Unexpected result from ArcLengthDetermining which rule NIntegrate selects automaticallyFinding minimum fly-by radius between Mars and spacecraft from interpolating functionCoarse-graining in numerical integrationsNIntegrate fails to converge around a value out of integration rangeA 1D numerical integral Mathematica cannot compute, from physicsDifferential Equation with Numerically Integrated Boundary ConditionsDifferents results of the intersection area between two regions when using the function “Area” and the function “NIntegrate”Issue with boundary Integration of FEM numerical solution (interpolation function)How to get the most accurate volume of a special solid?Numerical solution of 3 dim integral with singularity

Interplanetary conflict, some disease destroys the ability to understand or appreciate music

Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?

SOQL: Populate a Literal List in WHERE IN Clause

Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

A link redirect to http instead of https: how critical is it?

Unexpected result from ArcLength

Professor being mistaken for a grad student

Is there a data structure that only stores hash codes and not the actual objects?

Is a party consisting of only a bard, a cleric, and a warlock functional long-term?

Are there verbs that are neither telic, or atelic?

How do I hide Chekhov's Gun?

What should tie a collection of short-stories together?

Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?

Have researchers managed to "reverse time"? If so, what does that mean for physics?

How Could an Airship Be Repaired Mid-Flight

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

What exactly is this small puffer fish doing and how did it manage to accomplish such a feat?

How can I track script which gives me "command not found" right after the login?

how to write formula in word in latex

How to simplify this time periods definition interface?

Gravity magic - How does it work?

PTIJ: Who should I vote for? (21st Knesset Edition)

Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?



Unexpected result from ArcLength


Determining which rule NIntegrate selects automaticallyFinding minimum fly-by radius between Mars and spacecraft from interpolating functionCoarse-graining in numerical integrationsNIntegrate fails to converge around a value out of integration rangeA 1D numerical integral Mathematica cannot compute, from physicsDifferential Equation with Numerically Integrated Boundary ConditionsDifferents results of the intersection area between two regions when using the function “Area” and the function “NIntegrate”Issue with boundary Integration of FEM numerical solution (interpolation function)How to get the most accurate volume of a special solid?Numerical solution of 3 dim integral with singularity













4












$begingroup$


I want to determine the arc lenght of a parametric curve $C: x(t),y(t) = cos(t)^p , sin(t)^p $ with $p$ between $0$ and $1$, and $t$ between $0$ and $pi/2$.



I set up the following function of $p$:



L[p_] := ArcLength[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, 
Method -> "NIntegrate", MaxRecursion -> 20]


For $p=1$ we have a quarter of a circle of radius 1 and we know the arc length is equal to $pi/2$. The above function gives the correct result: 1.5708.



For $p$ close to zero, the curve approaches a square, and we know the result should be very close to $2$. However, the function doesn't even come close to it. Evaluating L[1/100] results in 1.30603. Not close to 2 (it's not even bigger than Pi/2).



Plotting, results in the following:



Plot[L[p], p, 0, 1]



enter image description here



Any ideas? I'm running 11.0.0.0










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I get a warning from NIntegrate ("Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity...") when trying to evaluate L for small p.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    6 hours ago















4












$begingroup$


I want to determine the arc lenght of a parametric curve $C: x(t),y(t) = cos(t)^p , sin(t)^p $ with $p$ between $0$ and $1$, and $t$ between $0$ and $pi/2$.



I set up the following function of $p$:



L[p_] := ArcLength[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, 
Method -> "NIntegrate", MaxRecursion -> 20]


For $p=1$ we have a quarter of a circle of radius 1 and we know the arc length is equal to $pi/2$. The above function gives the correct result: 1.5708.



For $p$ close to zero, the curve approaches a square, and we know the result should be very close to $2$. However, the function doesn't even come close to it. Evaluating L[1/100] results in 1.30603. Not close to 2 (it's not even bigger than Pi/2).



Plotting, results in the following:



Plot[L[p], p, 0, 1]



enter image description here



Any ideas? I'm running 11.0.0.0










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I get a warning from NIntegrate ("Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity...") when trying to evaluate L for small p.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    6 hours ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$


I want to determine the arc lenght of a parametric curve $C: x(t),y(t) = cos(t)^p , sin(t)^p $ with $p$ between $0$ and $1$, and $t$ between $0$ and $pi/2$.



