Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 124 (1993) 305-328.

9 Springer-Verlag 1993

The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem

V. JURDJEVlC

C o m m u n i c a t e d by P. HOLMES

Introduction

The plate-ball problem, introduced recently by BgOCI~ETT& DAI [2], con-

sists in the following kinematic situation: A ball rolls without slipping between
two horizontal plates separated by the distance equal to the diameter of the
ball. It is assumed that the lower plate is fixed, and that the ball is rolled
through the horizontal movement of the upper plate. The problem is to
transfer the ball from a given initial position and a given initial orientation
to a prescribed final position and final orientation along a path which
minimizes c ~0r ]j V(t)[I 2 dt among all possible paths which satisfy these bound-
ary conditions. V(t) denotes the velocity of the moving plate, T is the time
of transfer, and c is a positive constant.
We regard this problem as an optimal-control problem on the five-dimen-
sional Lie group G = ~ 2 x S 0 3 ( ~ ) described by the differential system

dx1 = dx 2 dR (t) _ R (t) 0 0 - u2 .

(1) dt Ul' ~ = u2, dt Ul u2 0

R ( t ) is the rotation matrix in SOs(JR), and Ul and u2 are the control func-
tions. The problem is to minimize 89~0z (Ul2 + u~) dt over all solution curves
g ( t ) = (x~(t), xz(t), R ( t ) ) of (1) which satisfy the prescribed boundary con-
ditions g(0) = (x ~ x2~ R0) and g ( T ) = (xl, xz~, R~) in G. For convenience
we have chosen the components of velocity of the center of the ball as the
control functions, rather than the components of the velocity of the moving
plate, and we have also assumed that the radius of the ball is 1. Then the
velocity of the moving plate is twice the velocity of the center of the ball.
Finally, we have normalized the problem by choosing c = ~.
Aside from a brief discussion of the plate-ball problem, BROC~ZETT& DAI
[2] do not attempt to find its solutions. Rather, they consider the problem of
. . . .
mlmmlzmg 89~0T (u 2 + v2) dt over the solution curves of the following poly-
306 V. JVRDJEWC

nomial system in RS:

dx dy dz dm dn
-- = u, -- = v, -- = yv - yu, - - = x2v, -- = y2u ,
dt dt dt dt dt
which they regard as an approximation of the ball-plate problem. They show
that the optimal controls for this problem are given by elliptic functions.
In this paper we show that the original problem is also integrable in terms
of elliptic functions. The solutions reveal an interesting connection between
this problem and the classical problem of the elastica. That is, the solutions
show that each optimal path of the center of the ball also minimizes 89j k 2
where k denotes the geodesic curvature associated with the curve traced by the
center of the ball. The problem of minimizing 89I k2ds is known as the
elastica problem, and has a rich history originating with EU~ER'S pioneering
work in 1744. (There is an interesting survey paper of TRU~SDEL~ [10] on this
subject, which also contains EtJLER's original sketches of the elastic curves.)
Any movement of the center of the ball falls into two geometric types,
depending on whether the curvature changes its sign along the movement, or
not. In the elastica context, Love [6] calls these two types inflectional and non-
inflectional.
As in the theory of planar elastic rods, these two geometric types are
analogous to a mathematical pendulum which KIRCnHOFF called a kinetic
analogue of the elastica. The inflectional case is analogous to a pendulum with
insufficient total energy to clear the top, while in the non-inflectional case the
pendulum goes over the top. The critical case, where the pendulum just
reaches the top, but does not go over, corresponds to the elastica along which
the geodesic curvature may be equal to zero at certain points, but never
changes sign.
This basic geometry is further reflected in the rotational kinematics of the
ball, and accounts for the bifurcations in the solutions at the critical case. The
bifurcating characteristics will be explained in terms of the changes in Euler
angles associated with each rotation matrix. If along a particular motion an
Euler angle is constantly increasing, then we say that the ball rolls in that
direction. If an angle oscillates between two extreme values then we say that
the ball wobbles in that direction. It turns out that the number of wobbling
angles increases from 1 to 2 near the critical case depending on the geometric
type.
We shall analyze this problem through the Hamiltonian formalism
generated by the Maximum Principle. We shall show that the Maximum Prin-
ciple produces a single Hamiltonian function H on the cotangent bundle T*G
of G. Even though T*G is a ten-dimensional manifold, it follows that there
are sufficient symmetries in the problem which allow for the extremal equa-
tions to be solved by quadratures.
The paper is organized as follows. Section I contains a discussion of the
derivations of the kinematic equations. Section 2 deals with the basic language
of Lie groups, Lie algebras and the invariant vector fields. The control prob-
lem is formulated as an optimal problem for a driftless, affine control system
defined by two left-invariant vector fields X1 and X2, which generate the
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 307

entire Lie algebra of G. Section 3 contains a derivation of the Hamiltonian

obtained through the Maximum Principle. This section also contains the basic
facts concerning the properties of the Poisson bracket, and the structure of
the cotangent bundle T*G of G. Section 4 contains the equations of motions,
their integrals of motion, and the integrability properties.
These equations of motion are then integrated in terms of suitable coor-
dinates in Section 5. Finally Section 6 contains a complete geometric analysis
of the solutions based on the formulas derived previously.

1. Kinematic equations

We begin by deriving the kinematic equations of motion for the ball. Let
q = (ql, q2, q3) denote the coordinates of a point in fR3 relative to a fixed
right-handed orthonormal frame el, e2, e3 centered at a point O in the sta-
tionary plane, with e3 perpendicular to this plane and pointing upward.
al, a2, and a3 denote a right-handed orthonormal frame fixed to the ball at
its center. This setting is shown in Fig. 1.

,t obO4
i/
Fig. 1. Kinematic configuration

The frame al, a2, a3 is called the moving frame. The coordinates of any
point of N3 relative to this moving frame are denoted by Q = (Q1, Q2, Q3),
R denotes the rotation matrix which transforms the coordinates relative to the
moving frame onto the coordinates relative to the stationary frame. That is,

qlel + q2e2 + q3e3 = Qlal + Q2a2 + Qsa3

if and onlY if q = (ql, q2, qs) = (Q1, Q2, Q3)R = OR.
Each motion of the ball is described by the motion of its center and the
motion of the moving frame. We need extra notations in order to be more
specific. For any point A in fR3, O-~ denotes the vector defined by the line
segment OA. If we denote by C the center of the ball, then OA = OC + CA.
We denote by qo = (x, y, 1) the coordinates of OC and by r the coordinates
of CA, both relative to the fixed frame. Then the coordinates q of OA are
given by q = qo + r.
Suppose now that A is a point on the surface of the ball. Each motion
of the ball results in a curve q(t) = qo(t) + r(t) which describes the motion
308 V. JURDJEVIC

of A. If Q denotes the coordinates of A relative to the moving frame, then

r ( t ) = Q R ( t ) for some path R ( t ) in SO3(0~).
The path qo(t) of the center of the ball is described by ( x ( t ) , y ( t ) ) , the
coordinates of OC relative to el and e2. It therefore follows that each motion
of the ball is described by a path a ( t ) = ( ( x ( t ) , y ( t ) ) , R ( t ) ) in R2xSO3(~).

