Talk:Curvature

the next derivative

If (signed) curvature of a plane curve is the first derivative of tangent angle with respect to arc length, is there a common word for the next derivative, i.e. the first derivative of curvature? —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Torsion of a curve? –jacobolus (t) 20:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I now bolded the thing you may have missed. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The next-derivative analog of curvature (a naturally bivector-valued quantity) is torsion (a naturally trivector-valued quantity). In the plane of course torsion vanishes (any wedge product of 3 coplanar vectors is 0). You can come up with various other planar concepts involving higher derivatives, but IMO they aren’t really natural analogs of curvature. –jacobolus (t) 03:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Raph Levien's thesis has a lot of analysis about changes in curvature with respect to arclength, but I am not sure if there are any specific names like what you are looking for. –jacobolus (t) 03:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Heh, reading Levien's work prompted the question. —Tamfang (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Next time I see him, I’ll try to remember to ask if there’s a name for this. No promises though. –jacobolus (t) 02:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Problematic description

The section Gaussian curvature begins as follows:

"In contrast to curves, which do not have intrinsic curvature, but do have extrinsic curvature (they only have a curvature given an embedding), surfaces can have intrinsic curvature, independent of an embedding. The Gaussian curvature, named after Carl Friedrich Gauss, is equal to the product of the principal curvatures, k1k2."

So: Immediately after the reader is told that Gaussian curvature is intrinsic to a surface, it is defined extrinsically.

This strikes me as rather confusing to the reader.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:F181:9410:C541:848E:89D8:1A39 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@NotAGenious Does removing someone's mistaken edit really require a gigantic eyesore banner on the article? That seems extremely reader hostile. –jacobolus (t) 17:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Template:Copyvio-revdel adds the page to CAT:RD1. The page history must be removed by an admin so that the site doesn't infringe copyright of the respective author. NotAGenious (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The banner has since been removed, but while present these banners are a serious eyesore. Has anyone considered making this template less obtrusive (or even invisible) or putting it on talk pages instead of article pages? The way it currently looks only (a) calls attention to the violating text and encourages passersby to go examine it (exactly the opposite of its intended purpose), and (b) is extremely jarring for ordinary page readers, for no benefit. –jacobolus (t) 16:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)