x 10 9 may be x 10⁹, chi 2 5 may be chi-squared with five degrees of freedom, and 1 2 may be one half. Read any expression here against the published paper before relying on it.standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Singularities for Timelike Developable Surfaces in Minkowski 3-Space
Abstract
Abstract object_of_studycontributionconcepts↗concepts↗In this paper, we consider the singularities and geometrical properties of timelike developable surfaces with Bishop frame in Minkowski 3-space. Taking advantage of the singularity theory, we give the classification of generic singularities of these developable surfaces. Furthermore, an example of application is given to illustrate the applications of the results. Keywords: timelike developable surfaces; singularities; developable surfaces
1. Introduction
concepts↗sensescontent_tags↗A channel or canal surface is a surface traced by a one-parameter family of spheres, whose center is on a smooth space curve, its directrix or spine. If the radii of the traced spheres are stationary then the canal surface is named a tubular or sweeping surface. There are several famous examples: circular cylinder, right circular cone, torus, and rotation surface. This visualization is a generalization of the classical registration of a partner of a planar curve [1,2,3,4,5,6]. One of the eminent facts about sweeping surface is that the sweeping surface can be a developable surface, that is, a smooth surface can be flattened onto a plane without distortion. Therefore, the developable surface can be made out of sheet metal, since such a surface must be attainable by modification from a plane, and every point on such a surface lies on at least one straight line. Therefore, sweeping surfaces and developable surfaces have been paid interest to in engineering, architecture, and design, etc. [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].
mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗sensesclaim_relationsclaim_relationsconcept_edgescontent_tags↗In Euclidean 3-space 𝐸 3 , in spite of the fact that the Serret–Frenet frame can simply be calculated, it is not continuously defined for a 𝐶 1 -continuous space curve, and even for a 𝐶 2 -continuous space curve the Serret–Frenet frame becomes undefined at an inflection point (i.e., curvature κ = 0), thus causing unacceptable discontinuity when utilized for surface modeling. Thus, in Ref. [19], Bishop defined a novel frame named the alternative frame or Bishop frame, which could yield the desired means to move smoothly on a space curve. We know that the Bishop frame in Euclidean 3-space is a sharp tool used to investigate the topological and geometrical properties of curves in Euclidean 3-space. Even though the second derivative of the curves are vanishing, the Bishop frame can still work for them. The idea can be expanded to the Minkowski space. Therefore, we give the Minkowski version moving frame, which is the Minkowski Bishop frame. We can find many articles related with the Minkowski Bishop frames, for example, Refs. [20,21,22,23].
claim_relationsThe present work studies the singularities and geometrical properties of timelike developable surfaces according to the Minkowski Bishop frame. The field, as far as we are aware, is not covered by any articles, though it has been carefully and ably worked by many researchers. Thus, the present paper hopes to help such a need, and it is inspired by the works of Izumiya, and Haiming et al. [3,23,24,25,26]. In this article, we construct the Bishop frame of speed timelike curve and take advantage of the singularity theory to study the singularities and geometrical properties of timelike developable.
2. Preliminaries
concepts↗concepts↗content_tags↗In this section, we present some definitions and employ notions that we will use in this paper (see for instance Refs. [1,24]). Let 𝑅 3 = { 𝑝 1 , 𝑝 2 , 𝑝 3 ∣ , 𝑝 𝑖 ∈ 𝑅 (i = 1, 2, 3)} be a 3-dimensional Cartesian space. For any 𝑞 = 𝑞 1 , 𝑞 2 , 𝑞 3 , and 𝑝 = 𝑝 1 , 𝑝 2 , 𝑝 3 ∈ 𝑅 3 , the pseudo scalar product of 𝑞 and 𝑝 is defined by < 𝑞 , 𝑝 > = − 𝑞 1 𝑝 1 + 𝑞 2 𝑝 2 + 𝑞 3 𝑝 3 . We name ( 𝑅 3 , < , > ) Minkowski 3-space. We write 𝐸 1 3 instead of ( 𝑅 3 , < , > ) . We say that a non-zero vector 𝑞 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 is spacelike, lightlike, or timelike if < 𝑞 , 𝑞 > > 0 , < 𝑞 , 𝑞 > = 0 or < 𝑞 , 𝑞 > < 0 , respectively. The norm of the vector 𝑞 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 is defined to be 𝑞 = < 𝑞 , 𝑞 > . For any two vectors 𝑞 , 𝑝 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 , we define the cross product 𝑞 × 𝑝 by 𝑞 × 𝑝 = − 𝑖 𝑗 𝑘 𝑞 1 𝑞 2 𝑞 3 𝑝 1 𝑝 2 𝑝 3 = − ( 𝑞 2 𝑝 3 − 𝑞 3 𝑝 2 ) , ( 𝑞 3 𝑝 1 − 𝑞 1 𝑝 3 ) , ( 𝑞 1 𝑝 2 − 𝑞 2 𝑝 1 ) , where 𝑖 , 𝑗 , 𝑘 is the canonical basis of 𝐸 1 3 . The hyperbolic ( 𝐻 + 2 ) and Lorentzian unit spheres ( 𝑆 1 2 ), respectively, are 𝐻 + 2 = 𝑞 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 ∣ 𝑞 2 = − 𝑞 1 2 + 𝑞 2 2 + 𝑞 3 2 = − 1 , and 𝑆 1 2 = 𝑞 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 ∣ 𝑞 2 = − 𝑞 1 2 + 𝑞 2 2 + 𝑞 3 2 = 1 . Let 𝛾 : 𝐼 → 𝐸 1 3 be a smooth curve in 𝐸 1 3 , where I is an interval of 𝑅 . We call 𝛾 is 𝑠 𝑝 𝑎 𝑐 𝑒 𝑙 𝑖 𝑘 𝑒 , 𝑡 𝑖 𝑚 𝑒 𝑙 𝑖 𝑘 𝑒 , 𝑙 𝑖 𝑔 ℎ 𝑡 𝑙 𝑖 𝑘 𝑒 if 𝛾 ′ ( 𝑡 ) = 𝑑 𝛾 𝑑 𝑡 ( 𝑡 ) is spacelike, timelike, lightlike for any 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 , respectively. A surface in the Minkowski 3-space 𝐸 1 3 is named a timelike surface if the induced metric on the surface is a Lorentzian metric and is named a spacelike surface if the induced metric on the surface is a positive definite Riemannian metric, i.e., the normal vector on spacelike (timelike) surface is a timelike (spacelike) vector. Let 𝛾 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) be a unit speed timelike curve in 𝐸 1 3 ; by 𝜅 ( 𝑠 ) and 𝜏 ( 𝑠 ) we indicate the natural curvature and torsion, respectively. 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) is called the Serret–Frenet curve if 𝜅 > 0 , and 𝜏 ≠ 0 . Consider the Serret–Frenet frame { 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜒 2 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) } correlating with curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) , then the Serret–Frenet formulae reads: 𝜒 1 ′ ( 𝑠 ) 𝜒 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) 𝜒 3 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 𝜅 0 𝜅 0 𝜏 0 − 𝜏 0 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜒 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) , (1) where 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝛾 ′ ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜒 2 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝛾 ″ ( 𝑠 ) / 𝛾 ″ ( 𝑠 ) and 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) × 𝜒 2 ( 𝑠 ) are named the unit tangent vector, the principal normal vector and the binormal vector, respectively. Here “prime” indicates the derivative with respect to the parameter s. The Serret–Frenet vector fields satisfy the relations: 𝜒 1 × 𝜒 2 = 𝜒 3 , 𝜒 1 × 𝜒 3 = − 𝜒 2 , 𝜒 2 × 𝜒 3 = − 𝜒 1 . (2) The Bishop frame or rotation minimizing frame (RMF) of 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) is defined by 𝜉 ′ 𝜉 1 ′ 𝜉 2 ′ = 0 𝜇 1 − 𝜇 2 − 𝜇 1 0 0 − 𝜇 2 0 0 𝜉 𝜉 1 𝜉 2 , (3) Here, Bishop functions of 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) are defined by 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝜅 cos 𝜑 , 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) = − 𝜅 sin 𝜑 . The relation matrix can be expressed as 𝜉 𝜉 1 𝜉 2 = 1 0 0 0 cos 𝜑 sin 𝜙 0 − sin 𝜑 cos 𝜑 𝜒 1 𝜒 2 𝜒 3 , (4) where 𝜑 ( 𝑠 ) ≥ 0 is a spacelike angle. One can show that 𝜇 1 2 + 𝜇 2 2 = 𝜅 2 , and 𝜗 = − tan − 1 𝜇 2 𝜇 1 ; 𝜇 1 ≠ 0 , 𝜑 ( 𝑠 ) = − ∫ 𝑠 𝑠 0 𝜏 𝑑 𝑠 + 𝜑 0 , 𝜑 0 = 𝜑 ( 𝑠 0 ) . (5)
concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tags↗A ruled surface in 𝐸 1 3 is locally the map 𝐷 ( 𝛾 , 𝑥 ) : 𝐼 × 𝑅 → 𝐸 1 3 defined by 𝐷 ( 𝛾 , 𝑥 ) ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) , t ∈ 𝑅 , (6) where 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) is named the base curve, and 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) the director curve. The straight lines 𝑡 → 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) are named rulings. It is well known that 𝐷 ( 𝛾 , 𝑥 ) is a developable surface if and only if det( 𝛾 ′ ( 𝑠 ) , 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) ) = 0 .
3. Singularities for Timelike Developable Surfaces
concepts↗In this section, we will investigate the singularities of two timelike developable ruled surfaces according to Bishop frame of regular unit speed timelike curve in Minkowski 3-space 𝐸 1 3 . Next we deduce Legendrian dualities between spherical indicatrixes of curves by using the theory of Legendrian duality as follows: By the theory of Legendrian duality we define one-forms < 𝑑 𝑣 , 𝜔 > = − 𝜔 1 𝑑 𝑣 1 + 𝜔 2 𝑑 𝑣 2 + 𝜔 3 𝑑 𝑣 3 , and < 𝑑 𝜔 , 𝑣 > = − 𝑣 1 𝑑 𝜔 1 + 𝑣 2 𝑑 𝜔 2 + 𝑣 3 𝑑 𝜔 3 . Let 𝑆 1 2 be the Lorentzian (de Sitter space) unit sphere in 𝐸 1 3 . Then we have the following double fibration: ( 𝑎 ) 𝑆 1 2 × 𝑆 1 2 ⊇ △ = ( 𝑣 , 𝜔 ) ∣ < 𝜔 , 𝑣 > = 0 , ( 𝑏 ) 𝜋 11 : △ → 𝑆 1 2 , 𝜋 12 : △ → 𝑆 1 2 , ( 𝑐 ) 𝜃 11 = < 𝑑 𝑣 , 𝜔 > ∣ △ , 𝜃 12 = < 𝑣 , 𝑑 𝜔 > ∣ △ . Here 𝜋 11 ( 𝑣 , 𝜔 ) = 𝑣 , 𝜋 12 ( 𝑣 , 𝜔 ) = 𝜔 . 𝜃 11 − 1 ( 0 ) , and 𝜃 12 − 1 ( 0 ) define the same tangent plane on △, which is denoted by K, and indicates that (△,K) is a contact manifold and each of 𝜋 1 𝑗 (j = 1, 2) is Legendrian fibration. If there exists an isotropic mapping i: 𝐿 → △ , which means that 𝑖 × 𝜃 11 = 0 , we say that 𝜋 11 ( 𝑖 ( 𝐿 ) ) and 𝜋 12 ( 𝑖 ( 𝐿 ) ) are △-dual to each other. It is uncomplicated to see that the condition 𝑖 × 𝜃 11 = 0 is equivalent to 𝑖 × 𝜃 12 = 0 . Then we have:
Let γ: 𝐼 → 𝐸 1 3 be a unit speed timelike curve, with 𝜇 𝑖 ≠ 0 (i = 1, 2), we have:
(1) 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) and 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) is Δ-dual to each other; (2) 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) and 𝜉 2 is Δ-dual to each other.