The tangent vector ddta = ( ( d t ' ~ t ) ' ~ t ) b e l o n g s to the tangent space of

~ x S 0 3 ( ~ ) at each point a ( t ) .
We identify the tangent space of SO 3 (JR) at any point R in S 0 3 ( ~ ) as the
set of all matrices R ~ with 0 an antisymmetric matrix. Then,

dR [ o - o3(t) o2(t)
- - = R ( t ) ~ co3(t) 0 -co,(t)]
dt k,-co2(t) col(t) o/
for some functions oil(t), ~2(t) and ~o3(t). The vector (-0 = ~1el + co2e2 +
r 3 is the angular velocity generated by R ( t ) .
The kinematic equations which follow will be based on the assumption that
there is no slipping between the ball and the parallel planes which are in con-
tact with the ball. That means that --dq = 0 when A is the point of contact
dt
of the ball with the fixed plane, and that the velocity dq of the point of
dt
contact with the moving plane is equal to the velocity of the moving plane.
If we denote by uel + re2 the velocity of the upper plane, then the non-slip-
ping assumptions imply that

__dq=0 when r = (0,0, - 1 ) ,

dt

-- = uel + vez when r = (0, 0, 1).

dt
Since r ( t ) = Q R ( t ) , it follows that

.~ = Q .~7 = Q R ( t ) (-03 0 - 1 = r(t) x (-0 ( t )

- - (.0 2 (-01

dq(t) _ dqo(t)
with a~(t) = (a~l, (-02, o)3). Therefore, + r ( t ) xco(t). The non-
dt dt
slipping assumptions mean that

' dt'
0) + (0, 0, -1) xco,

(u,v, 0) = ( ~ ' dy 0"~ + (0,0, + l ) x c o .

dt ' /
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 309

dx dy & dy
Consequently, dt -0)2' dt o01 , u dt o)2, and v dt + o ) t . It then
follows that u = - 2 0 ) 2 and v = 20)1. If we now set us = 89u, u2 = 89v, we
get that

--
dt u~,
--
dt
u2, -- = R
dt
(0 o) 3
IA1
0
U2
o:)
2 9

It follows that the instantaneous angular velocity of the ball is equal to

e2 + 0)3e3, and is therefore always perpendicular to
0)(t) = u2(t) e l - u l ( t )
the path traced by the center of the ball.
It is known that any motion of the rolling sphere on the plane results in
0)3 = constant. (See, for instance, NEI~AgI( & Fu~AEv [9]). This fact is not
changed by the presence of the upper plane. It is convenient to assume that
0)3 = 0. Then our kinematic equations agree with equation (1). The general
case 603 = constant adds a constant drift to the rotational kinematics of the
ball, but beyond it, does not much change the underlying analysis.
The optimal problem which will be considered is the following: Suppose
that the ball is in an initial configuration (x0, Yo, Ro). This means that its
center is at (x0, Y0, 1) and its initial frame is described by the rotation matrix
T 2
R0. We want to minimize 89~o(ul + u~)dt among all trajectories of (1) which
emanate from this initial configuration and which also satisfy the terminal
boundary conditions ( x ( T ) , y(T), R ( T ) ) = (x~, Yl, R1), where (Xl, y~, R1),
and T > 0 are terminal data given a priori, that is, the center of the ball must
end at (xl, Yl, 1) and the ball must have its terminal orientation equal to R1.

2. Lie groups formalism

Let G = [~2X803([~). We regard G as a five-dimensional Lie group with

the group operation
(al, R1) (a2, R2) = (al + a2, R1R2)
for any points (ai, Ri) in G, i = 1, 2. The tangent space of G at the group
identity e = (0, I ) is equal to ~ 2 x s o 3 ( ~ ) with so3(rR) equal to the vector
space of all 3 x 3 antisymmetric matrices. We denote the space ~2 x so3 ( ~ ) by
2 ( G ) , and refer to it as the Lie algebra of G. For any element L in 2 ( G )
we denote by L the left-invariant vector field whose value at the identity is
equal to L. That is, if L = (a, A), then L ( v , R) = (a, RA) for all v E [R2, and
all R ~ S 0 3 ( ~ ). The Lie bracket on 2 ( G ) is given by [ ( a , A ) , (b,B)] =
(0, BA - A B ) for any ( a , A ) , (b, B) in ~ ( G ) . The Lie bracket conforms to
the usual formula [L, M] (e) = [L, M] for any L, M in ~-C~

An antisymmetric matrix A = (0 a 3 "--a

03 a_2oa)
1 is identified with
- - a2 al

the vector ~ = (al, a2, a3) in ~3. This choice of identification is motivated
310 V. JURDJSVIC

by the following formulae:

(1) vA = v x A for any point v = (/31, v2, '/33) in R 3.
(2) Let A and B be any antisymmetric matrices, given by 4 = (al, a2, a3),
and/~ = (hi, b2, b3). It follows that [A, B] = / ~ x A . Recall our convention
that [A, B] = BA - AB.
(i) For any antisymmetric matrices A and B, (etBAe -tn) = 4e -ts. This for-
tk
mula follows easily from the formula e*BAe -t~ = ~ = 0 ( - 1 ) k -- a dk B(A)
k!
where ad is the linear operator defined by a d B ( A ) = [A, BI. Hence,
tk
(etBAe -'~) = ]~~ o (--1) k - ad ~ B ( A ) . Then,
k~

ad B(A) = [B,A] = A x / ~ = A B ,

and by induction it follows that adkB(A) = A B k for any k. Hence,

o~ tk
(etBAe -tB) = E ( -1)k k~ 4BI~ = Xe -t~
k=O
More generally,
(ii) for any R in S03 (•), and any antisymmetric A, RAR-1 = AR-1. We shall
use this formula extensively in the integration procedures later on.

