Unexpected result from ArcLength












2












$begingroup$


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
    2 hours ago












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
















2












$begingroup$


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
    2 hours ago












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














2












2








2





$begingroup$


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 1 hour ago









Henrik Schumacher

56.6k577156




56.6k577156










asked 2 hours ago









IvanIvan

1,612821




1,612821








  • 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
    2 hours ago












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












  • $begingroup$
    @MarcoB I don't get any warnings when evaluating L[1/100]
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    1 hour 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
2 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
2 hours ago














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




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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
    $endgroup$
    – MarcoB
    2 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago





















2












$begingroup$

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











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    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









      2












      $begingroup$

      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
        2 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        2 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour ago


















      2












      $begingroup$

      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
        2 hours ago












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        2 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour ago
















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$

      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 1 hour ago

























      answered 2 hours ago









      mjwmjw

      5779




      5779












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












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        2 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour ago




















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












      • $begingroup$
        Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
        $endgroup$
        – MarcoB
        2 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour 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
        1 hour ago


















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






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














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




      $begingroup$
      Yes, but this does not seem to answer the OP's question. Try including smaller values of $p$.
      $endgroup$
      – MarcoB
      2 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
      1 hour 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
      1 hour 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
      1 hour 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
      1 hour 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
      1 hour 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
      1 hour ago













      2












      $begingroup$

      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











      $endgroup$


















        2












        $begingroup$

        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











        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          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 1 hour ago

























          answered 1 hour ago









          Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher

          56.6k577156




          56.6k577156























              2












              $begingroup$

              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









              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                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









                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  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 1 hour ago









                  Bill WattsBill Watts

                  3,4811620




                  3,4811620






























                      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

                      Statuo de Libereco

                      Image
                      Koordinatoj: 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Statuo de Libereco angle: Statue of Liberty statuo Statuo de Libereco de antaŭe Oficiala nomo: Liberty Enlightening the World Lando  Usono Ŝtato Novjorkio Regiono Novjorko Insulo Insulo de Libereco Situo Statuo de Libereco  - koordinatoj 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Alteco de statuo 46 m  - alteco kun soklo 93 m Pezo 205 000 kg (451 948 lb) Materialoj bronzo, ŝtalo Proponinto Gustave Eiffel  - skulptisto Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi  - proponinto de soklo Richard Morris Hunt  - kapo laŭ modelo de Isabella Eugenie Boyer Transdonita 4-an de julio 1886 Por publiko alirebla por publiko Horzono OT (UTC-5)  - somera tempo OT (UTC-4) Loko
                      Read more

                      Tanganjiko

                      Image
                      Lago Tanganjiko Situo centra Afriko Ĉefaj fontoj Kalambo, Lufuko, Malagarasi kaj Ruzizi Ĉefaj elfluoj Lukugo Setlejoj Bujumbura, Kalemie Datenoj Koordinatoj 6°  S , 30°  O -6.3827777777778 29.615 782 Koordinatoj: 6°  S , 30°  O DEC Supermara alteco 782 m Surfaca areo 32 893 km² f5 Maksimuma longo 673 km f6 Maksimuma larĝo 72 km f7 Akva volumeno 18.900 km³ dep1 f8 Maksimuma profundo 1470 m f10 Averaĝa profundo 570 m f11 v   •   d   •   r Mapo de la lago Tanganjiko estas lago en orienta Afriko, inter Burundo, Kongo Kinŝasa, Tanzanio kaj Zambio. Ĝi apartenas al la Granda Rifto kaj estas unu el la Afrikaj Grandaj Lagoj. Tanzanio (46%) kaj DRK (40%) havas la majoritaton de la lago. Ĝi havas longon de 673 km, areon de ĉ. 32.900 km² kaj maksimuman profundon taksatan je 1470 metroj; pro tiu ĉi granda profundo ankaŭ ĝia volumeno estas sufiĉe granda, 18.900 km³. Oni konsi
                      Read more

                      Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg

                      Image
                      Die Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg (ladinisch Mareo , italienisch Marebbe ) enthält die 36 als Baudenkmäler ausgewiesenen Objekte auf dem Gebiet der Gemeinde Enneberg in Südtirol. Basis ist das im Internet einsehbare offizielle Verzeichnis der Baudenkmäler in Südtirol. Dabei kann es sich beispielsweise um Sakralbauten, Wohnhäuser, Bauernhöfe und Adelsansitze handeln. Die Reihenfolge in dieser Liste orientiert sich an der Bezeichnung, alternativ ist sie auch nach der Adresse oder dem Datum der Unterschutzstellung sortierbar. Liste | Foto   Bezeichnung Standort Eintragung Beschreibung Metadaten ja Altes Gasthaus Janesch ID: 14567 46° 42′ 54″ N, 11° 52′ 42″ O 76882557800 0 8. Sep. 1986 (BLR-LAB 4974) Ländliches Wohnhaus/Bauernhof KG:  Welschellen Bauparzelle: 391 ja Asch (Prack) ID: 14540 46° 43′ 12″ N, 11° 54′ 35″ O 75496485300 20. Nov. 1950 (MD) Ansitz KG:  Enneberg Bauparzelle: 38 ja Biccia mit Stade
                      Read more