Evolution of infectious diseases induced by epidemic prevention publicity and interaction between heterogeneous strains

Yike Lv; Xinzhu Meng; Yike Lv; Xinzhu Meng

doi:10.3934/era.2024223

Electronic Research Archive

2024, Volume 32, Issue 8: 4858-4886. doi: 10.3934/era.2024223

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Evolution of infectious diseases induced by epidemic prevention publicity and interaction between heterogeneous strains

Yike Lv ,
Xinzhu Meng ^,

College of Mathematics and Systems Science, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China

Received: 02 July 2024 Revised: 30 July 2024 Accepted: 05 August 2024 Published: 14 August 2024

The spread of viruses can be effectively reduced by the publicity of epidemic prevention. Additionally, the interaction between heterogeneous strains has a significant effect on virus evolution. Thus, we first establish an evolutionary dynamics Susceptible-Infected- Recovered (SIR) model which considers the interaction between heterogeneous strains. We utilize adaptive dynamics to investigate the evolutionary outcomes of the trade-off between transmission and virulence. Second, we perform a critical function analysis to generalize the results independent of specific trade-off assumptions and to determine the conditions for evolutionary stability and convergence stability. Last, we investigate the effects of different publicity measures on virulence evolution under two types of interactions, including the case of excess mortality alone and the coexistence of excess mortality and superinfection. Based on the general hypothesis of transmission virulence trade-off, we introduce the cost of host mobility caused by the scope and intensity of publicity. Numerical simulations present a set of evolutionary results, including continuously stable strategies, evolutionary branching points, repellers, and the Garden of Eden. Our results indicate that an excessive publicity scope and intensity can drive the epidemic evolution towards higher virulence. Both types of interactions suggest that continuously increasing the publicity scope under a low publicity intensity can effectively reduce virulence. Furthermore, the concurrent presence of excess mortality and superinfection induces the emergence of a higher virulence.

Keywords:

Citation: Yike Lv, Xinzhu Meng. Evolution of infectious diseases induced by epidemic prevention publicity and interaction between heterogeneous strains[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(8): 4858-4886. doi: 10.3934/era.2024223

Related Papers:

[1]	Ibrahim AL-Dayel, Emad Solouma, Meraj Khan . On geometry of focal surfaces due to B-Darboux and type-2 Bishop frames in Euclidean 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 13454-13468. doi: 10.3934/math.2022744
[2]	A. A. Abdel-Salam, M. I. Elashiry, M. Khalifa Saad . Tubular surface generated by a curve lying on a regular surface and its characterizations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12170-12187. doi: 10.3934/math.2024594
[3]	Haiming Liu, Jiajing Miao . Geometric invariants and focal surfaces of spacelike curves in de Sitter space from a caustic viewpoint. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3177-3204. doi: 10.3934/math.2021192
[4]	Yanlin Li, Kemal Eren, Kebire Hilal Ayvacı, Soley Ersoy . The developable surfaces with pointwise 1-type Gauss map of Frenet type framed base curves in Euclidean 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2226-2239. doi: 10.3934/math.2023115
[5]	Kemal Eren, Soley Ersoy, Mohammad Nazrul Islam Khan . Novel theorems on constant angle ruled surfaces with Sasai's interpretation. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8364-8381. doi: 10.3934/math.2025385
[6]	Gülnur Şaffak Atalay . A new approach to special curved surface families according to modified orthogonal frame. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20662-20676. doi: 10.3934/math.20241004
[7]	Samah Gaber, Asmahan Essa Alajyan, Adel H. Sorour . Construction and analysis of the quasi-ruled surfaces based on the quasi-focal curves in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ . AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 5583-5611. doi: 10.3934/math.2025258
[8]	Kemal Eren, Hidayet Huda Kosal . Evolution of space curves and the special ruled surfaces with modified orthogonal frame. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2027-2039. doi: 10.3934/math.2020134
[9]	Masatomo Takahashi, Haiou Yu . On generalised framed surfaces in the Euclidean space. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 17716-17742. doi: 10.3934/math.2024861
[10]	Ayman Elsharkawy, Clemente Cesarano, Abdelrhman Tawfiq, Abdul Aziz Ismail . The non-linear Schrödinger equation associated with the soliton surfaces in Minkowski 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 17879-17893. doi: 10.3934/math.2022985

Abstract

1. Introduction

In the study of line congruence, focal surfaces are well recognized. A focal surface is one of these line congruences, which are surfaces that are created by changing one surface to another by lines. Line congruence has been presented in the field of visualization by Pottmann et al. in ^[1]. They can be utilized to envision the strain and intensity circulation on a plane, temperature, precipitation, and ozone over the earth's surface, and so forth. Prior to further processing, the quality of a surface is evaluated using focal surfaces; for further information, see, for instance, ^[2,3,4,5]. Numerous researches have been done on focal surfaces and curves; for examples, see ^[6,7,8,9]. Sasai ^[10] described the modified orthogonal frame of a space curve in Euclidean 3-space as a helpful tool for examining analytic curves with singular points when the Frenet frame is ineffective. The modified orthogonal frame has recently been the subject of various investigations ^{[11,12,13,14,15,16]}.

The envelope of a moving sphere with variable radius is characterized as a canal surface, which is frequently used in solid and surface modeling. A canal surface is an envelope of a one-parameter set of spheres centered at the center curve $c(s)$ with radius $r(s)$ . The spheres that are specified by $r(s)$ and $c(s)$ are combined to form a canal surface, which is obtained by the spine curve. These surfaces have a wide range of uses, including form reconstruction, robot movement planning, the creation of blending surfaces, and the easy sight of long and thin objects like pipes, ropes, poles, and live intestines. The term "tubular surface" refers to these canal surfaces if $r(s)$ is constant. Different frames have been used to study tubular surfaces; for more details, see ^{[17,18,19,20,21,22,23]}. The paper is organized as follows: The fundamental ideas and the modified orthogonal frame are presented in Section 2. In Section 3, we create tubular surfaces with a modified orthogonal frame and provide some findings from these surfaces. Section 4 provides the focal surfaces of tubular surfaces in accordance with the modified orthogonal frame in $E^{3}$ . At last, an example that confirms our findings is presented in Section 5.

