Unexpected result from ArcLength












3












$begingroup$


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






numerical-integration







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
    3 hours ago












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
















3












$begingroup$


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






numerical-integration







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
    3 hours ago












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














3












3








3





$begingroup$


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






numerical-integration







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




numerical-integration






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Henrik Schumacher

56.6k577157




56.6k577157










asked 3 hours ago









IvanIvan

1,617821




1,617821








  • 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
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    3 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
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    3 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
3 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
3 hours ago














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




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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















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
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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
    3 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












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$













      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









      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
        3 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        3 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
        3 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
        3 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
        3 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
        3 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        3 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
        3 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
        3 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
        3 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 3 hours ago

























      answered 3 hours ago









      mjwmjw

      5879




      5879












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












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        3 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
        3 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
        3 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
        3 hours ago




















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












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        3 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
        3 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
        3 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
        3 hours ago


















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






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














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




      $begingroup$
      Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
      $endgroup$
      – MarcoB
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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 3 hours ago

























          answered 3 hours ago









          Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher

          56.6k577157




          56.6k577157























              3












              $begingroup$

              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












                $begingroup$

                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












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  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 2 hours ago









                  Bill WattsBill Watts

                  3,4911620




                  3,4911620






























                      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

                      How to label and detect the document text images

                      Image
                      1 $begingroup$ This is what I mean as document text image: I want to label the texts in image as separate blocks and my model should detect these labels as classes. NOTE: This is how the end result should be like: The labels like Block 1, Block 2, Block 3,.. should be Logo, Title, Date,.. Others, etc. Work done: First approach : I tried to implement this method via Object Detection, it didn't work. It didn't even detect any text. Second approach : Then I tried it using PixelLink. As this model is build for scene text detection, it detected each and every text in the image. But this method can detect multiple lines of text if the threshold values are increased. But I have no idea how do I add labels to the text blocks. PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones = 'PIXEL_CLS_WEIGHT_all_ones' PIXEL_C
                      Read more

                      Vallis Paradisi

                      Image
                      Coordinata: .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap} 33°03′S 71°37′W  /  33.05°S 71.617°W  / -33.05; -71.617 Vallis Paradisi Res apud Vicidata repertae: Civitas : Chilia Numerus incolarum : 296 655 Zona horaria : UTC-4 Situs interretialis Nomen officiale : Valparaíso Gubernium Consilium : municipal council of Valparaíso Geographia Superficies : 401 600 000 Metrum quadratum Coniunctiones urbium Urbes gemellae : Ovetum , Badalona , Santa Fe , Ora longa , Sciamhaevum , Quantunia , Callao , Bat Yam , Melaka , Novorossiysk , Busan , Corduba , Odessa , Rosario , Malacca , Barcino , Soteropolis , Franciscopolis (California) , Guanajuato, Silao Tabula aut despectus Despectus in portum sinumque et urbem Vallis Paradisi Vallis Para
                      Read more

                      Tabula Rosettana

                      Image
                      Tabula multilinguis Rosettana in Museo Britannico ostenditur. Tabula Rosettana, [1] etiam titulo OGIS 90 agnita, est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est. Inventio stelae, linguis duabus scripturisque tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet. Textus Graecus cito lectus interpretationi textuum Aegyptiorum (in formis hieroglyphica et demotica expressorum) gradatim adiuvit. Denique textum plene interpretatus est Ioannes Franciscus Champollion. Ab opere eruditorum cumulativo coepit hodiernus scripturae hieroglyphicae linguaeque Aegyptiae a
                      Read more