
This paper presents an innovative approach to solve q-fractional partial differential equations through a combination of two semi-analytical techniques: The Residual Power Series Method (RPSM) and the Homotopy Analysis Method (HAM). Both methods are extended to obtain approximations for q-fractional partial differential equations (q-FPDEs). These equations are significant in q-calculus, which has gained attention due to its relevance in engineering applications, particularly in quantum mechanics. In this study, we solve linear and nonlinear q-FPDEs and obtain the closed-form solutions, which confirm the validity of the utilized methods. The results are further illustrated through two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphs, thus highlighting the interaction between parameters, particularly the fractional parameter, the q-calculus parameter, and time.
Citation: Khalid K. Ali, Mohamed S. Mohamed, M. Maneea. A novel approach to q-fractional partial differential equations: Unraveling solutions through semi-analytical methods[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 33442-33466. doi: 10.3934/math.20241596
[1] | 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 |
[2] | Kemal Eren, Soley Ersoy, Mohammad Nazrul Islam Khan . Simultaneous characterizations of alternative partner-ruled surfaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8891-8906. doi: 10.3934/math.2025407 |
[3] | M. Khalifa Saad, Nural Yüksel, Nurdan Oğraş, Fatemah Alghamdi, A. A. Abdel-Salam . Geometry of tubular surfaces and their focal surfaces in Euclidean 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12479-12493. doi: 10.3934/math.2024610 |
[4] | Cai-Yun Li, Chun-Gang Zhu . Construction of the spacelike constant angle surface family in Minkowski 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6341-6354. doi: 10.3934/math.2020408 |
[5] | Emel Karaca . Non-null slant ruled surfaces and tangent bundle of pseudo-sphere. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 22842-22858. doi: 10.3934/math.20241111 |
[6] | Nadia Alluhaibi . Ruled surfaces with constant Disteli-axis. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7678-7694. doi: 10.3934/math.2020491 |
[7] | Emad Solouma, Ibrahim Al-Dayel, Meraj Ali Khan, Youssef A. A. Lazer . Characterization of imbricate-ruled surfaces via rotation-minimizing Darboux frame in Minkowski 3-space E31. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 13028-13042. doi: 10.3934/math.2024635 |
[8] | Yanlin Li, H. S. Abdel-Aziz, H. M. Serry, F. M. El-Adawy, M. Khalifa Saad . Geometric visualization of evolved ruled surfaces via alternative frame in Lorentz-Minkowski 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25619-25635. doi: 10.3934/math.20241251 |
[9] | Samah Gaber, Asmahan Essa Alajyan, Adel H. Sorour . Construction and analysis of the quasi-ruled surfaces based on the quasi-focal curves in R3. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 5583-5611. doi: 10.3934/math.2025258 |
[10] | Chang Sun, Kaixin Yao, Donghe Pei . Special non-lightlike ruled surfaces in Minkowski 3-space. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26600-26613. doi: 10.3934/math.20231360 |
This paper presents an innovative approach to solve q-fractional partial differential equations through a combination of two semi-analytical techniques: The Residual Power Series Method (RPSM) and the Homotopy Analysis Method (HAM). Both methods are extended to obtain approximations for q-fractional partial differential equations (q-FPDEs). These equations are significant in q-calculus, which has gained attention due to its relevance in engineering applications, particularly in quantum mechanics. In this study, we solve linear and nonlinear q-FPDEs and obtain the closed-form solutions, which confirm the validity of the utilized methods. The results are further illustrated through two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphs, thus highlighting the interaction between parameters, particularly the fractional parameter, the q-calculus parameter, and time.