(00 )
It is convenient to work with the following basis for 2 ( G ) : el and e2 are
the standard unit vectors in N2, and

A1 = 0 0 1 , A2 = 0 0 0 , A3 = 1 0 .
0 1 -1 0 0 0 0
Then A1, A2, and As are the standard unit vectors in ~3. The following com-
mutator relations are easy to verify:

[A1, A2] = A3, [A3, A1] = A2, [A2, A3] = A 1.

We denote by E l , E2, A1, A2 and A3 the lefl-invariant vector fields whose

values at the identity are respectively equal to (el, 0), (e2, 0), (0, A1),
(0, A2) and (0, A3). Then, Et and E2 commute with every left-invariant vec-
tor field, and

[A1, A2] = - A 3 , [A3, A1] = - A 2 , [A2, A3] = - A 1 .

(Recall that the Lie bracket of left-invariant vector fields corresponds to the
negative of the matrix commutator rule.)
It is convenient for future reference to assemble the structure of 2 ( G ) as
in Table t. With this notation, equation (1) may be written as
de
(2) --o = Ul(t) Xl(g) + uzXz(g)
dt
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 311

Table 1

[,] A1 A2 A3 E1 E2

A1 0 -A 3 A2 0 0
A2 As 0 -A~ 0 0
A3 -A 2 A1 0 0 0
E1 0 0 0 0 0
~2 0 0 0 0 0

where g(t) = (x(t), y(t), R ( t ) ) , and X1 and X2 are respectively the left-in-
variant vector fields E1 - A 2 and E z + A1. It can be easily verified that the
Lie algebra generated by E 1 - L 2 and Ez +L1 is equal to 2 ( G ) , and
therefore it follows that for any go and g~ in G, and T > 0 there exist control
functions ul and u2 defined on [0, T] such that the corresponding trajectory
g(t) which emanates from go at t = 0, passes through gl at time T. That is,
the system is controllable, and therefore our optimal problem is well-posed.

3. The Maximum Principle

In order to apply the Maximum Principle to the above problem, it is

necessary to state it in its coordinate-free form on an arbitrary manifold,
rather than to quote its usual formulation in R n. For that reason we first
recall the basic facts about the cotangent bundle T*G of G and its canonical
symplectic form. To begin with, Hx denotes the Hamiltonian function
associated with a vector field X on G. Hx is defined by Hx(~) = ~ ( X ( g ) ) for
any ~ TgG. co denotes the canonical symplectic structure o n T*G. Each
function H on T*G determines its Hamiltonian vector field H through the for-
mula dH~(v) = co(v, I t ( ~ ) ) for all ~ T*G and v in T~(T*G). Throughout
the paper (H, F} denotes the Poisson bracket of the functions H and K The
relevant properties of these objects are assembled in the following proposition.
The details can be found in ARNOLD [1].

Proposition 1. Suppose that F and H are any smooth functions on the cotangent
bundle T*M of a smooth manifold M. Denote by {exp tH : t ~ R) the one-parameter
group of diffeomorphisms generated by the Hamiltonian vector field H of H. Then,
d
(i) {F,, H) (x) = -- F oexp tH(x)lt= 0 for each x in T*M.
dt
(ii) The Lie bracket [F, H] of two Hamiltonian vector fields F and H is a Hamil-
tonian vector field, and [F,,H] = E where E = {F, H].
(iii) If Hx and Hy are the Hamiltonians which correspond to smooth vector fields'
X and Y on M, then {Hx, Hy] = H[H,y].

It follows immediately from (iii) that the Hamiltonians of left-invariant vec-

tor fields on a w Lie group G form an algebra under the Poisson bracket. We
denote by h 1 and h 2 the Hamiltonians associated with E 1 and E2 respec-
312 V. JURDJEVIC

tively, and by H1, H2, and H s the Hamiltonians associated with A~, Az and
As. Their Poisson table is isomorphic with Table 1 and is given by Table 2:

Table 2
{, } //1 H2 H3 h1 ha
~, 0 -H3 h'2 0 0
& H3 o -H~ 0 0
H3 -& & 0 0 0
h~ 0 0 0 0 0
h2 0 0 0 0 0

We now return to the Maximum Principle and our variational problem.

This optimal problem generates two kinds of time-varying Hamiltonians: The
first Hamiltonian is - 89(u 2 + u 2) + ul(hl - H2) + u2(h2 + Hi), which cor-
responds to the multiplier of the cost function 89(u~ + u2) equaling - 1 .
The second Hamiltonian is u l ( h l - H2) + u2(h2 + H~), which corresponds to
the multiplier of the cost function equaling 0. We denote these two Hamilto-
nians by

(3) H 2 = _ 89~. (/A2 .{_/,/2) _~_ //1 (hi - H2) -I- //2 (h2 + H1), 2 = 0, 1.

The Maximum Principle asserts that an optimal trajectory g(t) in G de-

fined on an interval [0, T] and generated by the controls Ul(t) and u2(t) is
the projection of an integral curve ~(t) in T*G of H z subject to ~(t) ~ 0 for
some t in [0, T], and the maximality condition

(4) HZ(~(t), u(t)) = max H ~ ( ~ ( t ) , v)

vE R 2

for almost all t in the interval [0, T]. In this notation u(t) = ( u l ( t ) , u2(t)),
and v = (vl, v2).
Suppose that ~(t) is an integral curve of H 1. Since H 1 is a concave func-
tion of //i, and u2, and since there are no bounds on the size of controls,
its maximum occurs for //1 = h i - / 4 2 and //2 = h2 + HI. Hence, the max-
imality condition (4) means that such an optimal trajectory is the projection
of an integral curve of a single Hamiltonian vector field H associated with
H = 89(hi - H2) 2 + 89(h2 + HI) 2. We refer to the integral curves of H as the
regular extrema associated with our optimal problem.
/_/0 is a linear function of ul and //2. Along an integral curve ~ of H ~
generated by the controls ( u l ( t ) , /,/2(/')) the maximality condition ( 4 ) m e a n s
that (h 1 -/-/2) (~(t)) = 0 and (h 2 --k H1) ( { ( t ) ) = 0. Thus, if g(t) is the pro-
jection of an integral curve g of H ~ then the maximality condition (4)
results in further constraints through which the optimal control may yet be
determined. We refer to the integral curves of/_/0 which satisfy the maximali-
ty condition (4) as the abnormal extremals. It is known that an optimal trajec-
tory may be a projection of an abnormal extremal, but not a projection of
a regular extremal (Morrax~om~.Y [7].) However, in our situation, as we shall
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 313

presently show, every abnormal extremal, which is optimal, is also regular. So

the abnormal extremals here may be ignored without any loss of generality.
We address the abnormal extremals first.