I set up the following function of $p$:



L[p_] := ArcLength[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, 
Method -> "NIntegrate", MaxRecursion -> 20]


For $p=1$ we have a quarter of a circle of radius 1 and we know the arc length is equal to $pi/2$. The above function gives the correct result: 1.5708.



For $p$ close to zero, the curve approaches a square, and we know the result should be very close to $2$. However, the function doesn't even come close to it. Evaluating L[1/100] results in 1.30603. Not close to 2 (it's not even bigger than Pi/2).



Plotting, results in the following:



Plot[L[p], p, 0, 1]



enter image description here



Any ideas? I'm running 11.0.0.0










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I want to determine the arc lenght of a parametric curve $C: x(t),y(t) = cos(t)^p , sin(t)^p $ with $p$ between $0$ and $1$, and $t$ between $0$ and $pi/2$.



I set up the following function of $p$:



L[p_] := ArcLength[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, 
Method -> "NIntegrate", MaxRecursion -> 20]


For $p=1$ we have a quarter of a circle of radius 1 and we know the arc length is equal to $pi/2$. The above function gives the correct result: 1.5708.



For $p$ close to zero, the curve approaches a square, and we know the result should be very close to $2$. However, the function doesn't even come close to it. Evaluating L[1/100] results in 1.30603. Not close to 2 (it's not even bigger than Pi/2).



Plotting, results in the following:



Plot[L[p], p, 0, 1]



enter image description here



Any ideas? I'm running 11.0.0.0







numerical-integration






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Henrik Schumacher

56.6k577157




56.6k577157










asked 6 hours ago









IvanIvan

1,622821




1,622821







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I get a warning from NIntegrate ("Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity...") when trying to evaluate L for small p.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    6 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I get a warning from NIntegrate ("Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity...") when trying to evaluate L for small p.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    6 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
I get a warning from NIntegrate ("Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity...") when trying to evaluate L for small p.
$endgroup$
– MarcoB
6 hours ago





$begingroup$
I get a warning from NIntegrate ("Numerical integration converging too slowly; suspect one of the following: singularity...") when trying to evaluate L for small p.
$endgroup$
– MarcoB
6 hours ago













$begingroup$
@MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
$endgroup$
– Ivan
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
$endgroup$
– Ivan
6 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Seems to be a precision thing.



L[p_] = Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p

ArcLength[L[1/100], t, 0, π/2, WorkingPrecision -> 1000]

1.99447959240474567...





share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    3












    $begingroup$

    Manipulate[ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2], p, 0.01, 1]


    gives this plot at $p=0.01$:



    (An unpreprocessing plot was here.)



    Yes, looks to be approaching two sides of a square, but the sides are shrinking!



    UPDATE:



    p = 0.01; ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, Axes -> False, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> 0, 1.1, 0, 1.1]


    enter image description here



    So yes, the sides are not shrinking, but Mathematica seems to be missing some of the curve ...






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
      $endgroup$
      – Ivan
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
      $endgroup$
      – MarcoB
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
      $endgroup$
      – mjw
      6 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
      $endgroup$
      – Henrik Schumacher
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
      $endgroup$
      – mjw
      5 hours ago



















    3












    $begingroup$

    I can only provide an alternative to bypass ArcLength.



    The points pts of a quarter circle are scaled such that they lie on the desired curve; afterwards the length of the polygonal line is computed. You will still get problems for values of p very close to 0, but at least you may obtain a qualitatively correct plot (so I hope).



    Certainly this method won't provide you with the best possible accuracy. The relative error between the arclength $ell$ of an arc and the length $s$ of a secant is roughly $|ell/s - 1| leq ell^2 , max(|kappa|)$ in the limit of $ell to 0$. Since the maximal curvature in of curve goes to $infty$ for $p to infty$, the quality of this approximation will reduce significantly for $p to 0$.



    n = 10000;
    pts = Transpose[Cos[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]], Sin[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]]];
    L[p_] := With[x = pts/Power[Dot[(Abs[pts]^(1/p)), 1., 1.], p],
    Total[Sqrt[Dot[Differences[x]^2, 1., 1.]]]
    ]
    Plot[L[p], p, 0.001, 1]


    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "387"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193346%2funexpected-result-from-arclength%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5












      $begingroup$

      Seems to be a precision thing.