The constant-angle ruled surfaces represent an essential concept within mathematical surfaces. These surfaces possess a specific mathematical rule at each point: the tangent lines at every point maintain a constant angle with the normal vector. This property is the primary trait that distinguishes constant-angle ruled surfaces from others. Numerous disciplines, including physics, engineering, and architecture, benefit from a comprehension of constant-angle ruled surfaces. The properties of these surfaces are particularly crucial in determining the geometric features of designs and structures. By bridging the gap between mathematics and real-world applications, the understanding of constant-angle ruled surfaces facilitates the resolution of challenging issues. The potential applications of these special surfaces in both mathematics and physics have been the subject of extensive research by a number of authors in recent years. For example, Paolo and Scala used the Hamilton-Jacobi equation to examine the characteristics of surfaces with constant angles in [1]. Their research is to comprehend the behavior of surfaces with constant-angles when the direction vector becomes singular along a particular line or point. A necessary contribution to this field was given by Munteanu and Nistor by classifying surfaces where the unit normal vector maintains a constant angle with a fixed direction vector in Euclidean 3-space [2]. Subsequent research has been conducted on developable and constant-angle surfaces, shedding light on their properties and characteristics [3,4]. Additionally, A. T. Ali explored constant-angle ruled surfaces formed by Frenet frame vectors in [5]. Latterly, the theory of constant-angle surfaces has been extended to encompass other ambient spaces. For instance, in [6,7], researchers examined these surfaces in the context of Minkowski space E31. Furthermore, in [8,9,10,11,12], various alternative approaches and perspectives to the concept of constant-angle surfaces were presented within the Lorentzian frame. The Frenet frame is the most popular tool for studying curves and surfaces. However, it is insufficient for any curve in analytic space whose curvatures have distinct zero points because the principal normal and binormal vectors may be discontinuous at the curvature's zero points. Sasai [13] introduced the modified orthogonal frame (MOF) to address this issue and derived a derivative formula that is analogous to the Frenet-Serret equation. Currently, the MOF with non-zero curvature (MOFC) and with non-zero torsion (MOFT) of a space curve were presented in Minkowski 3-space by Bükcü and Karacan [14]. After this development, the modified orthogonal frames attracted a lot of attention, and various studies were devoted to searching for novelties brought by these frames. For instance, some special curves, the evolution of curves, ruled surfaces, Hasimoto surfaces, and tubular surfaces were investigated by means of the modified orthogonal frames in recent studies [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
In light of recent developments encapsulated above, the constant-angle ruled surfaces have been investigated with MOFs in Euclidean 3-space. These surfaces have been classified based on the constant-angle property. In these regards, the characterizations for the developable and minimal constant-angle ruled surfaces have been presented. Also, the conditions for these surfaces to be Weingarten surfaces have been given.
Let α be a unit speed moving space curve with the arc-length parameter s in Euclidean 3-space E3. If t, n, and b denote the tangent, principal normal, and binormal unit vectors at any point α(s) of α, respectively. Then a moving frame occurs satisfying the Frenet derivative equations t′=κn, n′=−κt+τb, b′=−τn where κ and τ are the curvature and the torsion of α, respectively.
In the cases that the principal normal and binormal vectors in the Frenet frame of any space curve are discontinuous at the points where the curvature is zero, Sasai's interpretation can be put into use, i.e., his modified orthogonal frame comes onto the stage [13]. Even though the Frenet frame can display a change at the points s∈(s0−ε,s0+ε) for any ε>0 provided that κ(s0)=0, two types of orthogonal frames can be proposed. The first one is called modified orthogonal frame with non-vanishing curvature (MOFC) for κ(s)≠0 at such points, and the second one is modified orthogonal frame with non-vanishing torsion (MOFT) for τ(s)≠0.
Let the curvature κ of a general analytic curve α be non-zero everywhere; then the elements of MOFC of a curve are defined as
T=dαds,N=dTds,B=T×N, |
where "×" represents the vector product. At non-zero points of κ, there are the relations between the MOFC and the Frenet frame as
T=t,N=κn,B=κb. |
Therefore, the derivative formulas for the elements of the MOFC are
T′=N,N′=−κ2T+κ′κN+τB,B′=−τN+κ′κB, | (2.1) |
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to the affine arc-length parameter s and τ=det(α′,α″,α‴)κ2 is the torsion of the space curve α [13]. Also, the MOFC provides
⟨T,T⟩=1, ⟨N,N⟩=⟨B,B⟩=κ2, ⟨T,N⟩=⟨T,B⟩=⟨N,B⟩=0. |
Secondly, assume that the torsion τ of a general analytic curve α is nonzero everywhere. Then the relations between MOFT and the Frenet frame are
T=t,N=τn,B=τb. |
In this case, the derivative formulas for MOFT hold:
T′=κτN,N′=−κτT+τ′τN+τB,B′=−τN+τ′τB, | (2.2) |
where ⟨T,T⟩=1, ⟨N,N⟩=⟨B,B⟩=τ2, ⟨T,N⟩=⟨T,B⟩=⟨N,B⟩=0, [14].