2. Basic concepts

Let $\alpha = \alpha (s)$ be a space curve with respect to the arc-length $s$ in $E^{3}$ and $\mathbf{t}, \mathbf{n}, \mathbf{b}$ be the tangent, principal, and binormal unit vectors at each point on $\alpha (s)$ , respectively, then we have the Serret-Frenet equations:

$\begin{equation} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{t}^{\prime }(s) \\ \mathbf{n}^{\prime }(s) \\ \mathbf{b}^{\prime }(s) \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & \kappa & 0 \\ -\kappa & 0 & \tau \\ 0 & -\tau & 0 \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{t}(s) \\ \mathbf{n}(s) \\ \mathbf{b}(s) \end{array} \right], \end{equation}$

(2.1)

where $\kappa$ and $\tau$ are, respectively, the curvature and torsion functions of $\alpha$ .

Since, the Serret-Frenet frame is inadequate for studying analytic space curves, of which curvatures have discrete zero points since the principal normal and binormal vectors may be discontinuous at zero points of the curvature, Sasai presented an orthogonal frame and obtained a formula, which corresponds to the Frenet-Serret equation ^[10].

Let $\alpha :I\longrightarrow E^{3}$ be an analytic curve. We suppose that the curvature $\kappa (s)$ of $\alpha$ is not identically zero. We express an orthogonal frame $\left\{\mathbf{T}{, }\mathbf{N}{, }\mathbf{B} \right\}$ as

$\begin{equation} \mathbf{T} = \frac{d\alpha }{ds}, \, \mathbf{N} = \frac{d\mathbf{T}}{ds}, \, \mathbf{ \ B} = \mathbf{T}\times \mathbf{N}. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

The relations between the frames $\left\{ \mathbf{T}{, }\mathbf{N}{, }\mathbf{B }\right\}$ and $\left\{ {\mathbf{t}, \mathbf{n}, \mathbf{b}}\right\}$ at nonzero points of $\kappa$ are expressed as follows:

$\begin{align} \mathbf{T}& = \mathbf{t}, \\ \mathbf{N}& = \kappa \mathbf{n}, \\ \mathbf{B}& = \kappa \mathbf{b}, \end{align}$

(2.3)

and we have

$\begin{align} \langle \mathbf{T}, \mathbf{T}\rangle & = 1, \langle \mathbf{N}, \mathbf{N} \rangle = \langle \mathbf{B}, \mathbf{B}\rangle = \kappa ^{2}, \\ \langle \mathbf{T}, \mathbf{N}\rangle & = \langle \mathbf{T}, \mathbf{B}\rangle = \langle \mathbf{N}, \mathbf{B}\rangle = 0. \end{align}$

(2.4)

From Eqs (2.1) and (2.3), a straightforward calculation leads to

$\begin{equation} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{T}^{\prime }(s) \\ \mathbf{N}^{\prime }(s) \\ \mathbf{B}^{\prime }(s) \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -\kappa ^{2} & \dfrac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa } & \tau \\ 0 & -\tau & \dfrac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa } \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{T}(s) \\ \mathbf{N}(s) \\ \mathbf{B}(s) \end{array} \right] , \end{equation}$

(2.5)

and

$\begin{equation*} \tau (s) = \dfrac{det(\alpha ^{^{\prime }}, \alpha ^{^{\prime \prime }}, \alpha ^{^{\prime \prime \prime }})}{\kappa ^{2}}, \end{equation*}$

is the torsion of $\alpha$ . Therefore, the frame denoted by Eq (2.5) is called the modified orthogonal frame.

Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a surface in $E^{3}$ and $\mathbf{U} (s, \theta)$ be the unit normal vector field on $\mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta)$ defined by $\mathbf{U = }\frac{\mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}\times \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }}{\left\Vert \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}\times \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }\right\Vert },$ where $\mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{\Upsilon }}{\partial s}$ and $\mathbf{\Upsilon } _{\theta } = \frac{\partial \mathbf{\Upsilon }}{\partial \theta }$ are the tangent vectors of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ . The metric (first fundamental form) $I$ of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is defined by

$\begin{equation*} I = g_{11}ds^{2}+2g_{12}dsd\theta +g_{22}d\theta ^{2}, \end{equation*}$

where $g_{11} = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}, \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}\rangle,$ $g_{12} = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}, \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }\rangle$ , and $g_{22} = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }, \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }\rangle$ .

Also, we can define the second fundamental form of $\mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta)$ as

$\begin{equation*} II = h_{11}ds^{2}+2h_{12}dsd\theta +h_{22}d\theta ^{2}, \end{equation*}$

where $h_{11} = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}, \mathbf{U}\rangle,$ $h_{12} = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s\theta }, \mathbf{U}\rangle$ , $h_{22} = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }, \mathbf{U}\rangle$ , and $\mathbf{U}$ is the unit normal vector of the surface. The Gaussian curvature $K$ and the mean curvature $H$ are, respectively, expressed as:

$\begin{align} K = & \dfrac{h_{11}h_{22}-h_{12}^{2}}{g_{11}g_{22}-g_{12}^{2}}, \\ H = & \dfrac{h_{11}g_{22}-2g_{12}h_{12}+g_{11}h_{22}}{ 2(g_{11}g_{22}-g_{12}^{2})}. \end{align}$

(2.6)

3. Tubular surfaces with modified orthogonal frame

In this part, we obtain a tubular surface with modified orthogonal frame and give some important properties of this surface in $E^{3}$ . The tubular surface with respect to the modified orthogonal frame has the parametrization:

$\begin{equation} \mathbf{\Upsilon }{(s, \theta ) = c(s)+\dfrac{r}{\kappa (s)}(\cos \theta } \mathbf{N}{(s)+\sin \theta }\mathbf{B}{(s))}, \end{equation}$