      L[p_] = Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p

      ArcLength[L[1/100], t, 0, π/2, WorkingPrecision -> 1000]

      1.99447959240474567...





      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        5












        $begingroup$

        Seems to be a precision thing.



        L[p_] = Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p

        ArcLength[L[1/100], t, 0, π/2, WorkingPrecision -> 1000]

        1.99447959240474567...





        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          Seems to be a precision thing.



          L[p_] = Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p

          ArcLength[L[1/100], t, 0, π/2, WorkingPrecision -> 1000]

          1.99447959240474567...





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Seems to be a precision thing.



          L[p_] = Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p

          ArcLength[L[1/100], t, 0, π/2, WorkingPrecision -> 1000]

          1.99447959240474567...






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          Bill WattsBill Watts

          3,5111620




          3,5111620





















              3












              $begingroup$

              Manipulate[ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2], p, 0.01, 1]


              gives this plot at $p=0.01$:



              (An unpreprocessing plot was here.)



              Yes, looks to be approaching two sides of a square, but the sides are shrinking!



              UPDATE:



              p = 0.01; ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, Axes -> False, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> 0, 1.1, 0, 1.1]


              enter image description here



              So yes, the sides are not shrinking, but Mathematica seems to be missing some of the curve ...






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
                $endgroup$
                – Ivan
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
                $endgroup$
                – MarcoB
                6 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                6 hours ago







              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
                $endgroup$
                – Henrik Schumacher
                6 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                5 hours ago
















              3












              $begingroup$

              Manipulate[ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2], p, 0.01, 1]


              gives this plot at $p=0.01$:



              (An unpreprocessing plot was here.)



              Yes, looks to be approaching two sides of a square, but the sides are shrinking!



              UPDATE:



              p = 0.01; ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, Axes -> False, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> 0, 1.1, 0, 1.1]


              enter image description here



              So yes, the sides are not shrinking, but Mathematica seems to be missing some of the curve ...






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
                $endgroup$
                – Ivan
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
                $endgroup$
                – MarcoB
                6 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                6 hours ago







              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
                $endgroup$
                – Henrik Schumacher
                6 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                5 hours ago














              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              Manipulate[ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2], p, 0.01, 1]


              gives this plot at $p=0.01$:



              (An unpreprocessing plot was here.)



              Yes, looks to be approaching two sides of a square, but the sides are shrinking!



              UPDATE:



              p = 0.01; ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, Axes -> False, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> 0, 1.1, 0, 1.1]


              enter image description here



              So yes, the sides are not shrinking, but Mathematica seems to be missing some of the curve ...






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Manipulate[ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2], p, 0.01, 1]


              gives this plot at $p=0.01$:



              (An unpreprocessing plot was here.)



              Yes, looks to be approaching two sides of a square, but the sides are shrinking!



              UPDATE:



              p = 0.01; ParametricPlot[Cos[t]^p, Sin[t]^p, t, 0, Pi/2, Axes -> False, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> 0, 1.1, 0, 1.1]


              enter image description here



              So yes, the sides are not shrinking, but Mathematica seems to be missing some of the curve ...







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 6 hours ago

























              answered 6 hours ago









              mjwmjw

              5879




              5879











              • $begingroup$
                >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
                $endgroup$
                – Ivan
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
                $endgroup$
                – MarcoB
                6 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                6 hours ago







              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
                $endgroup$
                – Henrik Schumacher
                6 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                5 hours ago

















              • $begingroup$
                >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
                $endgroup$
                – Ivan
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
                $endgroup$
                – MarcoB
                6 hours ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                6 hours ago







              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
                $endgroup$
                – Henrik Schumacher
                6 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
                $endgroup$
                – mjw
                5 hours ago
















              $begingroup$
              >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan
              6 hours ago





              $begingroup$
              >but the sides are shrinking. Not really. Check your plotrange
              $endgroup$
              – Ivan
              6 hours ago













              $begingroup$
              Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
              $endgroup$
              – MarcoB
              6 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
              $endgroup$
              – MarcoB
              6 hours ago