The following basic definitions for any surface Φ(s,v) in Euclidean 3-space are well-known.
Definition 2.1. Let Φ(s,v) be a surface in Euclidean 3-space.
i. The unit normal vector of Φ(s,v) is defined by U(s,v)=Φs×Φv‖Φs×Φv‖, where the tangent vectors of Φ(s,v) are Φs=∂Φ∂s and Φv=∂Φ∂v.
ii. The coefficients of the first fundamental form I(s,v)=Eds2+2Fdsdv+Gdv2 of Φ(s,v) are defined by
E(s,v)=⟨Φs,Φs⟩,F(s,v)=⟨Φs,Φv⟩,G(s,v)=⟨Φv,Φv⟩. |
iii. The coefficients of the second fundamental form II(s,v)=eds2+2fdsdv+gdv2 of Φ(s,v) are defined by
e(s,v)=⟨U,Φss⟩,f(s,v)=⟨U,Φsv⟩,g(s,v)=⟨U,Φvv⟩. |
iv. The Gaussian and the mean curvatures of Φ(s,v) are defined by
K(s,v)=eg−f2EG−F2andH(s,v)=Eg−2Ef+Ge2(EG−F2), |
respectively.
v. A smooth surface Φ(s,v) satisfying a functional relationship between the Gaussian curvature K and the mean curvature H is called a Weingarten surface [27].
Proposition 2.1. Let Φ(s,v) be a surface in Euclidean 3-space.
i. If Φ(s,v) has zero Gaussian curvature everywhere, it is developable.
ii. If Φ(s,v) has zero mean curvature everywhere, it is minimal.
iii. If KsHv−KvHs=0, then Φ(s,v) is a Weingarten surface [27].
Let a ruled surface be generated by a family of straight lines along an analytical curve σ(s), called the base curve. Its parametric equation is presented by
Φ(s,v)=σ(s)+vΥ(s). | (3.1) |
Here, f, g, and h are smooth functions of s. Let the director curve Υ(s) be a linear combination of the modified Frenet vectors introduced by Sasai as Υ(s)=fT+gN+hB in the case of the Frenet frame failing where κ(s0)=0 at any point. In that regard, we refer to the frames MOFC and MOFT of the base curve for κ(s)≠0 and τ(s)≠0 at each point s∈(s0−ε,s0+ε)∖{s0}, respectively. In the following two subsections, we examine each case separately.
Let the curvature of the base curve σ be non-zero everywhere. By using differential equations formulas (2.1) for MOFC, the partial differential equations of the surface Φ(s,v) represented by (3.1) are obtained as
Φs=(1−v(gκ2−f′))T+v(f−hτ+g′+κ′gκ)N+v(gτ+h′+hκ′κ)B |
and
Φv=fT+gN+hB. |
The cross-product of the above tangent vector fields is found as
Φs×Φv=v(h(f−hτ+g′)−g(gτ+h′))T−(h−v(f(gτ+h′)+h(gκ2+f′+fκ′κ)))N+(g+v(g(f′−gκ2)−f(f−hτ+g′+gκ′κ)))B. | (3.2) |
By a straightforward computation, the normal vector of Φ(s,v) is
U=U1T+U2N+U3B, |
where
U1=U11+vU12,U2=U21+vU22,U3=U31+vU32. | (3.3) |
If Eqs (3.2) and (3.3) are compared, the following Eq (3.4) is obtained:
{U11=0,U12=h(f−hτ+g′)−g(gτ+h′),U21=−h,U22=f(gτ+h′)+h(gκ2−f′+fκ′κ),U31=g,U32=g(f′−gκ2)−f(f−hτ+g′+gκ′κ). | (3.4) |
If we assume that the normal vector U of the surface is parallel to the tangent vector T of the base curve σ(s) according to the MOFC, then we have the following conditions:
U1≠0,U2=U3=0. | (3.5) |
Considering Eq (3.4), f=g=h=0 is obtained by the common solution of Eq (3.5). This is a contradiction because of Υ(s)≠0 and U1≠0. So, we can give the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1. There is no constant-angle ruled surface parallel to the tangent vector direction satisfying the conditions of Eq (3.5).