(1) Consider the curve 𝐿 ( 𝑠 ) = ( 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) ) ⊂ 𝐻 + 2 × 𝑆 1 2 . Then we have
< 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) > = 0 , and < 𝜒 1 ′ ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) > = < 𝜅 𝜒 2 , 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) > = 0 . The affirmation (1) holds.
(2) Consider the curve 𝐿 ( 𝑠 ) = ( 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) ) ⊂ 𝑆 1 2 × 𝑆 1 2 . Then, we have
< 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) > = 0 , and < 𝜉 1 ′ ( 𝑠 ) , 𝜁 2 ( 𝑠 ) > = < 𝜇 1 𝜉 , 𝜁 2 ( 𝑠 ) > = 0 . The affirmation (2) holds. □
research_questioncontent_tagsLet 𝑦 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) be a parametric sweeping given by: 𝑦 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑟 1 ( 𝑡 ) 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑟 2 ( 𝑡 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) . (7) Here 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) is a timelike unit speed spine curve, 0 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 𝑇 , s is the arc length parameter, and 𝑟 ( 𝑡 ) = ( 0 , 𝑟 1 ( 𝑡 ) , 𝑟 2 ( 𝑡 ) ) is the characteristic circle, with another parameter 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 . It can be seen that 𝑦 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) is a timelike surface. From Equation (7) it follows that the expression of the two timelike developable surfaces is 𝐷 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝜉 𝑖 ( 𝑠 ) , ( i = 1 , 2 ) . It is clear that 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 0 ) = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) (resp. 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 0 ) = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) ), 0 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 𝐿 , that is, the surface 𝐷 2 (resp. 𝐷 1 ) interpolate the curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) . Now, it seems natural to pose the following two questions. Under what condition does 𝐷 𝑖 have singularities, and how do we recognize their different types? The answer can be stated as: To discuss the singularities of 𝐷 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) , the cross product can be obtained as ∂ 𝐷 1 ∂ 𝑠 × ∂ 𝐷 1 ∂ 𝑡 = 1 − 𝑡 𝜇 1 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) , and ∂ 𝐷 2 ∂ 𝑠 × ∂ 𝐷 2 ∂ 𝑡 = − 1 − 𝑡 𝜇 2 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) . It follows that 𝐷 1 (resp. 𝐷 2 ) is non-singular at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) if and only if 1 − 𝑡 0 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 (resp. ( 1 − 𝑡 0 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 ) . Hence, according to Theorem 3.2 in Ref. [10], we can give the following corollary:
For the developable ruled surfaces 𝐷 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝜉 𝑖 ( 𝑠 ) , 𝑠 ∈ 𝐼 , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 , we have:
claim_typephenomenonlimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗sensescontent_tags(1) 𝐷 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) is locally diffeomorphic to the cuspidal edge (CE) C(2,3) × 𝑅 at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) if and only if 𝑡 0 = 𝜇 𝑖 − 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 , and 𝜇 𝑖 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . (2) 𝐷 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) is locally diffeomorphic to the Swallowtail (SW) at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) if and only if 𝑡 0 = 𝜇 𝑖 − 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 , 𝜇 𝑖 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 , and 𝜇 𝑖 − 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) ″ ≠ 0 .
concepts↗sensescontent_tags↗Now, we should address the next concept regarding the contact of curves with some surfaces. Let F: 𝐸 1 3 → 𝑅 be a regular function, and 𝛾 : 𝑅 → 𝐸 1 3 be a smooth unit speed timelike Frenet–Serret curve. We say that 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and 𝐹 − 1 ( 0 ) have k-point contact for 𝑠 = 𝑠 0 if the function 𝑔 ( 𝑠 0 ) = 𝐹 ∘ 𝛾 satisfies 𝑔 ( 𝑠 0 ) = 𝑔 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 𝑔 ″ ( 𝑠 0 ) = . . . = 𝑔 ( 𝑘 − 1 ) ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 , and 𝑔 ( 𝑘 ) ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . Further, for any fixed 𝑥 0 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 , we define the set BR 𝑗 ( 𝑥 0 ) = < 𝜉 𝑖 , 𝑥 0 − 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) > = 0 , 𝑗 = 1 , 2 . We call it the first (resp. second) Bishop rectifying bundle of 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) through 𝑥 0 when j = 1 (resp. j = 2).
The major aim of this work is in the following theorem:
limitationsLet γ: 𝐼 → 𝐸 1 3 be a unit speed timelike curve, with 𝜇 𝑖 ≠ 0 ; i = 1, 2. Then we: A- For 𝑥 0 = 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) and the second Bishop rectifying bundle BR 2 ( 𝑥 0 ) of 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) . One has the following:
content_tags(a) The curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and BR 2 ( 𝑥 0 ) have at least a 2-point contact at s0; (b) The curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and BR 2 ( 𝑥 0 ) have at least a 3-point contact at s0 if and only if
𝑥 0 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 0 ) − 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) , 𝜇 1 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . Under this situation 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) is locally diffeomorphic to CE C(2,3) × 𝑅 , and 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 0 , 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) ) is locally diffeomorphic to a line;
(c) The curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and BR 2 ( 𝑥 0 ) has at least a 4-point contact at s0 if and only if
𝑥 0 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 0 ) − 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) , 𝜇 1 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 , 𝜇 1 ″ ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . Under this situation 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) is locally diffeomorphic to SW, and 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 0 , 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 0 ) ) is locally diffeomorphic to the (2,3,4)-cusp.
