3

A closed smooth non-self-intersecting curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$ having its curvature less than one is called a flowing curve. The three connected questions arise:

  1. How to prove that a disk of radius 2.1 does not contain any flowing curve with the length greater than 100?

  2. How to prove that for every $L>0$ there exists a flowing curve with the length greater than $L$ which is contained in a disk of radius 2.2?

  3. How to prove that there exists a number $l$ s.t. any flowing curve with the length $l$ cannot be contained in a disk of radius 2.2?

user64494
  • 5,811
  • Interesting questions, but some context would be nice... – Sam Jun 11 '13 at 11:24
  • @ Sam: I don't know any big theory behind these. Simply nonstandard questions at the subresearch level. – user64494 Jun 11 '13 at 12:55
  • What a question asks "how to prove X?" my impression is that X is known to be true. Here, 2 and 3 can't both be true. Did you mean to ask "is it true that?" in 1,2,3? – ˈjuː.zɚ79365 Jun 12 '13 at 02:34
  • @ user79365 : 1. I don't know the proofs. 2. Why do you think that statements 2 and 3 cannot be true simultaneously? – user64494 Jun 12 '13 at 03:07
  • @user64494: Surely, these three problems must come from somewhere? Where did you find them? Are they homework? – Sam Jun 12 '13 at 08:20
  • @ Sam: No, these are not a homework. Maybe, I will answer your question concerning the origin later. – user64494 Jun 12 '13 at 12:21
  • @ Peter Franek: a sub-curve of a flowing curve is not a flowing curve because a flowing curve is a closed curve. – Markiyan Hirnyk Jun 29 '14 at 06:57
  • 1
    @ˈjuː.zɚ79365: if the curve is "closed", then for any small enough $l$, there doesn't exists a flowing curve of length $l$ at all. – Peter Franek Jun 29 '14 at 06:58
  • @MarkiyanHirnyk: Yes, thanks, I got it. – Peter Franek Jun 29 '14 at 06:59
  • @Sam: Maybe he works at the factory that makes these and they want to optimize their packaging. It is really a very natural question that could come directly from the real world. – Matt Jul 04 '14 at 18:50

1 Answers1

3

The figure to think about consists of a "triangle" of three circles of radius 1, all tangent to each other, and their circumcircle, which has a radius of $1+\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{3}\approx 2.15$.

If we increase the size of the outer circle by epsilon, then we can separate the inner circles a little bit from each other so that we can fit some paths inbetween them, and between them and the outer circle.

Call the inner circles A, B, and C, and call the outer circle D.

The idea is that a long flowing curve can be drawn inside D by wrapping one end around A, then winding the two strands repeatedly around A and B (but staying outside C), and then finally, to end the curve, sending the two strands in opposite directions around C so that they can meet and the curve is complete.

This construction answers question #2, as well as the intent of question #3, which I think is only interesting if it asks for "a number $l>2\pi$". We can see that many lengths $l$ will not be possible, since the repeated loops around A and B must occur a [nonnegative] integer number of times. (Note that one strand could loop once more than the other.) Of course, the slight wiggle room on each loop as you go from A to B (e.g. straight or curved) means that after some number of loops (independent of $\epsilon$), every length is possible. That would make a nice question #4.

The point of question #1 (and to some extent #3) is to prove that this construction is the best possible. This is of course harder than simply finding the construction.

To do this, we first note that there must be many "roughly parallel" curve parts very close to each other somewhere. (A "bundle" of flowing curve parts.) Although it may seem intuitively obvious, we can prove it by arguing that there are a lot of curve parts on a long curve, and a small area (which there are only a fixed number of inside D) cannot support two curve parts that are going in significantly different directions.

Next, we consider the region inside the curve. This region is very thin where it appears inside a bundle, but any thin part of the region can be followed (in either direction) until it becomes big. In fact, it must become big enough to fit a circle of radius 1 inside it. To see this, consider the sub-skeleton formed only by maximal disks of radius less than one. This sub-skeleton cannot approach the boundary perpendicularly, and its endpoints are locations where a disk of radius 1 can fit entirely inside the curve. Since this sub-skeleton must exist inside a bundle, it must have at least two endpoints, supporting two disjoint disks.