Proposition 2. Suppose that ~ ( t) is an abnormal extremal. Then the corresponding

controls ua and u2 are of the form u a ( t ) = f ( t ) H z ( ~ ( t ) ) , and u 2 ( t ) =
- f ( t ) Ha (~(t)), with f ( t ) an arbitrary function. Furthermore, H 3 (~(t)) = con-
stant. If however, ~ projects onto an optimal trajectory, then the corresponding con-
trols must be constant, and H3(~(t) ) = 0 for any non-zero optimal trajectory.

Proof. Suppose that ~(t) is an integral curve of H ~ u a (ha - / / 2 ) + u2(h2 +H1)

subject to the conditions that (hi - H2) (~(t)) = (h2 + Ha) (~(t)) = 0. Upon
differentiating the constraints along ~, we get from Proposition l(i) that
{(ha - H2), H} (~(t)) = {(h2 + H1), H} (~(t)) = 0. Then, it follows from
Table 2 that - u2 (t) H3 (~ (t)) = 0, and that ua (t) H3 (~ (t)) = 0. Hence, either
Ul(t) = u2(t) = 0, or H3(~(t)) = 0.
Upon differentiating H3(~(t)) we get that
d
H3(~(t) ) = ( H 3 , H I ( ~ ( t ) ) = -Ua(t ) H a ( ~ ( t ) ) - u2(t )H2(~(t)) = 0 .

d
If Ul = u2 = 0, then dt H3 (~(t)) = 0, and therefore H3 (~(t)) = constant. But if

u~ + u~ > 0, then //3 (~(t)) = 0. Hence - U l ( t ) H1 (~(t)) - u2(t) Ha (~(t)) = 0.

This equation can only hold if ua = f ( t ) H2(~(t)), and u2(t) =
- f ( t ) H l ( ~ ( t ) ) for some function f ( t ) . The first part of the proposition is
now proved.
In order to get the second part of the proposition note that both h~ and
h: are constant along any trajectory of H ~ since they Poisson-commute with
H ~ Since furthermore, (hi - H:) (~(t)) = 0 = (ha + H1) (~(t)), it follows
t h a t / / 2 (~ (t)) = constant, and H a (~ (t)) = constant. We have proved that the
cost along an abnormal extremal is 89J0r (ul2 + u~) d t = ( H ~ + H~) j0rf2(t) dt.

For such controls dt

dR = ( f ( t ) ) R (0 0 0
0 -/42o ) 1 9 Hence R(t) =
H2 -H1
0
Ro eyof(s)~ with (2 = 0 0 Furthermore, x(t) = x(O) +
H2 -H a
H 2 j tof(s) ds, and y(t) = y(O) - H 1 ~ tof(s ) ds. Fixed boundary conditions
imply that ~ f ( t ) d t = constant.
If we now assume that Ul(t) and u2(t) are optimal, then ~orf2(t) dt is
minimal among all functions f subject to I r f ( t ) d t = constant. But this
condition implies that f ( t ) = constant, as can be easily seen from the
Cauchy-Schwarz inequality I J ~ f ( t ) dt] <= T 1/2 (j or f 2 ( t ) dt) 1/2. The equality
occurs only for f ( t ) = constant. So our proof is finished.
314 V. JURDJEVIC

We shall presently see that the regular extremals include the abnormal ex-
tremals with u s = constant, u2 = constant, and H ( ( ( t ) ) = constant.

4. The regular extremals

The regular extremals are the integral curves of the Hamiltonian vector
field H which corresponds to the system Hamiltonian H = 89(h 1 - H 2 ) 2 +
!2 (h 2 + H 1 ) 2 . Along any such curve ~(t) the controls are of the feedback
type us(t) = (h 1 - / / 2 ) (~(e)), u2(t) = (h2 + HI) ( ~ ( t ) ) . We have the follow-
ing proposition.

P r o p o s i t i o n 3 . Let ~(t) be a regular extremal. Denote h i ( t ) = h i ( ~ ( t ) ) ,

i = 1, 2, and Hi(t) = H i ( ~ ( t ) ) , i = 1, 2, 3. Then,
dh 1 dh2
--0,
dt de

(5) = d H i (hi - H2)/-/3, --=dH2 (h2 + H1) H3 ,

de de
dH3
- hill1 - h2H2.
dt
Proof. We use Proposition l(i):

dhi = [hi, H } ( r = (h 1 - H2) {hi, h 1 - / - / 2 } ( ~ ( t ) )

de
+ (h2 + H1) [hi, h2 + H1} ( r
Since h i commutes with every element in the Table 2 we get that dhi/dt = O.
The rest follows completely analogously. We have
dH~
= {HI, H} = (h l - H2) {H1, hi - H2} = (h~ - H 2)//3,
dt

dHz = [H2, H} = (h 2 + H 1) {/42, H I / = (h2 + H I ) / / 3 ,

dt
dH3
= {H3, HI = (h~ - H2) {H3, - H 2 ] + (h2 + I'I1) {H3,1-111
dt
= - H l ( h I -/-/2) -- Hz(h2 + HI) = - h l H 1 - h2H2.
The p r o o f is now finished.

Corollary 1. There are four integrals of motion, along each regular extremal. They
are h~ = constant, ha = constant, H = 89(hi -- H2) 2 + 89 (h2 + Ha) 2, and M =

The p r o o f is evident, and is omitted.

 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 315

Corollary 2. The regular extremals include the following solutions:

(i) H 1 = constant, H 2 = constant, and H 3 = constant, with hi = 112 and
h2 = - H 1 .
(ii) H 1 = constant, 112 = constant, 113 = O, and hi = -)~H2, h2 = 2H1 f o r an ar-
bitrary constant ~.

Again the proof is evident and is omitted. The solutions singled out in
Corollary 2 justify the claim made earlier that the abnormal extremals which
correspond to optimal solutions are also regular: The solution in (i) corres-
pond to ul = u2 = 0. The solution in (ii) corresponds to Ul = h i - / / 2 =
- ( 2 + 1//2, and ~ = h 2 + H l = ( 2 + 1) H1. Hence u l = f H 2 and u z = f H 1
with f = - ( 2 + 1).
We are now ready to draw an analogy with the equations for the rigid-body
motion. The system Hamiltonian H is analogous to the total energy of the
body, while M is analogous to its angular momentum. However, in this case
H is a cylinder, rather than the energy ellipsoid for a rigid body. Therefore,
the extremals are the intersections of the energy cylinder with the momentum sphere
(Fig. 2).

