Translation:Allgemeine Auflosung der Aufgabe die Theile einer gegebenen Flache auf einer andern gegebnen Flache so abzubilden, dass die Abbildung dem Abgebildeten in den kleinsten Theilen ahnlich wird.

General solution of the problem of representing the parts of a given surface on another given surface in such a way that the representation resembles the original in its smallest parts (1822)
by Carl Friedrich Gauss, translated from French by Wikisource

Based on the 1915 French translation by Léonce Laugel.

4445774General solution of the problem of representing the parts of a given surface on another given surface in such a way that the representation resembles the original in its smallest parts1822Carl Friedrich Gauss


1. edit

The nature of a curved surface is determined by an equation involving the coordinates   relative to each of its points. By virtue of this equation, each of these three variables can be considered as a function of the other two. The generality is even greater if we introduce two new variables   and represent each of the variables   as a function of   and   so that, at least in general, specific values of   and   always correspond to a specific point on the surface and vice versa.

2. edit

Let   be quantities that play, with respect to a second surface, the same role as   play with respect to the first.

3. edit

Representing the first surface onto the second means establishing a rule whereby each point on the first surface corresponds to a specific point on the second. This is achieved by stipulating that   and   are equal to certain functions of the two variables   and   If one wants the representation to satisfy certain conditions, these functions can no longer be arbitrary. As   then also become functions of   and   these functions, in addition to the condition prescribed by the nature of the second surface, must also satisfy those required in the representation.

4. edit

The problem proposed by the Royal Society of Sciences requires that the representation be similar to the original in its smallest parts. The first step is to express this condition analytically.

By differentiating the functions of   by which   are expressed, we can derive the following equations:

 

The prescribed condition firstly demands that all infinitely small lines emanating from a point on the first surface and lying on that surface be proportional to the corresponding lines on the second surface, and secondly that the former lines include the same angles among themselves as the latter.

Such a linear element on the first surface has the expression

 

and the corresponding element on the second surface is

 

If these two elements are to be in a determined ratio, regardless of   and   then the three quantities

 

must obviously be proportional to the following three

 

If the ends of a second element on the first surface correspond to the values

 

then the cosine of the angle that this element makes with the first is

 

and for the cosine of the angle between the corresponding elements on the second surface, we obtain a similar expression, where   are replaced by   The two expressions will be equal to each other when the proportionality in question occurs, and the second condition is therefore already included in the first, which a moment of reflection makes evident.

The analytical expression of the condition of our problem is thus as follows

 

and this must be a finite function of   and   that we will set   Thus   expresses the ratio by which the linear quantities on the first surface are increased or decreased in their representation on the second (depending on whether   is greater or less than  ). In general, this ratio will vary with location. In the particular case where   is constant, there will be complete similarity even in finite parts, and when moreover   perfect equality will occur, and each of the surfaces can be developed upon the other.

5. edit

If, for the sake of brevity, we set

 

we notice that the differential equation   will have two integrals. Indeed, if we decompose the trinomial   into two factors, linear with respect to   and   one or the other must be   which will give two different integrals. One of the integrals will correspond to the equation

 

 

(where we have written   for brevity instead of   since it is easy to see that the irrational part of the expression must be imaginary); the other integral corresponds to a similar equation in which   has been replaced by  .

Therefore, if the integral of the first equation is

 

with   and   denoting real functions of   and   then the other integral will be

 

from which it follows by the very nature of the question that

 

or equivalently

 ,

must be a factor of   and hence

 .

where   is a finite function of   and  

Now let   denote the trinomial obtained by replacing   with their values at   in

 .

Assume as above that the two integrals of the equation   are

 

 

and that

 

where   are real functions of   and   These integrations can obviously be carried out (apart from the general difficulties of integration) prior to the resolution of our main problem.

If we substitute functions of   such that the condition of our main problem is fulfilled, then   transforms into   and we will have

 .

But it is easy to see that the numerator of the first member of this equation can only be divisible by the denominator when

  is divisible by  

and

  is divisible by  

or when

  is divisible by  

and

  by  

In the first case, it follows that   will vanish when   or else   will be constant whenever   is constant; that is,   will simply be a function of   and similarly   will be a function of   In the other case,   will be a function of   and   a function of   It is also easy to see that the converses of these conclusions are valid; that is, when we take for   (either respectively, or in the reverse order) functions of   the exact divisibility of   by   and thus the required proportionality will occur.