For 𝑥 0 = 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) and the first Bishop rectifying bundle BR 1 ( 𝑥 0 ) of 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) . One has:
(a) The curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and BR 1 ( 𝑥 0 ) have at least a 2-point contact at s0; (b) The curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and BR 1 ( 𝑥 0 ) have at least a 3-point contact at s0 if and only if
𝑥 0 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 0 ) + 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) , 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . Under this situation 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) is locally diffeomorphic to CE C(2,3) × 𝑅 , and 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 0 , 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) ) is locally diffeomorphic to a line; (c) The curve 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) and BR 1 ( 𝑥 0 ) have at least a 4-point contact at s0 if and only if 𝑥 0 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 0 ) + 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) , 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 , 𝜇 2 ″ ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . Under this situation 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) at ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) is locally diffeomorphic to SW, and 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 0 , 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) ) is locally diffeomorphic to the (2,3,4)-cusp.
Here, C(2,3) × 𝑅 = ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 ) ∣ 𝑥 2 = 𝑦 3 × 𝑅 , C(2, 3, 4) = ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) ∣ 𝑥 = 𝑡 2 , 𝑦 = 𝑡 3 , 𝑧 = 𝑡 4 , and 𝑆 𝑊 = ( 𝑥 , 𝑦 , 𝑧 ) ∣ 𝑥 = 3 𝑢 4 + 𝑢 2 𝑣 , 𝑦 = 4 𝑢 3 + 2 𝑢 𝑣 , 𝑧 = 𝑣 . The graphs of cuspidal edge and swallowtail can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
3.1. Bishop Height Functions
concepts↗content_tags↗Now we will consider two various sets of Bishop height functions, which will be helpful for studying the singularities of 𝐷 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) as follows [27,28]: 𝐻 𝑖 : 𝐼 × 𝐸 1 3 → 𝑅 , by 𝐻 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) = < 𝜉 𝑖 , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > ; i = 1, 2. We name it the first (resp. second) Bishop height function for i = 1 (resp. 2). We use the notation ℎ ix ( 𝑠 ) = 𝐻 𝑖 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) for any fixed 𝑥 ∈ 𝐸 1 3 . From now on, we shall not often write the parameter s. Then, we have the following proposition:
Let γ: 𝐼 → 𝐸 1 3 be a unit speed timelike curve, with 𝜇 1 ≠ 0 , and 𝜇 2 ≠ 0 . Then:
(A) (1) ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if there exist a, 𝑏 ∈ 𝑅 such that 𝑥 − 𝛾 = 𝑎 𝜉 + 𝑏 𝜉 2 , (2) ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) . (3) ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) − 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) . (4) ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ‴ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) − 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) , and 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 . (5) ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ‴ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 4 ) ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) − 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) , and 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 𝜇 2 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 . (B) (1) ℎ 2 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if there exist a, 𝑏 ∈ 𝑅 such that 𝑥 − 𝛾 = 𝑎 𝜉 + 𝑏 𝜉 1 , (2) ℎ 2 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) . (3) ℎ 2 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) . (4) ℎ 2 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ‴ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) , and 𝜇 1 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 . (5) ℎ 2 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ‴ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 2 𝑥 ( 4 ) ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) , and 𝜇 1 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 𝜇 1 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 .
(A). (1) Since ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = < 𝑥 − 𝛾 , 𝜉 1 > = 0 , and { 𝜉 , 𝜉 1 , 𝜉 2 } is RMF along 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) , then there exists a, 𝑏 ∈ 𝑅 such that 𝑥 − 𝛾 = 𝑎 𝜉 + 𝑏 𝜉 2 .
(2) When ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = 0 , the affirmation (2) follows from the fact that ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = < 𝜉 1 ′ , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > = < 𝜇 1 𝜉 , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > = 0 . Thus, we have that < 𝜇 1 𝜉 , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > = 0 . It follows from the fact 𝜇 1 ≠ 0 that < 𝜉 , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > , and 𝑥 − 𝛾 = 𝑏 𝜉 2 . Thus, we get that ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 − 𝛾 = 𝑏 𝜉 2 .
(3) When ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 , the affirmation (3) follows from the fact that ℎ 1 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = − 𝜇 1 + < 𝑥 − 𝛾 , 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜉 + 𝜇 1 2 𝜉 1 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 𝜉 2 > = 0 = − 𝜇 1 ( 1 + 𝑏 𝜇 2 ) , Since 𝜇 1 ≠ 0 , we get that ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) − 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) .
(4) Under the hypothesis that ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 , this derivative is calculated as follows: ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 3 ) ( 𝑠 ) = − 2 𝜇 1 ′ + < 𝜇 1 ″ − 𝜇 1 3 + 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 2 ) 𝜉 + 3 𝜇 1 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜉 1 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 ′ + 2 𝜇 2 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜉 2 , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > = 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) = 0 . Since 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) ≠ 0 , we get ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 3 ) ( 𝑠 ) = 0 , which is equivalent to the assumption 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 . The affirmation (4) follows.