Suppose that the normal vector U of the surface Φ(s,v) is parallel to the direction of the modified principal normal vector N of the base curve σ(s) according to the MOFC; then there are the conditions:
U2≠0,U1=U3=0. | (3.6) |
Since U31=0, g vanishes. In that case, from Eq (3.4), we get the equations:
{U11=0,U12=h(f−hτ),U21=−h,U22=fh′−h(f′−fκ′κ),U31=0,U32=−f(f−hτ). |
Then there are two cases as follows:
Case (1): f=hτ, g=0, and h≠0. From this case, it is easy to see that the conditions given by (3.6) and then the constant-angle ruled surface is rewritten in the form
Φcn1(s,v)=σ(s)+vh(τT+B), |
such that f=hτ. By using the equations given in (2.1), the partial derivatives of the equation of the surface Φcn1(s,v) are
(Φcn1)s=(1+v(hτ)′)T+v(h′+hκ′κ)B |
and
(Φc1)v=h(τT+B). |
By a straightforward computation, the normal vector of the surface Φcn1(s,v) is calculated as
U=(Φcn1)s×(Φcn1)v‖(Φcn1)s×(Φcn1)v‖=N. |
Theorem 3.2. Let Φcn1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface with MOFC; then the Gaussian and mean curvatures are
Kcn1=0andHcn1=κ(1+τ2)2(κ−vh(τκ′−κτ′)), |
respectively.
Proof. Let Φcn1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface. The coefficients of the first and second fundamental forms of Φcn1(s,v) are
Ecn1=⟨(Φcn1)s,(Φcn1)s⟩=v2(h′+hκ′κ)2+(1+vτh′+vhτ′)2,Fcn1=⟨(Φcn1)s,(Φcn1)v⟩=h(v(h′+hκ′κ)+τ(1+vτh′+vhτ′)),Gcn1=⟨(Φcn1)v,(Φcn1)v⟩=h2(1+τ2), |
and
ecn1=⟨(Φcn1)ss,U⟩=v2(h′+hκ′κ)2+(1+vτh′+vhτ′)2,fcn1=⟨(Φcn1)sv,U⟩=h(v(h′+hκ′κ)+τ(1+vτh′+vhτ′)),gcn1=⟨(Φcn1)vv,U⟩=h2(1+τ2), |
respectively, since
(Φcn1)s=(1+vτh′+vhτ′)T+v(h′+hκ′κ)B,(Φcn1)v=hτT+hB,(Φcn1)ss=v(2h′τ′+τh′′+hτ′′)T+(1−vhτκ′κ+vhτ′)N+v(2h′κ′κ+h′′+hκ′′κ)B,(Φcn1)sv=(τh′+hτ′)T+(h′+hκ′κ)B,(Φcn1)vv=0. |
If the above relations are substituted in the formulas
Kcn1=ecn1gcn1−fcn12Ecn1Gcn1−Fcn12=0andHcn1=12Ecn1gcn1−2Fcn1fcn1+Gcn1ecn1Ecn1Gcn1−Fcn12, |
then the Gaussian and mean curvatures are found as in the hypothesis.
Corollary 3.1. Let Φcn1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface with MOFC; then the constant-angle surface is
i. developable surface,
ii. not minimal surface,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Case (2): f=0, g=0, h≠0, and τ=0. In this case, the conditions given by (3.6) are satisfied, and then we have obtained a constant-angle ruled surface which takes the form
Φcn2(s,v)=σ(s)+vhB, |
where the base curve σ(s) is planar. The partial derivatives of the surfaces Φcn2(s,v) using (2.1) are found as
(Φcn2)s=T+v(h′+hκ′κ)B |
and
(Φcn2)v=hB. |
By a straightforward computation, the normal vector of the surface Φcn2(s,v) is
U=−N. |
Theorem 3.3. Let Φcn2(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the Gaussian curvature and mean curvature are
Kcn2=0andHcn2=0, |
respectively.
Proof. This theorem is proved in a manner akin to that of Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 3.2. Let Φcn2(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface with MOFC; then Φcn2(s,v) is
i. developable surface,
ii. minimal surface,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Let the normal vector U of the surface Φ(s,v) be parallel to the modified binormal vector B of the base curve σ(s) according to the MOFC; then we have the following conditions:
U3≠0,U1=U2=0. | (3.7) |
Since U21=0, h vanishes. In that case, from Eq (3.4), we get the following equations:
{U11=0,U12=−g2τ,U21=0,U22=fgτ,U31=g,U32=g(f′−gκ2)−f(f+g′+gκ′κ). |
Then, there are the cases below that satisfy the conditions in (3.7).