Similarly, we can consider the sub-skeleton of the region outside the flowing curve. Again, it must be possible to place disks of radius one at the endpoints of this sub-skeleton. Only one of these disks can lie partly outside D, since if they both did then the flowing curve inside D would not be connected. So at least one of the disks must be fully inside D.

This gives us a total of three disjoint disks of radius 1 that must lie inside D, proving that the radius of D must be greater than $1 + \frac{2}{3}\sqrt{3}$ if it encloses a long flowing curve.

Matt
  • 9,223
  • @ Matt: Are you serious? I find it rather philosophy than mathematics. – user64494 Jul 04 '14 at 20:14
  • @ Matt: You wrote "The idea is that a long flowing curve can be drawn inside D by wrapping one end around A, then winding the two strands repeatedly around A and B (but staying outside C), and then finally, to end the curve, sending the two strands in opposite directions around C so that they can meet and the curve is complete". Could you explain this in detail, at least drawing a picture and/or describing your suggestion in standard mathematical notation? I voted down. A similar answer can be seen here. – user64494 Jul 04 '14 at 20:25
  • @user64494: Here's another way to describe it: Let L represent a curve portion that curves to the left with curvature 1 until the heading has changed by 60º, and let R represent the same thing but curving to the right. Then an example of the curve I described is RRRRRLRRRRLRRRRLRRRLRRRRLLLLRLLLLRLLLLL. Where the curve I have just defined would go on top of itself (which is not allowed for a flowing curve), think of it like a curved piece of paper that is going next to itself, separated by a minuscule distance. – Matt Jul 04 '14 at 20:52
  • @ Matt: Sorry, I don't undestand it at all. Being a referee for MR, I uderstand the difference between a proof and a fuzzy formulated suggestion. – user64494 Jul 04 '14 at 20:57
  • @user64494: For a picture, see the picture I linked to in my comment to the question above. In that case circle A would be in the white space inside the belt on the upper left, circle B is in the white space to the upper right encircled by the belt, and circle C would be in the belt loop at the bottom. Unfortunately the overall shape in that picture is not very circular -- it would be better if circle C were larger and closer to A and B. – Matt Jul 04 '14 at 20:58
  • @user64494: If you have a particular "standard mathematical notation" that you are thinking of for these curves, I would be happy to use it. – Matt Jul 04 '14 at 21:01
  • @user64494: Ok, speaking as one mathematician to another, yes, I am serious: My construction (which I'm not trying to claim credit for -- I'm sure it matches that of the question poser) answers part 2 of your question in an airtight way. The latter part (proving the construction is optimal) is only what I would call a proof sketch, because the skeleton argument is not fully fleshed out here. (Should I really complete it to the point of publication quality here?) But this answer is definitely concrete and checkable, not philosophy. – Matt Jul 04 '14 at 21:20
  • @ Matt : Thinking your answer together with your comments over, I draw the conclusion that you do answer the second question. To write down parametric equations of the curve under cosideration may be a master's thesis theme. The questions 1 and 3 remain open. – user64494 Jul 06 '14 at 04:34
  • @user64494: When you say 3 remains open, do you agree with changing question 3 to read "a number $l>2\pi$"? Otherwise I think Peter Franek's comment trivially answers question 3. – Matt Jul 06 '14 at 15:41
  • @user64494: For the second part, that you seem to dismiss (since you simply assert that "1 and 3 remain open"), the first paragraph is airtight (although it doesn't bother with calculations involving the constant 100 from the problem statement, instead simply addressing the "sufficiently long" case). All the first paragraph needs to show is that there is a part of the skeleton not part of a radius 1 disk inside the curve. The next (longest) paragraph assumes some familiarity with skeletons, but is not particularly complicated. The penultimate paragraph is similar. Where do you see a problem? – Matt Jul 06 '14 at 19:57