(5) Under the hypothesis that ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 3 ) ( 𝑠 ) = 0 , this derivative is calculated as: ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 4 ) ( 𝑠 ) = − 3 𝜇 1 ″ + 𝜇 1 3 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 2 + < 𝑎 𝜉 + 𝑎 1 𝜉 1 + 𝑎 2 𝜉 2 , , 𝑥 − 𝛾 > , where 𝑎 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝜇 1 ″ − 6 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜇 1 2 + 3 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜇 2 2 + 3 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 ′ , 𝑎 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 3 𝜇 1 ′ 2 + 3 𝜇 1 𝜇 1 ‴ + 𝜇 1 4 + 𝜇 1 2 𝜇 1 2 , 𝑎 2 ( 𝑠 ) = − 3 𝜇 1 ″ 𝜇 2 − 3 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜇 2 ′ + 𝜇 1 3 𝜇 2 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 3 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 ″ . By 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) − 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) in the above, we have that: ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 4 ) ( 𝑠 ) = − 3 𝜇 1 ″ + 𝜇 1 3 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 2 − 1 𝜇 2 − 3 𝜇 1 ‴ 𝜇 2 − 3 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜇 2 ′ + 𝜇 1 3 𝜇 2 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 3 − 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 ″ = 3 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜇 2 ′ + 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 ″ 𝜇 2 . Since 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) ≠ 0 , 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 , we get that ℎ 1 𝑥 ( 4 ) ( 𝑠 ) = 0 is synonymous to the assumption 𝜇 2 ″ ( 𝑠 ) = 0 . The affirmation (5) follows. Using the identical computation as the proof of (A), we can get (B). □
By simple calculations, we have:
Let γ: 𝐼 → 𝐸 1 3 be a unit speed timelike curve, with 𝜇 1 ≠ 0 , and 𝜇 2 ≠ 0 . Then:
(1) 𝜇 2 ′ = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 1 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) is a constant vector. (2) 𝜇 1 ′ = 0 if and only if 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) − 1 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) is a constant vector.
3.2. Unfolding of Functions by One-Variable
method↗mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗content_tags↗content_tags↗Now we employ some public results on the singularity theory for families of function germs [27,28]. Let F: 𝑅 × 𝑅 𝑟 , ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑥 0 ) → 𝑅 be a smooth function, and 𝑓 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝐹 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) . Then F is called an r-parameter unfolding of 𝑓 ( 𝑠 ) . We say that 𝑓 ( 𝑠 ) has Ak-singularity at 𝑠 0 if 𝑓 ( 𝑝 ) ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 for all 1 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 𝑘 , and 𝑓 ( 𝑘 + 1 ) ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . We also say that f has A ⩾ 𝑘 -singularity ( 𝑘 ⩾ 1 ) at s0. Let the 𝑘 − 1 -jet of the partial derivative ∂ 𝐹 ∂ 𝑥 𝑖 at 𝑠 0 be 𝑗 𝑘 − 1 ∂ 𝐹 ∂ 𝑥 𝑖 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 𝑠 0 = 𝛴 𝑗 = 0 𝑘 − 1 𝐿 𝑗 𝑖 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 𝑗 (without the constant term), for 𝑖 = 1 , . . . , 𝑟 . Then 𝐹 ( 𝑠 ) is called an p-versal unfolding if the 𝑘 × 𝑟 matrix of coefficients 𝐿 𝑗 𝑖 has rank k 𝑘 ≤ 𝑟 . Therefore, we write serious sets on the unfolding regarding to the above notations. The discriminant set of order t of F is the set 𝐷 𝐹 𝑡 = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑅 𝑟 ∣ ∃ 𝑠 ∈ 𝑅 , 𝐹 𝑠 , 𝑥 = , ∂ 𝐹 ∂ 𝑠 𝑠 , 𝑥 = . . . = ∂ 𝑡 𝐹 ∂ 𝑠 𝑡 𝑠 , 𝑥 = 0 at ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) . (8) Then 𝐷 𝐹 1 = 𝐷 𝐹 , and 𝐷 𝐹 2 is the set of singular points of 𝐷 𝐹 .
We state the following theorem:
Let F: 𝑅 × 𝑅 𝑟 , ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑥 0 ) → 𝑅 be an r-parameter unfolding of 𝑓 ( 𝑠 ) , which has the 𝐴 𝑘 singularity at 𝑠 0 .
Suppose that F is a p-versal unfolding.
(a) If 𝑘 = 1 , then 𝐷 𝐹 is locally diffeomorphic to { 0 } × 𝑅 𝑟 − 1 , and 𝐷 𝐹 2 = ⌀ ;
(b) If 𝑘 = 2 , then 𝐷 𝐹 is locally diffeomorphic to 𝐶 ( 2 , 3 ) × 𝑅 𝑟 − 2 , 𝐷 𝐹 2 is locally diffeomorphic to { 0 } × 𝑅 𝑟 − 2 , and 𝐷 𝐹 3 = ⌀ .
(c) If 𝑘 = 3 , then 𝐷 𝐹 is locally diffeomorphic to 𝑆 𝑊 × 𝑅 𝑟 − 3 , 𝐷 𝐹 3 is locally diffeomorphic to 𝐶 ( 2 , 3 , 4 ) × 𝑅 𝑟 − 3 , and 𝐷 𝐹 3 is locally diffeomorphic to { 0 } × 𝑅 𝑟 − 3 , and 𝐷 𝐹 4 = ⌀ .
Then, the following proposition can be obtained.
Under the situations of Proposition 1, if ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 ) has 𝐴 𝑘 -singularity ( 𝑘 = 2 , 3 ) at 𝑠 0 ∈ 𝑅 , then 𝐻 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) is a 𝑝 − versal unfolding of ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 0 ) . (2). If ℎ 2 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 ) has 𝐴 𝑘 -singularity ( 𝑘 = 2 , 3 ) at 𝑠 0 ∈ 𝑅 , then 𝐻 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) is a 𝑝 − versal unfolding of ℎ 2 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 0 ) .