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
              $endgroup$
              – mjw
              6 hours ago





              $begingroup$
              No, not that desperate ... By the way, you guys are tough! Imagine a classroom where a student gives an answer/suggestion that is not correct. Or a collaboration with somebody making a mistake. Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks. May hurt creativity ... But we will have strictly precise, quality answers!!
              $endgroup$
              – mjw
              6 hours ago





              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
              $endgroup$
              – Henrik Schumacher
              6 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              @mjw "Seems that "Mathematica Stack Exchange" culture does not like people taking risks." To the contrary. I was really surprise that posts in this threads were downvoted so quickly. Downvotes on answers are actually very uncommon on this site.
              $endgroup$
              – Henrik Schumacher
              6 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
              $endgroup$
              – mjw
              5 hours ago





              $begingroup$
              @Ivan, yes, point well taken! Could be an artifact. But why is the ArcLength[] returning wrong results? Seems that in both cases Mathematica is undersampling ...
              $endgroup$
              – mjw
              5 hours ago












              3












              $begingroup$

              I can only provide an alternative to bypass ArcLength.



              The points pts of a quarter circle are scaled such that they lie on the desired curve; afterwards the length of the polygonal line is computed. You will still get problems for values of p very close to 0, but at least you may obtain a qualitatively correct plot (so I hope).



              Certainly this method won't provide you with the best possible accuracy. The relative error between the arclength $ell$ of an arc and the length $s$ of a secant is roughly $|ell/s - 1| leq ell^2 , max(|kappa|)$ in the limit of $ell to 0$. Since the maximal curvature in of curve goes to $infty$ for $p to infty$, the quality of this approximation will reduce significantly for $p to 0$.



              n = 10000;
              pts = Transpose[Cos[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]], Sin[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]]];
              L[p_] := With[x = pts/Power[Dot[(Abs[pts]^(1/p)), 1., 1.], p],
              Total[Sqrt[Dot[Differences[x]^2, 1., 1.]]]
              ]
              Plot[L[p], p, 0.001, 1]


              enter image description here






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                3












                $begingroup$

                I can only provide an alternative to bypass ArcLength.



                The points pts of a quarter circle are scaled such that they lie on the desired curve; afterwards the length of the polygonal line is computed. You will still get problems for values of p very close to 0, but at least you may obtain a qualitatively correct plot (so I hope).



                Certainly this method won't provide you with the best possible accuracy. The relative error between the arclength $ell$ of an arc and the length $s$ of a secant is roughly $|ell/s - 1| leq ell^2 , max(|kappa|)$ in the limit of $ell to 0$. Since the maximal curvature in of curve goes to $infty$ for $p to infty$, the quality of this approximation will reduce significantly for $p to 0$.



                n = 10000;
                pts = Transpose[Cos[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]], Sin[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]]];
                L[p_] := With[x = pts/Power[Dot[(Abs[pts]^(1/p)), 1., 1.], p],
                Total[Sqrt[Dot[Differences[x]^2, 1., 1.]]]
                ]
                Plot[L[p], p, 0.001, 1]


                enter image description here






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  I can only provide an alternative to bypass ArcLength.



                  The points pts of a quarter circle are scaled such that they lie on the desired curve; afterwards the length of the polygonal line is computed. You will still get problems for values of p very close to 0, but at least you may obtain a qualitatively correct plot (so I hope).



                  Certainly this method won't provide you with the best possible accuracy. The relative error between the arclength $ell$ of an arc and the length $s$ of a secant is roughly $|ell/s - 1| leq ell^2 , max(|kappa|)$ in the limit of $ell to 0$. Since the maximal curvature in of curve goes to $infty$ for $p to infty$, the quality of this approximation will reduce significantly for $p to 0$.



                  n = 10000;
                  pts = Transpose[Cos[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]], Sin[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]]];
                  L[p_] := With[x = pts/Power[Dot[(Abs[pts]^(1/p)), 1., 1.], p],
                  Total[Sqrt[Dot[Differences[x]^2, 1., 1.]]]
                  ]
                  Plot[L[p], p, 0.001, 1]


                  enter image description here






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  I can only provide an alternative to bypass ArcLength.