(3.1)

where $c(s)$ is the center curve, $r = constant$ , and $\kappa \neq 0$ . The derivatives of $\mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta)$ are given by

$\begin{align} & \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s} = (1-r\kappa \cos \theta )\mathbf{T}+\dfrac{\tau r}{ \kappa }(-\sin \theta \mathbf{N}+\cos \theta \mathbf{B}), \\ & \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta } = \dfrac{r}{\kappa }(-\sin \theta \mathbf{N} +\cos \theta \mathbf{B}), \\ & \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss} = (-r\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta +r\kappa \tau \sin \theta )\mathbf{T} \\ & +(1-r\kappa \cos \theta -\dfrac{r}{\kappa }\tau ^{\prime }\sin \theta - \dfrac{r}{\kappa }\tau ^{2}\cos \theta )\mathbf{N}+(\dfrac{r}{\kappa }\tau ^{\prime }\cos \theta -\dfrac{r}{\kappa }\tau ^{2}\sin \theta )\mathbf{B}, \\ & \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s\theta } = (r\kappa \sin \theta )\mathbf{T}+\dfrac{\tau r}{\kappa }(-\cos \theta \mathbf{N}-\sin \theta \mathbf{B}), \\ & \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta } = \dfrac{r}{\kappa }(-\cos \theta \mathbf{N}-\sin \theta \mathbf{B}). \end{align}$

(3.2)

Therefore, we obtain

$\begin{align} g_{11}& = (1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}+r^{2}\tau ^{2}, \\ g_{12}& = \tau r^{2}, \\ g_{22}& = r^{2}, \\ g& = g_{11}g_{22}-g_{12}^{2} = r^{2}(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}\neq 0. \end{align}$

(3.3)

The unit normal vector field $\mathbf{U}$ is given by

$\begin{equation} \mathbf{U}(s) = -\frac{1}{\kappa }\cos \theta \mathbf{N}-\dfrac{1}{\kappa } \sin \theta \mathbf{B}, \end{equation}$

(3.4)

and we have

$\begin{align} h_{11}& = -\kappa \cos \theta (1-r\kappa \cos \theta )+\tau ^{2}r, \\ h_{12}& = \tau r, \\ h_{22}& = r. \end{align}$

(3.5)

From Eq (2.6), we find

$\begin{array}{c} K = -\dfrac{\kappa \cos \theta }{r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )},\\H = \dfrac{1-2r\kappa \cos \theta }{2r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )}. \end{array}$

(3.6)

From Eqs (3.1) and (3.6), we note that, if the Gaussian curvature $K$ is zero, then the tubular surface is generated by a moving sphere with the radius $r = 1$ , ^[18].

Also, the curvatures of the tubular surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta)$ satisfy the relation:

$\begin{equation} H = \frac{1}{2}(Kr+\frac{1}{r}), \end{equation}$

(3.7)

and the shape operator of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is given by

$\begin{eqnarray} S & = &\frac{1}{g}\left[ \begin{array}{cc} h_{11}g_{22}-h_{12}g_{12} & h_{12}g_{22}-h_{22}g_{12} \\ -h_{11}g_{12}+h_{12}g_{11} & -h_{12}g_{12}+h_{22}g_{11} \end{array} \right] \\ & = &\dfrac{1}{r^{2}(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}}\left[ \begin{array}{cc} r^{2}(-\kappa \cos \theta (1-r\kappa \cos \theta )) & 0 \\ \tau r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta ) & r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2} \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.8)

It follows that the principal curvatures of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are obtained as:

$\begin{align} k_{1}& = \frac{1}{r}, \\ k_{2}& = -\frac{\kappa \cos \theta }{1-r\kappa \cos \theta } = Kr. \end{align}$

(3.9)

Proposition 3.1. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ , then $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is not a flat surface.

Proof. The proof can be obtained by straightforward calculations from Eq (3.6).

Proposition 3.2. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ , then $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is minimal if and only if

$\begin{equation*} r = \dfrac{1}{2\kappa \cos \theta }. \end{equation*}$

Proof. The result is obtained directly from Eq (3.6).

Theorem 3.1. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame, then

$\left(i\right)$ the $s$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are asymptotic curves if and only if

$\begin{equation*} r = \dfrac{\kappa \cos \theta }{\kappa ^{2}\cos \theta ^{2}+\tau ^{2}}, \end{equation*}$

$\left(ii\right)$ the $\theta$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ cannot be asymptotic curves.

Proof. From the definition of asymptotic curves, we obtain

$\begin{align*} \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}, \mathbf{U}\rangle = & 0, \\ \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }, \mathbf{U}\rangle = & 0. \end{align*}$

ⅰ. From Eq (3.5), we can get

$\begin{align*} h_{11}& = -\kappa \cos \theta (1-r\kappa \cos \theta )+\tau ^{2}r = 0, \\ & r = \dfrac{\kappa \cos \theta }{\kappa ^{2}\cos \theta ^{2}+\tau ^{2}}. \end{align*}$

ⅱ. $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is regular if $h_{22}\neq 0.$ Thus, the $s$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ cannot be asymptotic curves.

Theorem 3.2. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame, then

i. $s$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are geodesic if and only if,

$\begin{equation*} r\kappa ^{2}\cos ^{2}\theta -2\kappa \cos \theta +\tau ^{2}r = c, \end{equation*}$

where $c$ is a constant.

ii. $\theta$ -curves of $\ \mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are geodesic.

Proof. From the definition of geodesic curves, we find that, $\mathbf{\Upsilon } _{ss}\times \mathbf{U} = 0$ and $\mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }\times \mathbf{U} = 0$ .