(1) Let 𝛾 𝑠 = 𝛾 1 𝑠 , 𝛾 2 𝑠 , 𝛾 3 𝑠 , 𝑥 = 𝑥 1 , 𝑥 2 , 𝑥 3 in 𝐸 1 3 , and 𝜉 1 𝑠 = 𝜉 11 𝑠 , 𝜉 12 𝑠 , 𝜉 13 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆 1 2 . Then, 𝐻 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) = − 𝛾 1 𝑠 − 𝑥 1 𝜉 11 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝛾 2 𝑠 − 𝑥 2 𝜉 12 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝛾 3 𝑠 − 𝑥 3 𝜉 13 ( 𝑠 ) . Thus, we have ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 1 = 𝜉 11 ( 𝑠 ) , ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 2 = − 𝜉 12 ( 𝑠 ) , ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 3 = − 𝜉 13 ( 𝑠 ) ∂ 2 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑠 ∂ 𝑥 1 = 𝜉 11 ′ ( 𝑠 ) , ∂ 2 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑠 ∂ 𝑥 2 = − 𝜉 12 ′ ( 𝑠 ) , ∂ 2 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑠 ∂ 𝑥 3 = − 𝜉 13 ′ ( 𝑠 ) . Therefore, the 2-jets of ∂ 𝐻 ∂ 𝑥 𝑖 at 𝑠 0 (i=0, 1) are: 𝑗 1 ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) = 𝜉 11 ′ ( 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 ) , 𝑗 1 ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) = − 𝜉 12 ′ ( 𝑠 ) ( 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 ) , 𝑗 1 ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 3 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) = − 𝜉 13 ′ ( 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 ) , and 𝑗 2 ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) = 𝜉 11 ′ ( 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 ) + 1 2 𝜉 11 ″ 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 2 , 𝑗 2 ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) = − 𝜉 12 ′ ( 𝑠 ) ( 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 ) − 1 2 𝜉 12 ″ 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 2 , 𝑗 2 ∂ 𝐻 1 ∂ 𝑥 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 0 ) = − 𝜉 13 ′ ( 𝑠 ) ( 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 ) − 1 2 𝜉 13 ″ 𝑠 − 𝑠 0 2 .
(i) If ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 0 ) has the 𝐴 2 -singularity at 𝑠 0 , then ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 . So the 1 × 3 matrix of coefficients 𝐿 𝑗 𝑖 is: 𝐴 = 𝜉 11 ′ − 𝜉 12 ′ − 𝜉 13 ′ . Suppose that the rank of the matrix A is zero, then we have: 𝜉 11 ′ = 𝜉 12 ′ = 𝜉 13 ′ = 0 .
Since 𝛾 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 𝜉 ( 𝑠 0 ) 2 = − 1 , we have − 𝜉 11 ′ 2 + 𝜉 11 ′ 2 + 𝜉 11 ′ 2 = − 𝜇 1 2 ≠ 0 , so that we have a contradiction. Therefore rank( 𝐴 ) = 1 , and H is the (p) versal unfolding of ℎ 1 𝑥 0 at 𝑠 0 .
(ii) If ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 0 ) has the 𝐴 3 -singularity at 𝑠 0 ∈ 𝑅 , then ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ′ ( 𝑠 0 ) = ℎ 1 𝑥 0 ″ ( 𝑠 0 ) = 0 . Therefore, the 3 × 3 matrix of the coefficients 𝐿 𝑗 𝑖 is 𝐵 ( 𝑠 0 ) = 𝜉 11 − 𝜉 12 − 𝜉 13 𝜉 11 ′ − 𝜉 12 ′ − 𝜉 13 ′ 1 2 𝜉 11 ″ − 1 2 𝜉 12 ″ − 1 2 𝜉 13 ″ . For the intention, we also require the 3 × 3 matrix B to be non-singular, which it constantly is. Furthermore, the determinate of this matrix at 𝑠 0 is det 𝐵 = 1 2 𝜉 11 − 𝜉 12 − 𝜉 13 𝜉 11 ′ − 𝜉 12 ′ − 𝜉 13 ′ 𝜉 11 ″ − 𝜉 12 ″ − 𝜉 13 ″ = 1 2 < 𝜉 1 × 𝜉 1 ′ , 𝜉 1 ″ > . Since 𝜉 1 ′ = − 𝜇 1 𝜉 , we have 𝜉 1 ″ = − 𝜇 1 ′ 𝜉 − 𝜇 1 2 𝜉 1 + 𝜇 1 𝜇 2 𝜉 2 . Substituting these equations to the above equality, we obtain det 𝐵 = 1 2 𝜇 1 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 0 ) ≠ 0 . Thus rank ( 𝐵 ) = 3 , if we consider the matrix which consists of the first and the second row of the matrix B, so that rank ( 𝐵 ) = 2 . (2) Using the same computation as the proof of (1), we can get (2). □
(1) Let 𝛾 : 𝐼 → 𝐸 1 3 be a unit speed timelike curve, with 𝜇 1 ≠ 0 , and 𝜇 2 ≠ 0 . For 𝑥 0 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 0 ) + 𝑡 0 𝜉 𝑖 ( 𝑠 0 ) , we define a function 𝐻 𝑖 ( 𝑝 ) = < 𝜉 𝑖 , 𝑥 0 − 𝑝 > (i = 1, 2), then we have ℎ 𝑖 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 ) = 𝑁 𝑖 ( 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) ) .
mechanisms↗unhoused_relationsFirst, we consider the affirmation (1). For 𝑥 0 = 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 0 , 𝑡 0 ) , since BR 2 ( 𝑥 0 ) = 𝐻 2 − 1 ( 0 ) , where 0 is a regular value of 𝐻 2 ; ℎ 2 𝑥 0 ( 𝑠 ) has the A 𝑘 -singularity at s0 if and only if 𝛾 ( 𝑠 0 ) and BR 2 ( 𝑥 0 ) have (k+1)-point contact for 𝑠 0 . On the other hand, the discriminant set 𝐷 𝐻 2 of 𝐻 2 is 𝐷 𝐻 2 = 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝜉 1 ( 𝑠 ) ∣ 𝑠 ∈ 𝐼 , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 . The affirmation (1) follows from Theorem 2 and Proposition 1. Since the trajectory of the singularities of CE is locally diffeomorphic to the line, the affirmation (b) holds. Since the trajectory of singularities of SW is C(2,3,4), the affirmation (c) holds.