Moreover, it is easy to see that if we set, for example,

 

then the nature of the function   is determined by that of the function   Indeed, when among the constant quantities that the latter may contain, none of them are imaginary, the function   must be completely identical to   so that real values of   always correspond to real values of   otherwise   will only differ from   insofar as in the imaginary elements of   we must replace   everywhere by  

Consequently, we have

 

or equivalently, when the function   is chosen completely arbitrarily [with imaginary constant elements chosen at will],   will be equal to the real part and   (  in the second solution) will be equal to the imaginary part of   and consequently we can solve for   and   as functions of   and  

Therefore, the proposed problem has been solved in a complete and general manner.

6. edit

If   represents any determined function of   (with   being real functions of  ), then it is easy to see that

  and  

also represent integrals of the differential equation   since they are completely equivalent to the equations

 

Similarly, the integrals of the differential equation  

 

will be completely equivalent to the equations

 

if   represents any determined function of   (where   are real functions of  ). Hence it is clear that in the general solution given in the previous article,   can replace   and   can replace   Although the solution of the problem does not gain any generality in this way, it is nevertheless sometimes more convenient in applications to use one of these forms instead of the other.

7. edit

If the functions obtained by differentiating the arbitrary functions   are denoted by   and   respectively, so that

 

then as a consequence of our general solution, we will have

 

and consequently

 

The magnification ratio will therefore be determined by the formula

 

8. edit

We will now clarify our general solution with some examples, both to fully illustrate the mode of application and to further highlight the nature of some of the facts presented.

Let us first consider two plane surfaces; we can then set

 

The differential equation

 

gives here the two integrals

 

and similarly the two integrals of the equation

 

are as follows:

 

Therefore, the two general solutions of the problem are

(I)  
(II)  

This result can also be expressed as follows: Let the letter   denote any function, then for   we should take the real part of   and for   we should take either the real or imaginary part (after removing the factor  ).

If we use the letters   in the sense explained in Article 7, and if we set

 

where   and   are obviously to be real functions of   and   then for the first solution we will have

 

and consequently

 

Now, if we set

 

so that   represents a linear element on the first plane,   its inclination to the x-axis,   the corresponding linear element on the second plane, and   its inclination to the x-axis, the previous equations yield

 

and if   is considered to be positive, which is allowed, then we have

 

We see, therefore (in accordance with Article 7), that   represents the magnification ratio of the element   in the representation  , and that it is, as it should be, independent of   similarly, the fact that the angle   is independent of   shows that all linear elements originating from a point on the first plane will be represented by elements on the second plane, forming the same angles as the former, and, we may add, in the same sense.

If we choose a linear function for  , so that  , where the constant coefficients are of the form

 

then we will have

 

and consequently,

 

The magnification ratio is thus constant at all points, and the representation is everywhere similar to the original.

For any other function   (as is easy to demonstrate), the magnification ratio will not be constant, and consequently, similarity will only occur in the smallest parts.

If the points that must correspond to a given number of points given in the first plane are assigned on the representation, one can easily, using the ordinary method of interpolation, find the simplest algebraic function that fulfills this condition. Indeed, if we denote the values of   for the given points by   etc., and the corresponding values of   by   etc., we must set

 

which is an algebraic function of   whose order is one less than the number of assigned points. In the case of two points, where the function is linear, complete similarity is thus achieved.

This method can be usefully applied in geodesy to improve a map made from moderately accurate measurements, good in small details but slightly distorted on a large scale, when one knows the exact position of a certain number of points. It goes without saying, however, that one can hardly venture far from the regions surrounding these points.

If we treat the second solution in the same way, we find that the only difference lies in the fact that the similarity is inverse; all elements on the representation make angles with each other equal in magnitude to those of the original, but in the opposite sense, so that what was on the right is now located on the left. This distinction is not essential, and it disappears if on one of the planes the side previously considered to be the upper one is now taken as the lower. Moreover, one can always apply this remark, when one of the two surfaces is a plane; thus, in the examples of this nature that follow, we can simply adhere to the first solution.