ⅰ. According to Eqs (3.2) and (3.4), we obtain

$\begin{align*} \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}\times \mathbf{U} = & (\kappa \sin \theta (r\kappa \cos \theta -1)+r\tau ^{\prime })\mathbf{T}+(\dfrac{r}{\kappa }\sin \theta (\tau \kappa \sin \theta -\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta ))\mathbf{N} \\ +& (\dfrac{r}{\kappa }\cos \theta (-\tau \kappa \sin \theta +\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta ))\mathbf{B}. \end{align*}$

Since $\mathbf{T}, \mathbf{N}$ , and $B$ are linearly independent, then $\mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}\times \mathbf{U} = 0$ if and only if

$\begin{align*} & \kappa \sin \theta (r\kappa \cos \theta -1)+r\tau ^{\prime } = 0, \\ & \dfrac{r}{\kappa }\sin \theta (\tau \kappa \sin \theta -\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta ) = 0, \\ & \dfrac{-r}{\kappa }\cos \theta (\tau \kappa \sin \theta -\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta ) = 0. \end{align*}$

When the last two equations are taken into consideration together and the necessary operations are done, we get

$\begin{align*} & r\kappa \kappa ^{\prime }\cos ^{2}\theta -\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta +r\tau \tau ^{\prime } = 0, \\ & r\kappa ^{2}\cos ^{2}\theta -2\kappa \cos \theta +\tau ^{2}r = c, \end{align*}$

where $c$ is constant.

ⅱ. Also, from Eqs (3.2) and (3.4), we have $\mathbf{\Upsilon } _{\theta \theta }\times \mathbf{U} = 0$ . Thus, $\theta$ - parameter curves are geodesic curves.

Definition 3.1. The pair $(X, Y), X \neq Y$ of the curvatures $K, H$ of a tubular surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is said to be a $(X, Y)$ -Weingarten surface if $\Phi (X, Y) = 0$ , where the Jacobi function $\Phi$ is defined as $X _{s}Y_{\theta }-Y_{s}X_{\theta } = 0$ ^[24].

Definition 3.2. The pair $(X, Y), X \neq Y$ of the curvatures $K, H$ of the tubular surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is said to be a $(X, Y)$ -linear Weingarten surface if $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ satisfies the following relation:

$\begin{equation*} aX+bY = c, \end{equation*}$

where $(a, b, c)\epsilon R$ and $(a, b, c)\neq (0, 0, 0)$ ^[25].

Now, we define the partial derivatives of the curvatures of $\mathbf{ \Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ :

$\begin{align} & K_{s} = -\dfrac{\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta }{r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}} , \\ & K_{\theta } = \dfrac{\kappa \sin \theta }{r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}}, \\ & H_{s} = -\frac{r}{2}(\dfrac{\kappa ^{\prime }\cos \theta }{r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}}), \\ & H_{\theta } = \dfrac{r}{2}(\dfrac{\kappa \sin \theta }{r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )^{2}}). \end{align}$

(3.10)

Proposition 3.3. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame, then $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is a Weingarten surface.

Proof. $(K, H)$ -Weingarten surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ satisfies Jacobi equation:

$\begin{equation*} H_{s}K_{\theta }-H_{\theta }K_{s} = 0, \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} H_{s}K_{\theta } = H_{\theta }K_{s}. \end{equation*}$

Thus, the conclusion follows from Eq (3.10).

Proposition 3.4. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame. If $(K, H)$ is a linear Weingarten surface, then for $c = 1$ , the relations $a = -r^{2}$ and $b = 2r$ , hold.

Proof. The $(K, H)$ -linear Weingarten surface satisfies:

$\begin{equation*} aK+bH = 1, \end{equation*}$

where $a, b\in R$ and $(a, b)\neq 0$ . From Eq (3.7), we get

$\begin{equation*} 2r-b = (-\dfrac{\kappa \cos \theta }{r(1-r\kappa \cos \theta )})(br+2a), \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} 2\kappa \cos \theta (-r^{2}+rb+a)+2r-b = 0, \end{equation*}$

so we find,

$\begin{align*} & 2r-b = 0, \\ & 2\kappa \cos \theta (-r^{2}+rb+a) = 0, \end{align*}$

since $b = 2r$ ; therefore, $a = -r^{2}$ is obtained.

4. Focal surfaces of a tubular surface

Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a surface in $E^{3}$ parameterized by

$\begin{equation} \mathbf{C}(s, \theta , z) = \mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta )+z\mathbf{E}(s, \theta ), \end{equation}$

(4.1)

where $\mathbf{E}(s, \theta)$ is the set of all unit vectors and $z$ is a marked distance. For each $(s, \theta)$ , Eq (4.1) indicates a line congruence and called a generatrix. Additionally, there exist two special points (real, imaginary, or unit) on the generatrix of $\mathbf{C}$ . These points are called focal points, which are the osculating points with generatrix. Hence, focal surfaces are defined as a geometric locus of focal points. If $\mathbf{E}(s, \theta) = \mathbf{U}(s, \theta)$ , then $\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{C}_{u}$ is a normal congruence. The parametric equation of focal surfaces of $\mathbf{C }_{u}$ is given as

$\begin{equation} \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{i}^{\ast }(s, \theta ) = \mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta )+ \dfrac{1}{k_{i}}\mathbf{U}(s, \theta ); i = 1, 2, \end{equation}$

(4.2)

where $k_{1}$ and $k_{2}$ are the principle curvature functions of surfaces $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ ^[1].

In this section, we get focal surfaces of a tubular surface with the modified orthogonal frame in $E^{3}$ . Also, we investigate the properties obtained for the tubular surface within the focal surfaces. Since $k_{1} = \dfrac{1}{r},$ the focal surface is the curve $c(s)$ . Hence, we obtain the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ of $\mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta)$ with the function $k_{2} = -\dfrac{\kappa \cos \theta }{1-r\kappa \cos \theta }$ , as follows:

$\begin{equation} \mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta ) = c(s)+\frac{1}{\kappa \cos \theta }( \frac{1}{\kappa }\cos \theta \mathbf{N}+\frac{1}{\kappa }\sin \theta \mathbf{ \ B}), \end{equation}$

(4.3)

where $\kappa \neq 0$ .