Case (1): f≠0, g=0, and h=0. From this case, we have
{U11=U12=U21=U22=0,U31=0,U32=−f2. |
These mean that the constant-angle ruled surface takes the form
Φcb1(s,v)=σ(s)+vfT. |
Also, this case is achieved whenever the base curve σ(s) is planar. The normal vector of the surface Φcb1(s,v) is obtained as
U=−B, |
since
(Φcb1)s=(1+vf′)T+vfNand(Φcb1)v=fT. |
Theorem 3.4. Let Φcb1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the Gaussian and mean curvatures are
Kcb1=0andHcb1=−τ2vf, |
respectively.
Proof. This theorem is proved in a similar manner to the proof of Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 3.3. Let Φcb1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the constant-angle surface is
i. developable surface,
ii. minimal surface if and only if the base curve is planar,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Case (2): f=0, g≠0, h=0, and τ=0. In this case,
{U11=U12=U21=U22=0,U31=g,U32=−g2κ2, |
and then it is found that the constant-angle ruled surface is presented in the form
Φcb2(s,v)=σ(s)+vgN, |
where the base curve σ(s) is planar. The normal vector of the surface Φcb2(s,v) is obtained as
U=B, |
where
(Φcb2)s=(1−vgκ2)T+v(h′+hκ′κ)Nand(Φcb2)v=gN. |
Theorem 3.5. Let Φcb2(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the Gaussian and mean curvatures are
Kcb2=0andHcb2=0, |
respectively.
Proof. The proof of this theorem follows a similar manner to the proof of Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 3.4. Let Φcb2(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then Φcb2(s,v) is
i. developable surface,
ii. minimal surface,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Case (3): f≠0, g≠0, h=0, and τ=0. In this case,
{U11=U12=U21=U22=0,U31=g,U32=g(f′−gκ2)−f(f+g′+gκ′κ), |
and then the constant-angle ruled surface is represented by
Φcb3(s,v)=σ(s)+v(fT+gN), |
where the σ(s) is planar. The normal vector of the surface Φcb3(s,v) is calculated as
U=B, |
by the facts that
(Φcb3)s=(1−vgκ2+vf′)T+v(f+g′+gκ′κ)Nand(Φcb3)v=fT+gN. |
Theorem 3.6. Let Φcb3(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the Gaussian and mean curvatures are
Kcb3=0andHcb3=0, |
respectively.
Proof. This is proved similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 3.5. Let Φcb3(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then Φcb3(s,v) is
i. developable surface,
ii. minimal surface,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Let the torsion of the base curve be non-zero everywhere. The partial derivatives of the surface Φ(s,v) are represented by Eq (3.1) using derivative formulas (2.2). In this section, let's investigate under what conditions the surfaces are constant-angle ruled surfaces using MOFT. Considering the derivative formulas (2.2), the partial differential equations of the surfaces Φ(s,v) presented by Eq (3.1) are
Φs=(1+v(−gκτ+f′))T+v(g′−hτ+gτ′+fκτ)N+v(gτ+h′+hτ′τ)B |
and
Φv=fT+gN+hB, |
where f, g, and h are smooth functions of s. The cross-product of the above vector fields is found as
Φs×Φv=v(fhκτ−g2τ+h(−hτ+g′)−gh′)T+(−h+v(f(gτ+h′)+h(gκτ−f′+fτ′τ)))N+(g+v(−f2κτ+g(f′−gκτ)+f(hτ−g′−gτ′τ)))B. |
From here, the normal vector of the surface Φ(s,v) can be given in the form
W=(W11+vW12)T+(W21+vW22)N+(W31+vW32), |
such that
{W11=0,W12=fhκτ−g2τ+h(−hτ+g′)−gh′,W21=−h,W22=f(gτ+h′)+h(gκτ−f′+fτ′τ),W31=g,W32=−f2κτ+g(f′−gκτ)+f(hτ−g′−gτ′τ), | (3.8) |
where τ≠0.
In this subsection, let the normal vector W of the surface Φ(s,v) be parallel to the tangent vector T of the base curve σ(s) according to the MOFT; then we have the following conditions:
W1≠0,W2=W3=0. | (3.9) |
Case (1): Considering Eq (3.8), f=g=h=0 is obtained from the solution of Eq (3.9). This situation contradicts the conditions Υ(s)≠0 and W1≠0.