9. edit

Let us now consider (as a second example) the representation of the surface of a right cone on the plane. Let us take the equation of the first surface as

 

and then set

 

and as before,

 

Then the differential equation

 

gives the two integrals

 

Thus, we have the solution

 

or in other words, if   denotes an arbitrary function, we take for   the real part of

 

and for   the imaginary part, after removing the factor  .

For example, if we take   to be an exponential function,

 

where   is a constant, and where   denotes the base of the hyperbolic logarithm, then we have the simplest representation

 

Applying the formulas of Article 7, we have here

 

And, since   we have

 

and consequently, the magnification ratio will be

 

and thus constant. If we further set

 

then the representation becomes a complete development.

10. edit

Thirdly, let us represent the surface of the sphere of radius   on a plane. Here we set

 

from which we obtain

 

The differential equation   then gives

 

and integrating this gives

 

Therefore, if we continue to let   denote an arbitrary function, we should take for   the real part and for   the imaginary part of

 

We intend to treat some special cases of this general solution.

If we choose for   a linear function, setting   we have

 

Applied to the Earth, where   denotes the geographical longitude and   the latitude, this representation is clearly nothing other than the Mercator projection. For the scale factor, the formulas from Article 7 give

 

If we choose for   an imaginary exponential function, starting with the simplest one  , we have

 

and

 

which is easily recognized as the stereographic projection.

If we generally set   we have:

 

For the scale factor, we obtain

 

hence

 

We see that here the representations of all points for which   is constant occur along a circle, and the representations of all points for which   is constant along a straight line, moreover, the circles corresponding to all different values of   are concentric. This provides a very useful projection for maps when it is only necessary to represent a part of the surface of the sphere, and then the best thing to do is to choose   so that the scale factor is the same for the extreme values of   so that it takes its smallest value towards the middle. If the extreme values of   are   and   then we should set

 

The sheets of celestial maps Nos. 19 to 26 by Prof. Harding are constructed using this projection.

11. edit

The general solution of the example treated in the previous article can also be presented in another form, which we think should be added here due to its elegance.

According to the considerations presented in Article 6, since

 

is a function of

 

and

 

the general solution can also be given by

 

meaning that   should be set equal to the real part, and   should be set equal to the imaginary part of   where   denotes an arbitrary function. Instead of  , it is easy to see that one can also take an arbitrary function of   or  

12. edit

Fourthly, let us consider the representation of the surface of an ellipsoid of revolution on the plane. Let   and   be the two principal semi-axes of the ellipsoid, so that we can set

 

Then we have

 

and the differential equation  , if we set   for short (with the revolution semi-axis  ), is

 

If we then set

 

where, when applied to the terrestrial spheroid,   represents the geographical latitude and   the longitude, this equation transforms into

 

the integration of which gives

 

Therefore, with   denoting an arbitrary function, we must take for   the real part and for   the imaginary part of

 

If we choose a linear function for  , i.e.,   we will have

 

which provides a projection analogous to that of Mercator.

If, on the other hand, we choose an imaginary exponential function for  , i.e.,   we will have

 

which, for  , provides a projection analogous to the stereographic polar projection, which in general is very advantageous for representing a part of the earth's surface in cases where flattening needs to be taken into account.

As for what remains to be said about the other case where   it would indeed be easy to deduce it from the preceding discussion where, while retaining the same notation, epsilon is imaginary, but where   will still be real. However, to be complete, let us indicate the formulas specific to this case, and to begin, let us set   We must then determine   using the equation

 

and the differential equation

 

yields the integral

 

so we must take for   the real part and for   the imaginary part of

 

We can then immediately derive the analogues of the two particular cases considered earlier. For the first one, we must set

 

and for the second one

 

13. edit

As a final example, we will discuss the general representation of the surface of an ellipsoid of revolution on that of the sphere.