The derivatives of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are

$\begin{align} \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}^{\ast }& = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}(-\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }-\tau \tan \theta )\mathbf{N}+\frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}(\tau -\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }\tan \theta )\mathbf{B}, \\ \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }^{\ast }& = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{2}\theta \mathbf{B}, \\ \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}^{\ast }& = (\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }+\tau \tan \theta )\mathbf{T}+(\frac{2\kappa ^{\prime 2}}{\kappa ^{4}}+\frac{ 2\kappa ^{\prime }\tau \tan \theta }{\kappa ^{3}}-\frac{\kappa ^{\prime \prime }}{\kappa ^{3}}-\frac{\tau ^{\prime }}{\kappa ^{2}}\tan \theta -\frac{ \tau ^{2}}{\kappa ^{2}})\mathbf{N} \\ & +(-\frac{2\kappa ^{\prime }\tau }{\kappa ^{3}}+\frac{2\kappa ^{\prime 2}\tan \theta }{\kappa ^{4}}+\frac{\tau ^{\prime }}{\kappa ^{2}}-\frac{\tau ^{2}}{\kappa ^{2}}\tan \theta -\frac{\kappa ^{\prime \prime }}{\kappa ^{3}} \tan \theta )\mathbf{B}, \\ \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }^{\ast }& = \frac{2}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{2}\theta \tan \theta \ \mathbf{B}. \end{align}$

(4.4)

From Eq (4.4), we get

$\begin{align} g_{11}^{\ast }& = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{2}\theta (\tau ^{2}+\frac{ \kappa ^{\prime 2}}{\kappa ^{2}}), \\ g_{12}^{\ast }& = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{2}\theta \left( \tau -\frac{ \kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }\tan \theta \right) , \\ g_{22}^{\ast }& = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{4}\theta , \\ g^{\ast }& = g_{11}^{\ast }g_{22}^{\ast }-g_{12}^{\ast 2} = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{4} }\sec ^{4}\theta (\tau \tan \theta +\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa } )^{2}\neq 0, \end{align}$

(4.5)

and

$\begin{array}{c} \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}^{\ast }\times \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }^{\ast } = -\left( \frac{1}{\kappa ^{4}}\sec ^{2}\theta (\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{ \kappa }+\tau \tan \theta )\right) \mathbf{T}, \\ \Vert \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{s}^{\ast }\times \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta }^{\ast }\Vert = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{4}}\sec ^{2}\theta (\frac{\kappa ^{\prime } }{\kappa }+\tau \tan \theta ), \\ \mathbf{U}^{\ast }(s, \theta ) = -\mathbf{T}. \end{array}$

(4.6)

From Eqs (4.4) and (4.6), we obtain

$\begin{align} h_{11}^{\ast }& = (-\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }-\tau \tan \theta ), \\ h_{12}^{\ast }& = 0, \\ h_{22}^{\ast }& = 0. \end{align}$

(4.7)

Also, from Eqs (4.5) and (4.7), we get

$\begin{align} & K^{\ast } = 0, \\ & H^{\ast } = -\frac{\kappa ^{3}}{2\left( \kappa \tau \tan \theta +\kappa^{\prime }\right) } . \end{align}$

(4.8)

Further, the shape operator of the surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is expressed as

$\begin{equation} S^{\ast } = \frac{1}{\gamma} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -\frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{4}\theta (\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa } +\tau \tan \theta ) & 0 \\ \frac{1}{\kappa ^{2}}\sec ^{2}\theta (\tau -\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa } \tan \theta )(\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }+\tau \tan \theta ) & 0 \end{array} \right] , \end{equation}$

(4.9)

where, $\gamma = \frac{1}{\kappa ^{4}}\sec ^{4}\theta (\tau \tan \theta + \frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa })^{2}$ .

Proposition 4.1. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame obtained with the parametrization given by Eq (3.1) and let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ be its focal surface with the parametrization given by Eq (4.3), then the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is a flat surface.

Proof. The proof can be obtained by using Eq (4.8) and straightforward calculations.

Proposition 4.2. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame obtained with the parametrization given by Eq (3.1) and let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ be its focal surface with the parametrization given by Eq (4.3), then the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is not minimal surface.

Proof. From Eq (4.8), we get

$\begin{equation*} -\frac{\kappa ^{3}}{2\left( \kappa \tau \tan \theta +\kappa^{\prime }\right) } \neq 0. \end{equation*}$

So, $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is not minimal.

Theorem 4.1. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame obtained with the parametrization given by Eq (3.1) and let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ be its focal surface with the parametrization given by Eq (4.3), then

(i) $s$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ cannot be asymptotic curves.

(ii) $\theta$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are asymptotic curves.

Proof. (ⅰ) From Eq (4.7), we get

$\begin{align*} h_{11}^{\ast }& = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}^{\ast }, \mathbf{U}^{\ast }\rangle , \\ & = (-\frac{\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa }-\tau \tan \theta )\neq 0. \end{align*}$

Since $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is regular; $h_{11}^{\ast }\neq 0.$ Thus, $s$ -parameter curves of the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon } ^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ cannot be asymptotic curves.

(ⅱ) Also, from Eq (4.7), we get

$\begin{equation*} h_{22}^{\ast } = \langle \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }^{\ast }, \mathbf{U} ^{\ast }\rangle = 0. \end{equation*}$

Since $h_{22}^{\ast } = 0$ , then $\theta$ -curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast}(s, \theta)$ are asymptotic curves.

Theorem 4.2. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame obtained with the parametrization given by Eq (3.1) and let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ be its focal surface with the parametrization given by Eq (4.3), then

(i) $s$ -parameter curves of $\ \mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are geodesic curves if and only if,

$\begin{equation*} \frac{2\kappa }{\kappa ^{\prime }} = \frac{\tau }{\tau ^{\prime }}. \end{equation*}$

(ii) $\theta$ -parameter curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are not geodesic curves.

