8.7
    Two Body, Central-Force Problem. Physics 3550, Fall 2012 Two Body, Central-Force Problem Relevant Sections in Text: x8.1 { 8.7 Two Body, Central-Force Problem { Introduction. I have already mentioned the two body central force problem several times. This is, of course, an important dynamical system since it represents in many ways the most fundamental kind of interaction between two bodies. For example, this interaction could be gravitational { relevant in astrophysics, or the interaction could be electromagnetic { relevant in atomic physics. There are other possibilities, too. For example, a simple model of strong interactions involves two-body central forces. Here we shall begin a systematic study of this dynamical system. As we shall see, the conservation laws admitted by this system allow for a complete determination of the motion. Many of the topics we have been discussing in previous lectures come into play here. While this problem is very instructive and physically quite important, it is worth keeping in mind that the complete solvability of this system makes it an exceptional type of dynamical system. We cannot solve for the motion of a generic system as we do for the two body problem. The two body problem involves a pair of particles with masses m1 and m2 described by a Lagrangian of the form: 1 2 1 2 L = m ~r_ + m ~r_ − V (j~r − ~r j): 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 Reflecting the fact that it describes a closed, Newtonian system, this Lagrangian is in- variant under spatial translations, time translations, rotations, and boosts.* Thus we will have conservation of total energy, total momentum and total angular momentum for this system.
    [Show full text]
  • Riemannian Reading: Using Manifolds to Calculate and Unfold
    Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications 2017 Riemannian Reading: Using Manifolds to Calculate and Unfold Narrative Heather Lamb Eastern Illinois University This research is a product of the graduate program in English at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more about the program. Recommended Citation Lamb, Heather, "Riemannian Reading: Using Manifolds to Calculate and Unfold Narrative" (2017). Masters Theses. 2688. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/2688 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Graduate School� EA<.TEH.NILLINOIS UNJVER.SITY" Thesis Maintenance and Reproduction Certificate FOR: Graduate Candidates Completing Theses in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree Graduate Faculty Advisors Directing the Theses RE: Preservation, Reproduction, and Distribution of Thesis Research Preserving, reproducing, and distributing thesis research is an important part of Booth Library's responsibility to provide access to scholarship. In order to further this goal, Booth Library makes all graduate theses completed as part of a degree program at Eastern Illinois University available for personal study, research, and other not-for-profit educational purposes. Under 17 U.S.C. § 108, the library may reproduce and distribute a copy without infringing on copyright; however, professional courtesy dictates that permission be requested from the author before doing so. Your signatures affirm the following: • The graduate candidate is the author of this thesis. • The graduate candidate retains the copyright and intellectual property rights associated with the original research, creative activity, and intellectual or artistic content of the thesis.
    [Show full text]