We will retain the notations for the ellipsoid from the previous article, and denote the semi-diameter of the sphere by  , and we will set

 

Applying the general solution from Article 5, with   denoting an arbitrary function, we find that we must set   equal to the real part and   equal to the imaginary part of

 [1]

The simplest solution is obtained by setting   hence

 

This provides an extremely useful transformation in higher geodesy, of which we can only indicate a few details here in passing. In particular, if we consider points on the ellipsoid's surface and on the sphere's surface as corresponding when they have the same longitude and their respective latitudes,  , are related by the equation above, then a system of relatively small triangles (which will always be the ones that can be used for actual measurements), formed on the surface of the ellipsoid by geodesic lines, will correspond to a system of triangles on the surface of the sphere, whose angles are exactly equal to the corresponding angles on the ellipsoid, and whose sides differ so little from arcs of great circles that, in most cases where the strictest accuracy is not required, they can be regarded as such; however, when the greatest accuracy is necessary, the deviation from the arc of a great circle can be easily evaluated with all the necessary precision using simple formulas. The entire system can be calculated using angles, as if it were on the sphere itself (after appropriately transferring one side of one of the triangles to the sphere, and making the necessary adjustments), then determining the values of   and   for all points in the system, and from these latter values one can go back to the corresponding values of   (the simplest way to do this will be to use an auxiliary table, which is easy to construct).

As a network of triangles only extends over a very small part of the Earth's surface, the desired goal will be achieved even more completely if we further generalize the general solution by taking not   but   Obviously, there would be absolutely nothing gained if we attributed a real value to this constant, since then   and   would simply differ by that constant, and consequently only the origins of longitudes would change. But it is quite different when the constant is attributed an imaginary value. If we set it   then we will have

 

In order to recognize the most suitable value of   here, we must first determine the magnification ratio.

In this case, with the notation of Articles 5 and 6, we have

 

Moreover,

 

which consequently depends only on the latitude. The smallest possible deviation from complete similarity is obtained if we determine   so that   takes equal values for the extreme latitudes, which will clearly cause   to take a value very close to its maximum or minimum for the average latitude. If we denote the extreme values of   by   and   we obtain in this way

 

To determine at which latitude   reaches its maximum or minimum value, we have

 

from which

 

From this, it is clear that   reaches its maximum or minimum value when   if we denote the value of   at this point by   we have

 

from which   can be derived, once   has been calculated using the previous formula. However, in practice, it matters little whether there is a perfectly rigorous equality of the values of   at the extreme latitudes, and one can be content with approximately taking the average latitude for  , and deriving   from there. The general relation between   and   is then given by the formula

 

For effective numerical computations, it is more advantageous to use series, which can take several forms, but we will not delve into their development here.

Moreover, as one can easily see, for   we have   so   and therefore   is negative; for   we have   and thus   is positive. Thus it is clear that for   the value of   will always be a minimum, which moreover is

 

Therefore, if we take the radius of the sphere to be

 

then the smallest parts of the representation of the ellipsoid for latitude   are not only similar but also equal to the original; but for other latitudes, it is larger.

It is advantageous to expand the logarithm of   into a series of powers of   whose first terms, which suffice in practice, are as follows:

 

Therefore, if we map e.g. the Danish monarchy onto the surface of the sphere between the boundaries defined by latitudes   and   and if we set   then, with a flattening of   the representation at the boundaries, linearly evaluated, will only be enlarged by  

We must be content here to have given only a brief indication of one method of representing figures in higher geodesy, reserving a properly detailed exposition for another occasion.

14. edit

We still need to consider here in a slightly more detailed manner a circumstance that arises in our general solution. We have shown in Article 5 that there are always two solutions; either   must be equal to a function of   and   equal to a function of   or   must be equal to a function of   and   to a function of   We now want to further prove that in one of the solutions the parts of the representation have a position similar to that of the original, and that conversely in the other solution they are placed inversely. We also want to indicate a criterion by which this can be recognized a priori.

But before that, let us note that there can only be direct or inverse similarity if we distinguish two sides for each of the two surfaces, one of which will be regarded as the upper side and the other as the lower side. Since this distinction is somewhat arbitrary, the two solutions, in fact, are not essentially distinct, and inverse similarity becomes direct similarity, as soon as for one of the surfaces, the side previously considered as the upper is now regarded as the lower. Therefore, this distinction could not arise in our solution, since the surfaces are simply determined by the coordinates of their points. If one wishes to introduce this distinction, one must first determine the nature of the surface by another method that entails this distinction. To this end, we assume that the nature of the first surface is determined by an equation   where   is a given uniform function of   Thus, at all points on the surface, the value of   vanishes, and at all points in space that do not belong to the surface, it does not vanish. Therefore, when crossing the surface, the value of   changes, in general at least, from positive to negative, and vice versa during the reverse passage; that is to say, on one side of the surface, the value of   will be positive, and on the other, negative; we will consider the former side as the upper side, and the latter as the lower side. We will make the same conventions for the second surface, with its nature determined by an equation   where   denotes a given uniform function of the coordinates   Differentiation then yields