Proof. (ⅰ) From Eqs (4.4) and (4.6), we have

$\begin{eqnarray*} \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}^{\ast }\times \mathbf{U}^{\ast } & = &-(-\frac{2\kappa ^{\prime 2}\tau }{\kappa ^{3}}+\frac{2\kappa ^{\prime 2}\tan \theta }{\kappa ^{4}}+\frac{\tau ^{\prime }}{\kappa ^{2}}-\frac{\tau ^{2}\tan \theta }{ \kappa ^{2}}-\frac{\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\tan \theta }{\kappa ^{3}}) \mathbf{N} \\ &&+(\frac{2\kappa ^{\prime }}{\kappa ^{4}}+\frac{2\kappa ^{^{\prime }}\tau \tan \theta }{\kappa ^{3}}-\frac{\tau ^{\prime }\tan \theta }{\kappa ^{2}}- \frac{\kappa ^{\prime \prime }}{\kappa ^{3}}-\frac{\tau ^{2}}{\kappa ^{2}}) \mathbf{B}. \end{eqnarray*}$

Therefore, $\mathbf{\Upsilon }_{ss}^{\ast }\times \mathbf{U}^{\ast } = 0$ if and only if

$\begin{equation*} \frac{2\kappa }{\kappa ^{\prime }} = \frac{\tau }{\tau ^{\prime }}. \end{equation*}$

(ⅱ) From Eqs (4.4) and (4.6), we get

$\begin{equation*} \mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }^{\ast }\times \mathbf{U}^{\ast } = \frac{ -2\sec ^{2}\theta \tan \theta }{\kappa ^{2}}\mathbf{N}. \end{equation*}$

Since $\mathbf{\Upsilon }_{\theta \theta }^{\ast }\times \mathbf{U}^{\ast}\neq 0$ , then $\theta$ -parameter curves are not geodesic curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ .

Hence, the proof is completed.

The partial derivatives of the curvatures of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are

$\begin{align} K_{s}^{\ast }& = 0, \ K_{\theta }^{\ast } = 0, \\ H_{s}^{\ast }& = -\frac{3\kappa ^{2}\kappa ^{\prime }}{2\left( \kappa \tau \tan \theta +\kappa ^{\prime }\right) }+\frac{\kappa ^{3}\left( \tau \kappa ^{\prime }\tan \theta +\kappa \tau ^{\prime }\tan \theta +\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\right) }{2\left( \kappa \tau \tan \theta +\kappa ^{\prime }\right) {}^{2}}, \\ H_{\theta }^{\ast }& = \frac{\kappa^{4}\tau\sec ^{2}\theta}{2\left(\kappa \tau \tan \theta+\kappa ^{\prime }\right) ^{2}}. \end{align}$

(4.10)

Thus, we get the result:

Proposition 4.3. Let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ be a tubular surface in $E^{3}$ with a modified orthogonal frame obtained with the parametrization given by Eq (3.1) and let $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ be its focal surface with the parametrization given by Eq (4.3), then the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is a Weingarten surface but not a linear-Weingarten surface.

Proof. The conclusion can be obtained easily from Eqs (4.8) and (4.10).

Definition 4.1. ^[8] A surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ in $E^{3}$ with principal curvatures $k_{1}\neq k_{2}$ has a generalized focal surface $\mathbf{\widetilde{\Upsilon }}(s, \theta)$ given by

$\begin{equation*} \mathbf{\widetilde{\mathbf{\Upsilon }}}(s, \theta ) = \mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta )+f(k_{1}, k_{2})\mathbf{U}(s, \theta ), \end{equation*}$

where $f(k_{1}, k_{2})$ is related to its principal curvatures.

$\begin{equation*} f(k_{1}, k_{2}) = \frac{k_{1}^{2}+k_{2}^{2}}{k_{1}+k_{2}}, \end{equation*}$

then $\mathbf{\widetilde{\Upsilon }}(s, \theta)$ is expressed as

$\begin{equation*} \mathbf{\widetilde{\mathbf{\Upsilon }}}(s, \theta ) = \mathbf{\Upsilon } (s, \theta )+(\frac{k_{1}^{2}+k_{2}^{2}}{k_{1}+k_{2}})\mathbf{U}(s, \theta ). \end{equation*}$

Therefore, by employing this definition and using Eq (3.9), we can obtain a generalized focal surface $\mathbf{\widetilde{\Upsilon }}(s, \theta)$ of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ as

$\begin{equation*} \mathbf{\widetilde{\mathbf{\Upsilon }}}(s, \theta ) = c(s)+\frac{1}{\kappa }(r- \frac{K^{2}r^{4}+1}{Kr^{3}+r})(\cos \theta \mathbf{N}+\sin \theta \mathbf{B} ). \end{equation*}$

5. Computational example

Let us demonstrate the above considerations in a computational example. So, assume the center curve $\alpha$ is given by

$\begin{equation*} \alpha (s) = \left( \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , \dfrac{2s}{3}\right) , \end{equation*}$

then, its modified orthogonal frame is calculated as follows:

$\begin{align*} \mathbf{T}& = \left( -\dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}\sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) , \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}cos\left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , \dfrac{2 }{3}\right) , \\ \mathbf{N}& = \left( -\dfrac{5}{9}\cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , - \dfrac{5}{9}sin\left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , 0\right) , \\ \mathbf{B}& = \left( \dfrac{10}{27}\sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , - \dfrac{10}{27}cos\left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) , \dfrac{5\sqrt{5}}{27} \right). \end{align*}$

When the radius function $r(s) = 1$ , we obtain the tubular surface:

$\begin{equation*} \mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta ) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\cos \theta \cos \left( \dfrac{ \sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) +\dfrac{2}{3}\sin \theta \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) , \\ \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\cos \theta \sin \left( \dfrac{ \sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\dfrac{2}{3}\sin \theta \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) , \\ \dfrac{2s}{3}+\dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}\sin \theta ). \end{array} \right) \end{equation*}$

In addition, we get the focal surface of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ as

$\begin{equation*} \mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta ) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\frac{9}{5}\cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{ 5}}{3}s\right) +\dfrac{6}{5}\tan \theta \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) , \\ \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\frac{9}{5}\sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{ 5}}{3}s\right) -\dfrac{6}{5}\tan \theta \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) , \\ \dfrac{2s}{3}+\dfrac{3\sqrt{5}}{3}\tan \theta ). \end{array} \right) \end{equation*}$

The center curve $\alpha (s)$ and the corresponding tubular surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon}(s, \theta)$ are shown in Figures 1a and 1b, respectively.