Case (2): Considering Eq (3.8), f≠0 and g=h=κ=0 are obtained from the solution of Eq (3.9). This situation contradicts the condition W1≠0. So, we can give the following theorem:
Theorem 3.7. Let the normal vector W of a surface Φ(s,v) be parallel to the tangent vector of the MOFT; then there is no constant-angle ruled surface parallel to the tangent vector that satisfies conditions Eq (3.9).
Let the normal vector W of the surface Φ(s,v) be parallel to the modified normal vector N of the base curve σ(s) according to the MOFT; then we have the following conditions:
W2≠0,W1=W3=0. | (3.10) |
Since W31=0, g vanishes. In that case, from Eq (3.8), we get the following equations:
{W11=0,W12=h(fκτ−hτ),W21=−h,W22=fh′−h(f′−fτ′τ),W31=0,W32=−f(fκτ−hτ), |
for τ≠0. Then, considering the conditions specified in Eq (3.10), there are some situations as follows:
Case (1): g=0, fκ=hτ2, and h≠0, From this case, we have
{W11=0,W12=0,W21=−h,W22=hh′τ2κ−h((hτ2κ)′−hτ2τ′κτ),W31=0,W32=0, |
where κ≠0 in addition to τ≠0. Hence, the conditions specified in Eq (3.10) are satisfied, and then we see that the constant-angle ruled surface takes the form
Φtn1(s,v)=σ(s)+vh(τ2κT+B), |
where fκ=hτ2. The partial derivatives of the surface Φtn1(s,v) using (2.2) are
(Φtn1)s=(κ2−vhτ2κ′+vκτ(τh′+2hτ′)κ2)T+v(h′+hτ′τ)Band(Φtn1)v=h(τ2κT+B). |
The normal vector of the surface Φtn1(s,v) is found as
W=(Φtn1)s×(Φtn1)v‖(Φtn1)s×(Φtn1)v‖=−N. |
Theorem 3.8. Let Φtn1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the Gaussian and mean curvatures of Φtn1(s,v) are
Ktn1=0andHtn1=κ(κ2+τ4)2τ(vhτ2κ′−κ(κ+vhττ′)), |
respectively, where τ≠0.
Proof. Let Φtn1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface. The coefficients of the first and second fundamental forms, respectively, are determined
Etn1=⟨(Φtn1)s,(Φtn1)s⟩=v2(h′+hτ′τ)2+(κ2−vhτ2κ′+vκτ(τh′+2hτ′))2κ4,Ftn1=⟨(Φtn1)s,(Φtn1)v⟩=h(v(h′+hτ′τ)+τ2(κ2−vhτ2κ′+vκτ(τh′+2hτ′))κ3),Gtn1=⟨(Φtn1)v,(Φtn1)v⟩=h2(1+τ4κ2), |
and
etn1=⟨(Φtn1)ss,U⟩=−κτ+vhτκ′κ−vhτ′,ftn1=⟨(Φtn1)sv,U⟩=0,gtn1=⟨(Φtn1)vv,U⟩=0, |
by the aid of the equations
(Φtn1)s=(κ2−vhτ2κ′+vκτ(τh′+2hτ′)κ2)T+v(h′+hτ′τ)B,(Φtn1)v=hτ2κT+hB,(Φtn1)ss=v(2hτ2κ′2κ3−2τ2h′κ′+hτ2κ′′+4hτκ′τ′κ2+4τh′τ′+2hτ′2+τ2h′′+2hττ′′κ)T+(κτ−vhτκ′κ+vhτ′)N+v(2h′τ′τ+h′′+hτ′′τ)B,(Φtn1)sv=(τ(−hτκ′+κ(τh′+2hτ′))κ2)T+(h′+hτ′τ)B,(Φtn1)vv=0. |
If the coefficients of the first and second fundamental forms are substituted in the formulas of Gaussian and mean curvatures, the proof is completed.
Corollary 3.6. Let Φtn1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface with MOFT; then Φtn1(s,v) is
i. developable surface,
ii. minimal surface if and only if the base curve is a line,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Case (2): f=0, g=0, and h≠0. This situation contradicts the fact that W1=0. So, the ruled surface cannot be a constant-angle surface.
