I am myself a Maths teacher. And there are very few teachers out there , I really like to listen to. You are one of them. Your way of presenting things is just perfect
I have two questions about surfaces. Is there a way to find the inverse of a surface? The other question is we have parametrization by arc lengh, but is there a way to define a parametrization by surface area?
if we allow ourselves to think with an extra dimension, is there some "arc length parametrization" for 3d surfaces? like a square grid of unit length? then the second degree of freedom (orientation) actually becomes continuous aswell (any angle of rotation). idk, just a thought EDIT: now that I think about it, adding an extra dimension might break other things... what even is R(s+h)? h would have to have orientation.. I dont want to think about this anymore :)
I am myself a Maths teacher. And there are very few teachers out there , I really like to listen to. You are one of them. Your way of presenting things is just perfect
Thank you - that means more than you know!
I am desperately waiting for you to put together a full course on Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces and Beyond
th-cam.com/play/PLlXfTHzgMRUKG7lkye7DQAmNB0cfWNgWG.html
I love these videos! 😊
The radian is related to arclength of the circle. Hence, to do angle measurement in radians, one needs differential geometry.
I have two questions about surfaces. Is there a way to find the inverse of a surface? The other question is we have parametrization by arc lengh, but is there a way to define a parametrization by surface area?
Excellent as usual.
How long is a line? Twice as long as a half of a line. Which one you choose as a reference length is arbitrary.
What textbook do you use please?
Writing one. It will soon be on grinfeld.org
if we allow ourselves to think with an extra dimension, is there some "arc length parametrization" for 3d surfaces? like a square grid of unit length? then the second degree of freedom (orientation) actually becomes continuous aswell (any angle of rotation). idk, just a thought
EDIT: now that I think about it, adding an extra dimension might break other things... what even is R(s+h)? h would have to have orientation.. I dont want to think about this anymore :)
This is actually a classical question that leads to the Riemann-Christoffel tensor
You might want to correct the spelling in your title.
I certainly do, thank you!
ME,I THINK IT SHOULD READ .Cf. e.g. . ROLF NEVANLINNA HAS WRITEN A BOOK WITH THE TITLE [GERMAN] SPRINGER -VERLAG ,1967 2.EDITION.
What's it about?