Figure 1.

$(a)$ The center curve

$\alpha (s)$ ;

$(b)$ the tubular surface

$\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Also, the generalized focal surface of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is obtained as follows:

$\begin{equation*} \widetilde{\mathbf{\Upsilon }}(s, \theta ) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\rho \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) \cos \theta +\frac{2}{3}\rho \sin \theta \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5} }{3}s\right) , \\ \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}s\right) -\rho \sin \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3} s\right) \cos \theta -\rho \frac{2}{3}\sin \theta \cos \left( \dfrac{\sqrt{5} }{3}s\right) , \\ \dfrac{2s}{3}+\rho \dfrac{\sqrt{5}}{3}\sin \theta . \end{array} \right) ; \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \rho = \left( 1-\frac{\left( \frac{\frac{-5}{9}\cos \theta }{1-\frac{5}{9} \cos \theta }\right) ^{2}+1}{\left( \frac{\frac{-5}{9}\cos \theta }{1-\frac{ 5 }{9}\cos \theta }\right) +1}\right) . \end{equation*}$

The focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is displayed in and the generalized focal surface $\widetilde{\mathbf{\Upsilon }}(s, \theta)$ is displayed in Figure 2b.

Figure 2.

$(a)$ The focal surface

$\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ with

$r(s) = 1$ ;

$(b)$ the generalized focal surface

$\widetilde{ \mathbf{\Upsilon }}(s, \theta)$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Finally, in the light of aforementioned calculations, we can conclude the above results as follows:

● While $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is a not flat surface, the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is flat.

● $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ is a minimal surface, but the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is not minimal.

● The $s$ -parameter curves of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are asymptotic, while the $s$ -parameter curves of the $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are non-asymptotic.

● The $\theta$ -parameter curves of the tubular surface $\mathbf{\ \Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are not asymptotic, but the $\theta$ -parameter curves of the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are asymptotic.

● The $s$ and $\theta$ parameters of the tubular surface $\mathbf{\ \Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ are geodesic curves, but the $s$ parameter curve of $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is a geodesic whereas the $\theta$ parameter curve is not a geodesic curve.

● $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ and focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon } ^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ are Weingarten surfaces.