 

where   are functions of   and   of  

Since the considerations we must employ for our envisaged purpose, although not inherently difficult, are of a somewhat unusual nature, we will strive to provide them with the greatest clarity. Between the two representations that correspond on the surfaces   and  , we consider six intermediate representations on the plane, so that we have to consider eight representations, namely:

 

We will now compare these various representations based only on the sense of their infinitely small linear elements, leaving the magnification ratio aside entirely; thus two representations will be considered to have the same sense when, given two linear elements issuing from a point, the one on the right in one representation corresponds to the one on the right in the other: otherwise, they will be said to have the opposite sense. For planes 2 through 7, the side where the positive value of the third coordinate is found will always be regarded as the upper side; for the first and last surfaces, on the other hand, the distinction between the upper and lower sides depends on where the values of   and   are positive and negative, as agreed upon earlier.

Here it is clear that at each point on the first surface, where for constant   and  , one moves to the upper side by a positive increase in   the representation on 2 will have the same sense as that on 1. This will obviously happen whenever   is positive, and for negative  , the opposite will occur, and the representations will then have the opposite sense.

Similarly, the representations on 7 and 8 will have the same or opposite sense depending on whether   is positive or negative.

To compare representations 2 and 3, consider on the first one an infinitely small line of length   drawn from the point with coordinates   to another point with coordinates   and let   be the angle that this line makes with the x-axis, measured in the direction from the x-axis to the y-axis, so that

 

In representation 3, let   be the length of the line corresponding to   and let   be the angle it makes with the x-axis, counted as before, such that  

Consequently, with the notation from Article 4, we have

 

and thus

 

If we now consider   and   as constants and   as variables, differentiation gives us

 

Thus we see, that depending on whether   is positive or negative,   and   always increase in the same direction or vary inversely, and thus, representations 2 and 3 have the same sense in the former case and the opposite sense in the latter.

Combining this result with the one previously found, it is recognized that representations 1 and 3 have the same or opposite sense depending on whether   is positive or negative.

Since on the surface with the equation   we have

 

we will also have

 

no matter the ratio of   and   thus it is obviously identical,

 

From this it follows that   are proportional to the quantities   respectively, and therefore

 

Therefore, as a criterion for whether the representations 1 and 3 have the same or opposite since, any of these three expressions, or alternatively, multiplying them by the essentially positive quantity   the symmetric expression thus obtained

 

Similarly, the representations 6 and 8 will have the same or opposite sense depending on whether

 

or if preferred, the symmetric expression

 

has a positive or negative value.

The comparison of the senses of representations 3 and 4 relies on principles entirely similar to that of 2 and 3, and depends on the positive or negative sign of the quantity

 

likewise, the positive or negative sign of

 

will determine the relationship between the senses of representations 5 and 6.

Finally, concerning the comparison of representations 4 and 5, we can refer to the analysis of Article 5, which clearly shows that they have the same or opposite sense depending on whether the first or the second solution is chosen, that is to say, depending on whether we set

  and  

or

  and  

From all this, we conclude that when the representation on the surface with equation   must not only be similar in its smallest parts to the original with equation   but must also have the same sense, one must consider the number of negative quantities among the following four:

 

If this number is zero or even, the first solution should be chosen; if among the above quantities one or three are negative, the second solution should be chosen. For the opposite choice, inverse similarity will always be found.

Moreover, it can be further demonstrated, denoting the four previous quantities respectively by   that we always have

 

where   and   have the same meaning as in Article 5. We omit the easily found demonstration of this theorem; indeed, this theorem is not necessary for our intended purpose.

  1. Here we will partly neglect the second solution from Article 5, which differs only in that   is replaced with   and would correspond to an inverse representation, and also the case of an elongated ellipsoid, which obviously reduces to that of the flattened ellipsoid according to what was done in the previous article.