                  The points pts of a quarter circle are scaled such that they lie on the desired curve; afterwards the length of the polygonal line is computed. You will still get problems for values of p very close to 0, but at least you may obtain a qualitatively correct plot (so I hope).



                  Certainly this method won't provide you with the best possible accuracy. The relative error between the arclength $ell$ of an arc and the length $s$ of a secant is roughly $|ell/s - 1| leq ell^2 , max(|kappa|)$ in the limit of $ell to 0$. Since the maximal curvature in of curve goes to $infty$ for $p to infty$, the quality of this approximation will reduce significantly for $p to 0$.



                  n = 10000;
                  pts = Transpose[Cos[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]], Sin[Subdivide[0., Pi/2, n]]];
                  L[p_] := With[x = pts/Power[Dot[(Abs[pts]^(1/p)), 1., 1.], p],
                  Total[Sqrt[Dot[Differences[x]^2, 1., 1.]]]
                  ]
                  Plot[L[p], p, 0.001, 1]


                  enter image description here







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 6 hours ago

























                  answered 6 hours ago









                  Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher

                  56.6k577157




                  56.6k577157



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193346%2funexpected-result-from-arclength%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Masuk log Menu navigasi

                      Identifying “long and narrow” polygons in with PostGISlength and width of polygonWhy postgis st_overlaps reports Qgis' “avoid intersections” generated polygon as overlapping with others?Adjusting polygons to boundary and filling holesDrawing polygons with fixed area?How to remove spikes in Polygons with PostGISDeleting sliver polygons after difference operation in QGIS?Snapping boundaries in PostGISSplit polygon into parts adding attributes based on underlying polygon in QGISSplitting overlap between polygons and assign to nearest polygon using PostGIS?Expanding polygons and clipping at midpoint?Removing Intersection of Buffers in Same Layers

                      Старые Смолеговицы Содержание История | География | Демография | Достопримечательности | Примечания | НавигацияHGЯOLHGЯOL41 206 832 01641 606 406 141Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области«Переписная оброчная книга Водской пятины 1500 года», С. 793«Карта Ингерманландии: Ивангорода, Яма, Копорья, Нотеборга», по материалам 1676 г.«Генеральная карта провинции Ингерманландии» Э. Белинга и А. Андерсина, 1704 г., составлена по материалам 1678 г.«Географический чертёж над Ижорскою землей со своими городами» Адриана Шонбека 1705 г.Новая и достоверная всей Ингерманландии ланткарта. Грав. А. Ростовцев. СПб., 1727 г.Топографическая карта Санкт-Петербургской губернии. 5-и верстка. Шуберт. 1834 г.Описание Санкт-Петербургской губернии по уездам и станамСпецкарта западной части России Ф. Ф. Шуберта. 1844 г.Алфавитный список селений по уездам и станам С.-Петербургской губернииСписки населённых мест Российской Империи, составленные и издаваемые центральным статистическим комитетом министерства внутренних дел. XXXVII. Санкт-Петербургская губерния. По состоянию на 1862 год. СПб. 1864. С. 203Материалы по статистике народного хозяйства в С.-Петербургской губернии. Вып. IX. Частновладельческое хозяйство в Ямбургском уезде. СПб, 1888, С. 146, С. 2, 7, 54Положение о гербе муниципального образования Курское сельское поселениеСправочник истории административно-территориального деления Ленинградской области.Топографическая карта Ленинградской области, квадрат О-35-23-В (Хотыницы), 1930 г.АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1933, С. 27, 198АрхивированоАдминистративно-экономический справочник по Ленинградской области. — Л., 1936, с. 219АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Л., 1966, с. 175АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1973, С. 180АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — Лениздат, 1990, ISBN 5-289-00612-5, С. 38АрхивированоАдминистративно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб., 2007, с. 60АрхивированоКоряков Юрий База данных «Этно-языковой состав населённых пунктов России». Ленинградская область.Административно-территориальное деление Ленинградской области. — СПб, 1997, ISBN 5-86153-055-6, С. 41АрхивированоКультовый комплекс Старые Смолеговицы // Электронная энциклопедия ЭрмитажаПроблемы выявления, изучения и сохранения культовых комплексов с каменными крестами: по материалам работ 2016-2017 гг. в Ленинградской области