● $\mathbf{\Upsilon }(s, \theta)$ can be a linear Weingarten surface while the focal surface $\mathbf{\Upsilon }^{\ast }(s, \theta)$ is not a linear Weingarten surface.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, tubular surfaces and their focal surfaces have been studied in $E^{3}$ . Some characteristics of the tubular surfaces have been presented such as minimal, Weingarten, linear-Weingarten, and flat. Afterward, focal surfaces of tubular surfaces have been obtained with modified orthogonal frame. Similar properties have been investigated for focal surfaces, that is, it has been shown that the focal surfaces are flat, Weingarten, and linear Weingarten, but they are not minimal surfaces. In addition, asymptotic and geodesic curves of the tubular and focal surfaces have been investigated. Finally, to confirm our results, a computational example is given and plotted.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the referees for their important remarks and ideas which assisted with working on this paper. Additionally, the first author wants to thank the Islamic University of Madinah.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	R. M. Anderson, R. M. May, Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control, Oxford university press, 1991.
[2]	X. Meng, S. Zhao, W. Zhang, Adaptive dynamics analysis of a predator–prey model with selective disturbance, Appl. Math. Comput., 266 (2015), 946–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.06.020 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2015.06.020
[3]	H. A. Adamu, M. Muhammad, A. Jingi, M. Usman, Mathematical modelling using improved sir model with more realistic assumptions, Int. J. Eng. Sci., 6 (2019), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.31873/IJEAS.6.1.22 doi: 10.31873/IJEAS.6.1.22
[4]	H. H. Weiss, The SIR model and the foundations of public health, Mater. Matematics, (2013), 0001–17.
[5]	L. Stone, R. Olinky, A. Huppert, Seasonal dynamics of recurrent epidemics, Nature, 446 (2007), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05638 doi: 10.1038/nature05638
[6]	A. Pugliese, Evolutionary dynamics of virulence, Elem. Adapt. Dyn., 2000.
[7]	U. Dieckmann, J. Metz, M. W. Sabelis, K. Sigmund, Adaptive dynamics of infectious diseases, Pursuit Virulence Manage., (2002), 460–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525728
[8]	B. Boldin, S. A. H. Geritz, É. Kisdi, Superinfections and adaptive dynamics of pathogen virulence revisited: a critical function analysis, Evol. Ecol. Res., 11 (2009), 153–175.
[9]	M. Wang, J. Yi, W. Jiang, Study on the virulence evolution of sars-cov-2 and the trend of the epidemics of covid-19, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 45 (2022), 6515–6534. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.8184 doi: 10.1002/mma.8184
[10]	E. Kisdi, S. A. H. Geritz, B. Boldin, Evolution of pathogen virulence under selective predation: a construction method to find eco-evolutionary cycles, J. Theor. Biol., 339 (2013), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.05.023 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.05.023
[11]	E. L. Charnov, Phenotypic evolution under fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, Heredity, 62 (1989),, 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1989.15
[12]	Roff, Trade-offs between growth and reproduction: an analysis of the quantitative genetic evidence, J. Evol. Biol., 13 (2000), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2000.00186.x doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2000.00186.x
[13]	S. C. Stearns, Trade-offs in life-history evolution, Funct. Ecol., 3 (1989), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389364 doi: 10.2307/2389364
[14]	A. Pugliese, On the evolutionary coexistence of parasite strains, Math. Biosci., 177 (2002), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00083-4 doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00083-4
[15]	B. Boldin, O. Diekmann, Superinfections can induce evolutionarily stable coexistence of pathogens, J. Math. Biol., 56 (2008), 635–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-007-0135-1 doi: 10.1007/s00285-007-0135-1
[16]	S. Alizon, M. Baalen, Emergence of a convex trade-off between transmission and virulence, Am. Nat., 165 (2005), E155–E167. https://doi.org/10.1086/430053 doi: 10.1086/430053
[17]	S. Alizon, M. Baalen, Multiple infections, immune dynamics, and the evolution of virulence, Am. Nat., 172 (2008), E150–E168. https://doi.org/10.1086/590958 doi: 10.1086/590958
[18]	R. M. May, R. M. Anderson, Epidemiology and genetics in the coevolution of parasites and hosts, in Proceedings of the Royal society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 219 (1983), 281–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1983.0075
[19]	A. Best, A. White, M. Boots, The implications of coevolutionary dynamics to host-parasite interactions, Am. Nat., 173 (2009), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1086/598494 doi: 10.1086/598494
[20]	S. K. Sheppard, Strain wars and the evolution of opportunistic pathogens, Curr. Opin. Microbiol., 67 (2022), 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2022.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2022.01.009
[21]	A. J. Kucharski, V. Andreasen, J. R. Gog, Capturing the dynamics of pathogens with many strains, J. Math. Biol., 72 (2016), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-015-0873-4 doi: 10.1007/s00285-015-0873-4
[22]	J. R. Gog, B. T. Grenfell, Dynamics and selection of many-strain pathogens, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 (2002), 17209–17214. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.252512799
[23]	T. Lazebnik, S. Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky, Generic approach for mathematical model of multi-strain pandemics, PloS One, 17 (2022), e0260683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260683 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260683
[24]	X. Cheng, Y. Wang, G. Huang, Dynamics of a competing two-strain sis epidemic model with general infection force on complex networks, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 59 (2021), 103247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2020.103247 doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2020.103247
[25]	I. Gordo, M. G. M. Gomes, D. G. Reis, P. R. A. Campos, Genetic diversity in the sir model of pathogen evolution, PloS One, 4 (2009), e4876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004876 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004876
[26]	T. Lazebnik, Computational applications of extended sir models: A review focused on airborne pandemics, Ecol. Modell., 483 (2023), 110422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110422 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110422
[27]	E. Numfor, N. Tuncer, M. Martcheva, Optimal control of a multi-scale hiv-opioid model, J. Biol. Dyn., 18 (2024), 2317245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2024.2317245 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2024.2317245
[28]	S. C. Roberts, The evolution of hornedness in female ruminants, Behaviour, 133 (1996), 399–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853996X00521 doi: 10.1163/156853996X00521
[29]	E. Kisdi, Evolutionary branching under asymmetric competition, J. Theor. Biol., 197 (1999), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1998.0864 doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1998.0864
[30]	P. V. Driessche, J. Watmough, Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci., 180 (2002), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6 doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6
[31]	S. A. H. Geritz, E. Kisdi, G. M. NA, J. A. J. Metz, Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree, Evol. Ecol., 12 (1998), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006554906681 doi: 10.1023/A:1006554906681
[32]	J. A. J. Metz, R. M. Nisbet, S. A. H. Geritz, How should we define???fitness??? for general ecological scenarios?, Trends Ecol. Evol., 7 (1992), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(92)90073-K doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(92)90073-K
[33]	T. L. Vincent, Y. Cohen, J. S. Brown, Evolution via strategy dynamics, Theor. Popul Biol., 44 (1993), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1006/tpbi.1993.1023 doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1993.1023
[34]	P. Jagers, Branching Processes with Biological Applications, London: Wiley, 1975.
[35]	U. Dieckmann, R. Law, The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes, J. Math. Biol., 34 (1996), 579–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02409751 doi: 10.1007/BF02409751
[36]	C. de Mazancourt, U. Dieckmann, Trade-off geometries and frequency-dependent selection, Am. Nat., 164 (2004), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1086/424762 doi: 10.1086/424762
[37]	G. Meszena, E. Kisdi, U. Dieckmann, S. A. H. Geritz, J. A. J. Metz, Evolutionary optimisation models and matrix games in the unified perspective of adaptive dynamics, Selection, 2 (2002), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1556/Select.2.2001.1-2.14 doi: 10.1556/Select.2.2001.1-2.14
[38]	J. Metz, S. D. Mylius, O. Diekmann, When does evolution optimise?, IIASA Interim Report, 2008.
[39]	C. Matessi, C. D. Pasquale, Long-term evolution of multilocus traits, J. Math. Biol., 34 (1996), 613–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02409752 doi: 10.1007/BF02409752
[40]	É. Kisdi, Trade-off geometries and the adaptive dynamics of two co-evolving species, Evol. Ecol. Res., 8 (2006), 959–973.
[41]	S. Alizon, A. Hurford, N. Mideo, M. Van Baalen, Virulence evolution and the trade-off hypothesis: history, current state of affairs and the future, J. Evol. Biol., 22 (2009), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01658.x doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01658.x
[42]	B. Boldin, E. Kisdi, On the evolutionary dynamics of pathogens with direct and environmental transmission, Evolution, 66 (2012), 2514–2527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01613.x doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01613.x

This article has been cited by:

1.	Burçin Saltık Baek, Esra Damar, Nurdan Oğraş, Nural Yüksel, Ruled Surfaces of Adjoint Curve with the Modified Orthogonal Frame, 2024, 2149-1402, 69, 10.53570/jnt.1583283
2.	Esra Damar, Burçin Saltık Baek, Nural Yüksel, Nurdan Oğraş, Tubular Surfaces of Adjoint Curves According to the Modified Orthogonal Frame, 2025, 8, 2619-8991, 206, 10.34248/bsengineering.1582756

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)