(a) (13) (c)

Fig. 2. Extremal curves

The extremal equations of Proposition 3 can be conveniently expressed as

a Lie bracket of two matrices on 2 as follows: Let

o -H3(t) Hz(t)
P(t)= H3(t) 0 -H l(t)),
\-H2(t) Hi(t)

0 0 -- (h I -- H2) )
t2(t) = o o -(he +H~) ,
(hi -/-/2) (h2 + Hi) 0
In the notations introduced in Section 2, the extremal equations for
d
H 1, H: and /-/3 can be rephrased as - - ( H I , / / 2 , / / 3 ) = (H1, H2,//3) x
dt
316 V. JURDJEVIC

d~
(h2 + H1, - (hi - H2), 0). Hence, - - = / S x t ? , and using formula (i) o f
dt
Section 2, we get that

(6) dP [s P]
dt

In Hamiltonian mechanics such a differential equation is said to be in Lax-

pair form. It then follows immediately that R ( t ) P ( t ) R - l ( t ) is a constant
antisymmetric matrix A for any extremal solution (R(t), P(t)). The proof is
simple:

d RPR_ 1 Rf2PR -1 - RPDR -I + R[Y2, P] R -1 O.

dt

5. Integration

Each extremal solution (x(t), y(t), R(t), hl, h2, P(t)), with P(t) as
defined by equation (6), is contained in a four-dimensional integral sub-
manifold of T*G defined by the following equations:

R(t) P ( t ) R - l ( t ) = constant, H = 89(h~ - / / 2 ) 2 + 89(h 2 + H1) 2 = constant,

h 1 = constant, and h 2 = constant.

Denote by A the constant antisymmetric matrix such that R P R - I = A.
Then the spectrum of P(t) is constant. But the characteristic polynomial of
P(t) is equal to 2 ( 2 + H~ + H~ + H32) = 2 ( 2 2 + M). Hence the square root
of the angular momentum M is equal to the characteristic frequency of P(t).
We shall presently show that there are coordinates 0, ~bl, ~b2, 4~3 for the
above four-dimensional integral manifold in terms of which the extremal equa-
tions can be integrated by quadratures. To begin with, assume that
hi2 + h 2 > 0, and define a phase shift a by cos o~ = + h~, sin c~ = h~/~/~
h2/x/h~ + h22. We assume that o~ = 0 when hi = h2 = 0. Using the phase shift
oe, define an angle 0 through the formulas

hi - H2(t) = w / ~ cos (0(t) + a ) , h2+Hl(t) =x/~ sin (O(t) +o~).

Then

- w/2H sin (0 + o~) dO _ d (h 1 _ _ Hl(t)) ---~ __ dH 2

dt dt dt

= -- ( h 2 + HI) //3 = -~f2-H sin (0 + o~) H3(t).

Hence,
dO(t)
- H3 ( t ) .
dt
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 317

Differentiating further we get that

d20 _ dH3 _ hlHl - h2H2

dt 2 dt
= -ha (x/~ sin(0 + cd - h2) - hz(hl - x / ~ cos(0 + c~))

= -hi x/~ sin(0 + o~) + h2 w / ~ cos(0 + ~ ) .

Since - h I sin(0 + c~) + h 2 COS(0 -t- 0/) = - N/h -2 -t- h 2 sin 0, it follows that
d20
(7) -- + A sin 0 = 0, with A = ~/2H(h 2 + h~).
dt
Equation (7) is the equation for the mathematical pendulum. Its total
energy E is determined by our integrals of motion M = H~ + H22 + H~, the
system Hamiltonian H, and the constant h~ + h 2 . We have

M=H~+H~+H~= (x/~ sin(0 + a) - h2) 2

"4- ( % / ~ COS(0q-ol)-hl)2+ d(~/~) 2

= 2 H + h~ + h~ - 2 x / ~ h2 sin(0 + o~) - 2 x / ~ hi cos(0 + c~) + k, dt]

2
= + - + cos 0 + "

Therefore
1 (M-2H-h21-h22) = -Acos0+ 1 (dO'~ 2
7 2 ~dt] "

Thus, E = 89( M - 2 H - (h~ + h22)) is the total energy of the pendulum, and
dO
(8) --= 4- X/2 (E + A cos 0) .
dt
Recall that ul -- ha - H2 -- x / ~ cos(0 + o~) and that u2 = h2 + H1 =
x / ~ sin(0 + od.
The extremal equations simplify considerably if we transform all the coor-
dinates according to the following transformation:
(2, y) = (x, y) ( cos c~ - s i n c~],
\ sin o~ cos a /

(cosc~ -sino~
(9) /~ = RRo with Ro = siO
n ~ cos
0

COS o~
i)
- s i n o?~
P = RolPRo, (hlh2) = (hi, h2) sin / o

COS ~ ]
318 V. JURDJEVIC

(00 o:)
It is convenient to introduce the following notations:

= 0 0 2 , ua=X/~cosO, u2=x/~sinO.
~2 ~2
In terms of these notations,
dR dR
- Ro = R~Ro = RRo(R~-2~Ro) = R ~ ,
dt dt

dff dP

(0
dtt = R~ dt R~ = RO-2[g2' P] R~ = [~' P]"

If, furthermore, fi = /~3 0 1 , then

-& &
1-71 = H 2 cos o~ + H2 sin a, H2 = - H 1 sin a + H 2 cos o~, H3 = H3.

Upon substituting h2 - H2 = X / ~ cos(0 + c~), and h2 + H1 = x / ~ sin(0 + 0~)

in these relations we get

/41 = x / ~ sin 0, /-t2 = - x / ~ cos 0 + ~fh-~ + h 2 .

Using hi = x/h~ + h 2 and h2 = 0 we finally get that

/-72 = ~2, /72 = - ~ 1 + hi-

The effect of this transformation is to eliminate the phase shift c~. The
transformed energy cylinder is rotated so that its center is on the H2-axis.
Furthermore, the transformed coordinates ~, y of the center of the ball satisfy

(10) --=d~ N / ~ cos 0, --=dYx / ~ sin 0.

dt dt
It remains to find the coordinate angles 02, 02, and 03 in terms of which
the rotation matrix /~(t) can be integrated by quadratures. These angles are
defined through the formula
(11) /~ (t) = e ~1(t)A3e*2 (t)A2e*3 (t)A3

where the matrices A2, A2, and A 3 have the same meaning as before (Ai = ei,
i = 1, 2, 3). This representation agrees with the usual representation in terms
of Euler angles.
Since dfi/dt = [s P], it follows by the same argument used previously, that
R(t) f i ( t ) / ~ - l ( t ) = J l, for some constant matrix A. We assume that A is of
the form A = X/MA 3 . This condition can always be arranged through a
suitable rotation from the left. (That is, the original system is left-invariant,
and therefore left multiplications permute solutions.) This particular choice of
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 319

_/[ adapts naturally to the choice of coordinates in (11) for the following
reasons:

/:3(t) = %/rMt~ -1 (t) A3/~ (t) = x/M e - (h3A3 e - q52Aze - $1A3A3e 4'1A3e*2A2e$3A3

~- ~ / M 6' - ~b3A3e - 4)2A2A3 eq~2A2 e $3A3 .