For the affirmation (2), the discriminant set of 𝐷 𝐻 1 of 𝐻 1 is 𝐷 𝐻 1 = 𝑥 = 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) + 𝑡 𝜉 2 ( 𝑠 ) ∣ 𝑠 ∈ 𝐼 , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 . By a similar argument, we can also prove the affirmation (2). This completes the proof. □
Given the timelike helix: 𝛾 ( 𝑠 ) = ( 3 sinh 𝑠 , 3 cosh 𝑠 , 2 𝑠 ) , − 1 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 1 , It is simple to have that 𝜒 1 ( 𝑠 ) = ( 3 cosh 𝑠 , 3 sinh 𝑠 , 2 ) , 𝜒 2 ( 𝑠 ) = ( sinh 𝑠 , cosh 𝑠 , 0 ) , 𝜒 3 ( 𝑠 ) = ( 2 cosh 𝑠 , 2 sinh 𝑠 , 3 ) , 𝜅 ( 𝑠 ) = 3 , 𝑎 𝑛 𝑑 𝜏 ( 𝑠 ) = 2 . Taking 𝜑 0 = 0 we have 𝜑 ( 𝑠 ) = − 2 𝑠 . Using Equations (3)–(5), we obtain 𝜇 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 3 cos 2 𝑠 , and 𝜇 2 ( 𝑠 ) = − 3 sin 2 𝑠 . Hence: 𝜉 𝜉 1 𝜉 2 = 1 0 0 0 cos 2 𝑠 𝑠 − sin 2 𝑠 0 sin 2 𝑠 cos 2 𝑠 𝜒 1 𝜒 2 𝜒 3 . Thus, we get 𝜉 1 = 𝜉 11 𝜉 12 𝜉 13 = sinh 𝑠 cos 2 𝑠 − 2 cosh 𝑠 sin 2 𝑠 cosh 𝑠 cos 2 𝑠 − 2 sinh 𝑠 sin 2 𝑠 − 3 sin 2 𝑠 , 𝜉 2 = 𝜉 21 𝜉 22 𝜉 23 = sinh 𝑠 sin 2 𝑠 + 2 cosh 𝑠 cos 2 𝑠 sin 2 𝑠 cosh 𝑠 + 2 cos 2 𝑠 sinh 𝑠 3 cos 2 𝑠 . So, the timelike developable surface is 𝑦 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 3 sinh 𝑠 , 3 cosh 𝑠 , 2 𝑠 + 𝑟 1 ( 𝑡 ) 𝜉 11 𝜉 12 𝜉 13 + 𝑟 2 ( 𝑡 ) 𝜉 21 𝜉 22 𝜉 23 .
(1) If we take 𝑟 1 ( 𝑡 ) = cos 𝑡 , and 𝑟 2 ( 𝑡 ) = sin 𝑡 , then we instantly obtain the surface (see Figure 3).
limitationscontent_tags(2) If 𝑟 1 ( 𝑡 ) = 𝑟 2 ( 𝑡 ) = 𝑡 , then 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) , and 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) , respectively, are: 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 3 sinh 𝑠 + 𝑡 𝜉 11 , 3 cosh 𝑠 + 𝑡 𝜉 13 , 2 𝑠 + 𝑡 𝜉 12 , and 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) = 3 sinh 𝑠 + 𝑡 𝜉 21 , 3 cosh 𝑠 + 𝑡 𝜉 23 , 2 𝑠 + 𝑡 𝜉 22 . In addition, the singular locus of 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) , and 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) , respectively, are: 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 3 sinh 𝑠 + 1 3 cos 2 𝑠 𝜉 11 , 3 cosh 𝑠 + 1 3 cos 2 𝑠 𝜉 13 , 2 𝑠 + 1 3 cos 2 𝑠 𝜉 12 , and 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 ) = 3 sinh 𝑠 + 1 3 sin 2 𝑠 𝜉 21 , 3 cosh 𝑠 + 1 3 sin 2 𝑠 𝜉 23 , 2 𝑠 + 1 3 sin 2 𝑠 𝜉 22 . We consider a local part of this curve when 𝜋 6 2 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 𝜋 3 2 . We see that 𝜇 1 − 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 1 3 cos 2 𝑠 ≠ 0 , and 𝜇 1 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = − 6 sin 2 𝑠 ≠ 0 for 𝜋 6 2 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 𝜋 3 2 . This means that 𝐷 1 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) is locally diffeomorphic to a CE and its singular locus is locally diffeomorphic to a line (the red line), see Figure 4. For 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) , when 𝜋 6 2 ≤ 𝑠 ≤ 5 𝜋 6 2 . We see that 𝜇 2 − 1 ( 𝑠 ) = 1 3 cos 2 𝑠 ≠ 0 , 𝜇 2 ′ ( 𝑠 ) = 6 cos 2 𝑠 = 0 gives one real root 𝑠 = 𝜋 2 2 . We can also get that 𝜇 2 − 1 ( 𝜋 2 2 ) ″ = 0 , that is, 𝐷 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑡 ) fails to be locally diffeomorphic to SW and its singular locus is not locally diffeomorphic to the C(2,3,4)-cusp at 𝑠 = 𝜋 2 2 . Hence 𝐻 2 ( 𝑠 , 𝑥 ) fails to be a versal unfolding of the ℎ 2 𝑥 (s) at 𝑠 = 𝜋 2 2 ; see Figure 5.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we considered the notion of timelike developable surfaces with rotation minimizing frames in Minkowski 3–Space 𝐸 1 3 . By applying singularities theory, we classified the generic properties of the cuspidal edge and swallowtail. Finally, an example of application is offered to demonstrate the theoretical results. Furthermore, recently the application of singularity theory and submanifolds theory and so forth, presented in Refs. [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57], has attracted great interest. In the following work, we will connect the results of this paper with the techniques and methods in Refs. [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] to explore more results and theorems related to symmetric properties about this topic.