Thus, = x / M e-%A3e-O2A2e3, from which it follows that

/~l(t) = - ~/M cos 43(t) sin 4z(t),

(12) /72(0 = X/r~ sin 43(t) sin 42(t) ,

Jq3(t) = x/M cos 4~z(t).

It is now easy to express 42 and 43 in terms of the angle 0. To

begin with, recall that /73 (t) = dO/dt = • ~/2 (E + A cos 0). Thus, ~/M cos 4z =
1
+~/2(E+A cos 0), and then sin 42 = • ~/-1-cos2 42 = • ~ x/M-Z(E+A cos 0).
0 s n0)
Since e 4~2Az= 0 1 0 , it follows that

(13)
( •
- s i n 42 0 cos 42

0 •
1 )
e 4)2A2 = 0 1 0 .

-T-@MMX/-M- Z(E + A cos O) 0 1 ~/2(E+Acos0)

• ~MM

We next compute 43:

~ 2 H sin 0 =/71 = - x / M cos 43 sin 42 = • 43%/1 - 2 ( E + A COS 0).

Therefore,
-T- % / ~ sin 0
(13a) COS 4 3 =
~/M - 2 (E + A cos 0~

/72 ( - 4 Y H cos 0 + hi)

-- -T-
sin 43 x/M sin 42 X/M - 2 (E + A cos 0)

At this point we could differentiate these relations in order to establish the

differential equations for 42 and 43. Instead of doing so, we proceed in a
more general way, which will also determine the differential equation
320 V. JURDJEVIC

for 01. We differentiate /~(t) = er162

dR= A3 dos eA3~5ieAzf52eA303+ dO2 eA34~1eAzO2A2eA303

_ _

+ d~b3 e61A3e~aA2e~3A313.
dt dt dt dt

The right-hand side of this equation can be rewritten as

R( t) (( e-A34)3e-A24~2e-A34hA3eA301eAz(~2eA3(~3)T +( e-A303A2eA303)~-
dO2+A3 9 )

d R --m
Since - - = RO, it follows that
dt

(/~(t) -2 A3/~(t)) ~dq~l

- + (e-A343A2eA363) dd~t2 q._A3 --dr
d03 = ~ ~-~u2A1 - UlA2"

~ m 1 --
Using the symmetry relation /~/5/~-1 _~. ~/M A3 we get that ~ P = R - A3R.
Upon substituting into the equation above, we get that x/M

d03
x/M dt
d()l + (e-A3Cb3A2eA363)
ddOt2
+ A3 dt = u2A1 - ulA2"

Then,

e A30
/cos03OS030
sin03 i)
and therefore e-A3~3e2= sin 03el + cos 03e2. Upon substituting this matrix
into the preceding equation we get
d03
1 dt (/qlel+/~2e2+/-t3e3) + d02
d01 dt (sin 03el + COS 03e2) + dtt e3
= u2el -- ~le2 .
Proceeding further we get
1 dq52 1 d01/~2 d02
d01/q 1 + sin 03 = ~2, + - - cos 03 = - ~ ,
dt dt ~ dt dt

1 drY1/q3 d03 = 0.

The first two of these equations may be written as

/~1 sin ~3 q~l u2

1 ~ '
~--/~2 COS03 62 --Ul
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 321

and then inverted to yield

with A = ~ -1 (iq 1 cos ~b3 - / q a sin 4~3).

It remains to express these equations in terms of the angle 0. To begin with,

using (12), we get that the determinant A is equal to

A = - s i n q 5 z = -y- -2(E+Acos0).

H2 --tql
Since sin 03 - x/M sin 4z , and cos~b 3 - x / M sinqSz , it follows that

-/71~ 2 +/72~ 1
g2 cos ~3 + ~1 sin ~3 = . Then,
sin ~2

-/41 g2 + Hzgl = - ( x / ~ sin 0 ) ( x / ~ sin 0) + ( - x/2H cos 0 + h l ) ( x / ~ cos 0)

= -2H+Acos 0,

/q2u2 +/-71 ul = ( - X / ~ cos 0 + hi) X / ~ sin 0 + ( w / ~ sin 0) ( x / ~ cos 0)

= A sin 0.
The differential equations for 41, 4~a, and q~3 are now immediate:
dO1 1 (2H - A cos 0) ~/M
dt - A (~2 cos q~3 + ul sin if3) M-2(E+AcosO)

(14) d~2 _ 1 (/~2/A2-t- / ~ l g l ) : A sin 0

dt A X/M 4- X/M - 2 (E + A cos 0) '

d~b3
m
tq3 dO1 (AcosO-2H)x/2(E+AcosO)
dt x/M dt M-2(E+Acos 0)

Equations (8), (10), and (14) contain the necessary integrability information
required for the solutions, and justify the claim made on page 16.

6. The geometry of the solutions

Let us concentrate first on the dynamics of the center of the ball. The ap-
propriate equations are (10), along with the equation for 0. When
reparametrized by 0, these equations become
d2 ~ 4 ~ cos 0 dy X / ~ sin 0
(15) - - = , - - =

dO x/2 (E + A cos O) dO x/2(E + A cos O)

322 V. JURDJEVlC

As we remarked earlier these equations are the same as those for the planar
elastica (see, for instance, JURDJEVIC [4]). The equations of the planar elastica
go back to EuL~R who made their initial study in 1744, and who also is the
originator of their name. For convenience to the reader we quickly summarize
the basic details concerning the elastic problems of Euler.
Let y(t) = (x(t), y(t)) be any curve in the plane, parametrized by its arc
length relative to some point on the curve. The geodesic curvature k along the
curve is given by k 2 = d2x d2Y
dt-~ +~t 2 . The elastica problem consists in finding
a curve, called the elastica, which minimizes 89~0r k2ds among all curves y
which satisfy the prescribed two-point boundary conditions. These boundary
conditions consist of an initial point in the plane, an initial tangent vector,
a terminal point, and a terminal tangent vector. If 0 is the angle that the unit
tangent makes with the horizontal line, then dx/dt = Cos 0, and dy/dt = sin 0.
Thus, k(t) = •
It turns out that along an elastica, 0 satisfies the equation for a mathe-
matical pendulum. The mathematical pendulum associated with angle 0 is
what KIRCHHOFF called the kinetic analogue of the elastic problem. Love [6]
distinguishes between two geometric types which he calls inflectional and non-
inflectional. The non-inflectional type occurs when E > A . Then, k(t)=
x/2(E + A cos0) is always positive (or, the pendulum has sufficient energy
to clear the top, and therefore O(t) is a monotone increasing function of
time.)
The inflectional type occurs when E < A. Then, there is a cut-off angle
00. The function O(t) is a periodic function of t. The function k(t) alternates
in sign as 0 oscillates back and forth between - 0 0 and 00. The critical case,
when the pendulum has just enough energy to reach the top, occurs when
E=A.
In all cases, the equation for y is easily integrated to yield y(O)=
1 a/2E + 2/1 cos 0 + constant, while the integral x(O) = I cos 0 dO
A t~X/f(E + A cos 0)
is in general an elliptic integral (of the third kind). The elliptic integral reduces
to a trigonometric integral in the critical case when E = A.
The sketch below (Fig. 3) describes these various geometric possibilities (the
reproductions of EULER'S original sketches can be found in the survey paper
of TRUESDELL [I0]),
Since EUL~R, the elastic problem has drawn a considerable amount of
mathematical attention continuing up to the present (BRYANT& GRIFFITHS [3],
LAN~ZR & SINCER [5], JURagJ~VlC [4], and MUMFORD [8]). In the present situa-
tion, /-/3 plays the role of geodesic curvature with E = 8 9 ( M - 2 H - ( h 2 + h ~ ) )
corresponding to the total energy of the Hamiltonian function associated with
its kinetic analogue.
This curious connection between the elastica problem, and the plate-ball
problem begs for further mathematical investigations, which unfortunately I
am not able to provide now. Instead, I just state the result explicitly for future
references in the form of a proposition.
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 323

J
I X
(o)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3

Proposition 4. Each optimal path of the center of the ball which corresponds to
the energy level H = 1 also minimizes 89 ~ k2 ds with k equal to the geodesic
curvature of the path.

Let us now consider the rotational kinematics of the problem, with a par-
ticular focus on the geometric significance of the kinetic analogue and its
geometric type. The simplest motions occur when h 2 = h 2 + h 2 = 0.
Then A = 0, and therefore dO/dt = • (cf. (8)). Thus, 0 is constant
when E = 0. In such a case, it follows from (10) that the center of the ball
moves along a straight line. The controls (u~, u2) which produce the straight
line motion are constant, and therefore the ball rotates with constant angular
velocity 09 = u z e t - ule2. As expected, this angular velocity is perpendicular
to the line traced by the center. The magnitude of co is equal t o [[co I1 =
+ = 2H.
Suppose now that E > 0, and maintain the assumption that h 2 + h 2 = 0.
Then 0 ( t ) = • 00. But then, using equations ( 1 5 ) w e get that

--= 4-. -- cos0, and - - = 4- in0. Hence x(O) = 4- inO+xo,

dO E. dO

y(O) = -T- cos 0 +Y0, and the center of the ball moves along a circle
/_.___..

whose radius is equal to . x / H .

The rotational kinematics can be analyzed through the associated Euler's

angles 41, ~2, and 4~3- It follows from equations (14) that
=,/-m, dO2 _ 0, d03 _
dt dt dt
324 V. JURDJEVIC

These rotations are described by two angular velocities cot = x/M e 3 and
o)2 = - x / ~ e 3 . The entire motion, including the circular motion of the cen-
ter of the ball may be viewed as a motion on T 3 = S 2 • 2. This motion
is closed if and only if [[coi IJ/llco2]l is rational. Recall that when h 1 = h 2 =0,
then M = H 2 + H22 + H3, 2
H = g1 ( H 21 + H2) 2
, and E = 89(M - 2 H ) . Thus,
2E = H~, and M = 2H + H~. Hence,
flcolrl M z-/
+1,
l/co2lp 2 - 2 E - E

and therefore the motion is closed if and only if the radius traced by the center
of the ball is a rational number. The sketch of these solutions is contained
in Fig. 4.
Consider now a general solution. We distinguish between the following
geometric types: non-inflectional if E > A, critical if E = A, and inflectional
if E < A . Recall that E = ~ ( M - 2 H - ( h I 2+h22)), and A = x / 2 H ( h 2+h~).
These types can be easily seen in terms of Fig. 2, which represents the intersec-
tions o f the energy cylinder H = 89((/-/2 - hi) 2 + (H1 + h2) 2) with the mo-
mentum sphere M = H 2 + H22 + H32.
The effect of the transformation employed earlier which transformed
the variables (H~,/-/2, H3) into H~, H2 and 1-73 is to rotate (hi, h2) into
(~/~12 + h 2 , 0), and thus to place the center of the energy cylinder on the
/72-axis at the point ~ - 2 + h ~ . Since 2 ( E - A ) = M - 2 H - ( h ~ + h 2 2 ) -
2x/2H(h 2+hE) = M - ( ' V ~ + x[h 2 + h~)2, the geometric types are
determined according to the sign of M - ( x / ~ + x/(h~ + h22)) 2. But,
( x / ~ + x/h~ + h22 )2 is the value of the extreme point on the/72-axis which
is on the energy cylinder. We have therefore obtained the following description
for the geometric types:
Let $1 and $2 be the circles on the momentum sphere and the energy
cylinder respectively, contained in the plane /73 = 0. Then, the non-inflec-
tional type occurs precisely when $2 is contained in $1. The critical type oc-
curs when these circles are tangent to each other along the/72-axis, and the
inflectional type occurs when these circles intersect transversally. The straight-
line movement occurs in the critical case ($1 = $2), while the circular move-
ment is of non-inflectional type because $2 is contained inside $1 (see Fig. 2).
We now assume that H and M are fixed, and w e study the kinematic
behaviour as the center of the energy cylinder changes. For simplicity we assume
that H = 89 Then A = x/2H(h~ + h e) = ~ + h22. So we study the depen-
dence of the solution on the parameter A. In particular we are interested in
the influence on the kinematics of the ball of the bifurcation occurring at the
critical case M = (1 + A ) 2. Our observations will be made in terms of the
Euler angles ~b1 , q~2, and ~b3 defined by (1!).
Recall that equations (14) are derived under the assumption that A =