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 2 of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the singularities and geometrical properties of timelike developable surfaces built with the Bishop frame in Minkowski 3-space | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | under what conditions the two timelike developable surfaces have singularities, and how to recognise the different singularity types | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a classification of the generic singularities of the two timelike developable surfaces as the cuspidal edge and the swallowtail, obtained through singularity theory and the Minkowski Bishop frame | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | at their singular points the timelike developable surfaces are locally diffeomorphic to a cuspidal edge or a swallowtail, according to precise curvature conditions | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | mathematical-proof also in: mathematical-proof | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | The Bishop (rotation-minimizing) frame stays smoothly defined along a space curve even where the Serret-Frenet frame becomes undefined, such as at an inflection point where curvature vanishes. also in: rotation-minimizing frame | mechanisms[0] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | An A_k singularity of the Bishop height function corresponds to (k+1)-point contact between the curve and the Bishop rectifying bundle, which detects the surface singularity. also in: height-function contact | mechanisms[1] | 0.94 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | When the height function is a versal unfolding, its discriminant set is locally diffeomorphic to the standard cuspidal-edge or swallowtail model, transferring the classification to the surface. also in: versal-unfolding classification | mechanisms[2] | 0.94 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The results are local: each surface is only shown to be locally diffeomorphic to a cuspidal edge or swallowtail at a singular point, not classified globally. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The theorems assume a unit-speed timelike curve with both Bishop functions nonzero, a genericity condition that excludes degenerate cases. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The worked example exhibits a point where the surface fails to be a swallowtail because the height function is not a versal unfolding there, showing the classification does not cover every point. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | singularity also in: singularity | concepts[0] | 0.97 | the paper's words |
| concepts | developable surface also in: developable surface | concepts[1] | 0.97 | the paper's words |
| concepts | timelike developable surfaces also in: timelike developable surfaces | concepts[2] | 0.96 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Minkowski 3-space also in: Minkowski 3-space | concepts[3] | 0.96 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Bishop frame also in: Bishop frame | concepts[4] | 0.96 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ruled surface also in: ruled surface | concepts[5] | 0.96 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cuspidal edge also in: cuspidal edge | concepts[6] | 0.96 | the paper's words |
| concepts | swallowtail also in: swallowtail | concepts[7] | 0.96 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Bishop height function also in: Bishop height function | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | k-point contact also in: k-point contact | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | versal unfolding also in: versal unfolding | concepts[10] | 0.94 | the paper's words |
| concepts | discriminant set also in: discriminant set | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Legendrian duality also in: Legendrian duality | concepts[12] | 0.94 | the paper's words |
| concepts | timelike curve also in: timelike curve | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Serret–Frenet frame also in: Serret–Frenet frame | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | Bishop height function → singularity The A_k singularity of the Bishop height function detects and classifies the singularity of the developable surface. — the relation stated: Singularities of the surface are read off from singularities of the height function. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.94 | the tagger's words |
| senses | singularity - differential-geometry sense: a point where the surface map fails to be an immersion, locally modelled by a cuspidal edge or swallowtail | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | developable surface - sense: a surface that can be flattened onto a plane without distortion | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | frame - Serret-Frenet versus Bishop (rotation-minimizing) sense: two moving frames of a curve, the latter defined where the former is not | senses[2] | 0.94 | the tagger's words |
| senses | contact - k-point sense: the tangency order between a curve and a level set measured by vanishing derivatives | senses[3] | 0.94 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Izumiya's singularity theory and Legendrian duality for submanifolds note: The study of singularities of the developable surfaces is inspired by and follows Izumiya-type methods. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Bishop's rotation-minimizing frame note: The whole construction replaces the Serret-Frenet frame with Bishop's alternative frame, extended to Minkowski space. | claim_relations[1] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Euclidean Bishop-frame surface theory note: The Euclidean Bishop frame idea is expanded to the Minkowski (Lorentzian) setting. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | developable surface —is-a→ ruled surface the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Definitional subset of ruled surfaces; flat categorical. · the relation stated: A developable surface is a ruled surface whose base-curve, director and director-derivative determinant vanishes.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says a ruled surface D is developable if and only if a determinant vanishes; is-a is loose. also in: developable surface · ruled surface | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Bishop frame —contrasted-with→ Serret–Frenet frame the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Differentiator stated: smooth definition at inflection points where curvature vanishes. · the relation stated: The Bishop frame stays smoothly defined where the Serret-Frenet frame becomes undefined, such as at an inflection point. also in: Bishop frame · Serret–Frenet frame | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A ruled surface D(gamma,x) is developable if and only if the determinant of the base-curve derivative, director curve, and its derivative vanishes. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.97 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The surface D_i is non-singular at a point if and only if 1 minus t0 times the Bishop function at s0 is nonzero. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | D_i is locally diffeomorphic to the cuspidal edge when t0 equals the inverse Bishop function and its derivative is nonzero, and to the swallowtail when in addition that derivative vanishes and the next one does not. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The curve and the Bishop rectifying bundle have at least 2-point contact, rising to 3-point contact for the cuspidal-edge case and 4-point contact for the swallowtail case under stated derivative conditions. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | In the worked timelike-helix example D_1 is locally a cuspidal edge while D_2 fails to be a swallowtail at a specific parameter value. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a smooth surface that can be flattened onto a plane without distortion, every point lying on at least one straight line also in: developable surface | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | real 3-space equipped with the pseudo scalar product of signature minus-plus-plus also in: Minkowski 3-space | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the surface swept by a straight line (the ruling) moving along a base curve in the direction of a director curve also in: ruled surface | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.96 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an alternative rotation-minimizing moving frame that yields a smooth means of moving along a space curve also in: Bishop frame | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the curve and a level set have k-point contact at s0 when the composed function and its first k-1 derivatives vanish there while the k-th does not also in: k-point contact | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the pairing of a Bishop frame vector with the displacement from the base curve, used to study the surface singularities also in: Bishop height function | content_tags.definitions[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an r-parameter unfolding of a function germ whose coefficient matrix has full rank, so its discriminant carries the standard singularity model also in: versal unfolding | content_tags.definitions[6] | 0.94 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the set of parameter values at which the unfolding and a number of its s-derivatives simultaneously vanish also in: discriminant set | content_tags.definitions[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.