-sin~b2=-4-~1~ x/M--2(E+A cos 0) is never equal to zero. It follows

X/M
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 325

that
(1-A)2=M-2(E+A) <=M-2(E+AcosO)<=M-2(E-A) = (I+A) 2

In order to ensure that all solutions remain in this coordinate chart we assume
that 0 < A < 1. The critical case M = (1 + A ) 2 also remains in this coor-
dinate chart for M < 4.
We begin with the discussion of the non-inflectional type. Since E > A,
there is no value of 0 such that x / 2 ( E + A cos 0) is equal to zero. We
assume that dO~dr = x/2 (E + A cos 0) > 0. Since H3 = dO/dt, this assumption
implies that we are choosing the solution branch in the upper hemisphere of the
momentum sphere (Fig. 2a).
We recall equations (14):

dq~l = (1 - A cos 0 ) ~ dq52 A sin 0

dt M - 2 ( E + A cos 0) dt ~ / M - 2(E + A cos 0)

dq53 (A cos 0 - 1)x/2 (E + A cos 0)

dt M- 2(E + A cos 0)

It is clear that dq~l/dt > 0, and d~3/dt < 0 for all t. Hence, both 4q(t) and
-(h3 (t) are monotone increasing with time. Moreover, it follows from (12) that
1
/-/3 = ~ cos 4~2. Thus cos q52 > 0, and therefore cos Oz = ~ x/2 (E + A cos 0).

Since A = - s i n 4~a * 0, it follows that ~2 is confined to an interval con-

rained in ( - g~, 7~2~) which does not contain zero. If ~2 > 0, then sin 4~z =

1 x/A2 + 1 - 2 , 4 cos 0. (Recall that M - 2 ( E + A cos 0) ---AZq - 1 - 2 A COS 0.)

Assuming further that b o t h / 7 1 ( 0 a n d / t 2 ( t ) are positive for small values of

0 as depicted in Fig. 2a, then according to (12) and (13a),
sin 0 -cos 0 + A
cos~3= , sin~3= -- 9
X/A2 + l - 2 A c o s 0 x/A 2 + l - 2 A c o s 0
We then have the following proposition.

Proposition 5. Suppose that E > A and A < 1. Then,

(a) Either Ol(t) and -q53(t ) are both increasing, or they are both decreasing,
depending on whether O(t) is increasing or decreasing.
(b) When parametrized by O, both matrices e ~2(0)A2 and e ~3C~ are periodic with
period 2~z. The rotation matrix is periodic if and only if the elliptic integral
2~z

01(2~) - ~1(0) = x/M I (1 - cos ~) d~

*d + 1 - 2A + cos
0

is a rational multiple of 21r.

326 V. JuRDJ~VIC

Remark. The rotational movement described by the preceding proposition

may be viewed as a motion on the torus T 2 with the coordinate 49z playing
the role of the varying radius which changes from its minimal values

cos-l~MM ~ / 2 ( E - A ) t o its maximal value cos@M-~V/2(E+A).

Let us now consider the inflectional type (Fig. 2c). Since E < A, the angle
0 is confined to the interval - 0 e _-< 0 _< 0e with 0~ = cos-1E/A. As the pen-
dulum swings from -Oc to 0c, H3(t) is positive because H3(t) = dO/dt, and

//~ / "\\ /
H..!%

(Q)

e2

i
H1 ;-;" el

Ib)

(c)
Fig. 4. h = 0 .
 The Geometry of the Plate-Ball Problem 327

is equal to zero at the extreme points 4-0c. Since dH3/dt = A sin 0, it follows
that /-/3 reaches its maximum at 0 = 0. //3 is negative while the pendulum
swings from 0c back to -0~, reaches its minimum at 0 = 0, and then in-
creases to zero at 0 = - 0 ~ . The same pattern repeats with each swing of the
pendulum.
It is easy to see that d4~3/dt = 0 at the extreme values 0 = 4-0c. Thus,
oh3(t) oscillates between its extreme values cpa• and 4'3rain. These values are com-

puted from the expression (13a) to yield 8~nax= cos-1 sin Oc

with qS~nax min % / ~ + 1 - 2A cos 0c

~ e2

(a)

f
el
"/ ~ \

(b)

e2

e~
,. I . / - J*~ "S-~ n

(c)

Fig. 5. h # 0 .
328 V. JURDJEVIC

We then have

Proposition 6. Suppose that E < A < 1. Then

(a) 01 is an increasing function of time.
(b) Both 02 and 43 are periodic functions of period 20c.

The rotation matrix /~(t) is periodic if and only if

01(Oc) - 0 1 ( - 0 c ) = ~ (1 - cos 4) dO
( A S + 1 - 2 A cos 0 ) ~ / 2 ( M - A 2 - 1 + A cos 4)
-0c
is a rational multiple of 20c.
These last two propositions reflect the qualitative changes in the rotational
kinematics of the ball near the critical case, and clarify the remarks made in
the introduction: As the parameter A increases through the critical value
M = (1 + A) 2, the ball changes its movement from rolling in the e3 direction
to wobbling in the e3 direction. Figures 4 and 5 contain a pictorial s u m m a r y
of our results.

Acknowledgment. I am grateful to Professor R J. HOLMES for his comments and sugges-

tions, which led to important improvements of the original version of this paper.

References

1. V. ARNOLD,Mdthodes mathdmatiques de la mgcanique classique, Edition.s Mir, 1976.

2. R. BROCKETT& L. DAI, Non-holonomic kinematics and the role of elliptic func-
tions in constructive controllability, preprint.
3. R. BRYANT& P. GRIFEITHS, Reductions for constrained variational problems and
21 I k 2 ds, Amer. J. Math. 108 (1986), 525-570.
4. V. JURDJEVIC, Non Euclidean elastica, to appear in the Amer. J. Math.
5. J. LANGER& D. SINGER, The total squared curvature of closed curves, J. Diff.
Geom. 20 (1984), 1-22.
6. A. E. H. LovE, A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity (4th ed.), Cam-
bridge University Press, 1927.
7. R. MONTGOMERY,Geodesics which do not satisfy the geodesic equation, prepint.
8. D. MUMFORD, Elastica and computer vision, preprint.
9. J. I. NEIMARK& N. A. Fvra~v, Dynamics of nonholonomic system, Translations of
Mathematical Monographs, Amer. Math. Soc. Vol. 33, 1972.
10. C. TRUESD~L, The influence of elasticity on analysis: the classical heritage, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc. 9, (1983), 293-310.

Department of Mathematics
University of Toronto
Toronto, M5S IA1

(Accepted November 9, 1992)