Case (3): f≠0, g=0, and h=0. This situation contradicts the fact that W2≠0 and W3=0. So, the ruled surface cannot be a constant-angle surface.
Let the normal vector W of the surface Φ(s,v) be parallel to the modified binormal vector B of the base curve σ(s) according to the MOFT; then we have the following conditions:
W3≠0,W1=W2=0. | (3.11) |
Since W21=0, h vanishes. In that case, from Eq (3.8), we get the following equations:
{W11=0,W12=−g2τ,W21=0,W22=fgτ,W31=g,W32=−f2κτ+g(f′−gκτ)−f(g′+gτ′τ), |
for τ≠0. Then, considering the conditions in Eq (3.9), there exist the following cases.
Case (1): f≠0, g, h, and κ≠0. From this case, we have
{W11=W12=W21=W22=0,W31=0,W32=−f2κτ, |
and we obtain the constant-angle ruled surface, which takes the form
Φtb1(s,v)=σ(s)+vfT. |
By a straightforward computation, the normal vector of the surface Φtb1(s,v) is obtained as
W=−B, |
by the partial derivatives
(Φtb1)s=(1+vf′)T+vfκτNand(Φtb1)v=fT. |
Theorem 3.9. Let Φtb1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface; then the Gaussian curvature and mean curvature of Φtb1(s,v) are
Ktb1=0andHtb1=−τ22vfκ, |
respectively.
Proof. The proof of this theorem is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 3.7. Let Φtb1(s,v) be a constant-angle ruled surface with MOFT; then Φtb1(s,v) is
i. developable surface,
ii. not minimal surface,
iii. Weingarten surface.
Case (2): f≠0, g=0, h=0, and κ=0. This is a contradiction because of W3≠0, which means that in this case, the ruled surface cannot be a constant-angle surface.
Case (3): f=0, g=0, h=0, and κ≠0. This situation contradicts the fact that Υ(s)≠0 and W3≠0. Thus, we say that the ruled surface cannot be a constant-angle surface in this case.
Example 3.1. Let us consider a curve given by the parametric equation
σ(s)=(1√2s∫0cos(πt22)dt,1√2s∫0sin(πt22)dt,s√2), |
which is known as the Cornu spiral or Euler spiral [16]. Also, the components s∫0cos(πt22)dt and s∫0sin(πt22)dt of the curve are called Fresnel integrals. The elements of the Frenet trihedron of the curve σ(s) are found as
t=(1√2cos(πs22),1√2sin(πs22),1√2),n=(−sin(πs22),cos(πs22),0),b=(−1√2cos(πs22),−1√2sin(πs22),1√2),κ=πs√2,τ=πs√2. |
Here, we refer to the modified Frenet vectors presented by Sasai because the principal normal and binormal vectors are discontinuous at the neighborhood of the point s0=0. In that regard, we find the modified Frenet vectors of σ as follows:
T=(1√2cos(πs22),1√2sin(πs22),1√2),N=(−πs√2sin(πs22),πs√2cos(πs22),0),B=(−πs2cos(πs22),−πs2sin(πs22),πs2). |
If we assume that f=πssin(s)√2, g=0, and h=sin(s), the equation of the constant-angle ruled surface parallel to the modified normal vector of σ for Case 1 with the MOFC is represented as
Φcn1(s,v)=(1√2s∫0cos(πt22)dt,1√2s∫0sin(πt22)dt,s√2+vπssin(s)), |
see Figure 1.
Let us take that f=sin(s) and h=g=0. Then the equation of the constant-angle ruled surface parallel to the modified binormal vector of σ for Case 1 with MOFC is
Φcb1(s,v)=1√2(s∫0cos(πt22)dt+vcos(πs22)sin(s),s∫0sin(πt22)dt+vsin(πs22)sin(s),s+vsin(s)), |
see Figure 2.
For f=cos(s)πs√2 and h=cos(s), the equation of the constant-angle ruled surface parallel to the modified principal normal vector of σ for Case 1 with the MOFT is represented by
Φtn1(s,v)=1√2(s∫0cos(πt22)dt,s∫0sin(πt22)dt,s(√2πvcos(s)+1)), |
see Figure 3.
In this study, the modified orthogonal frames in Euclidean 3-space have been employed to investigate the constant-angle ruled surfaces. The investigation involves determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for any ruled surface to stand the angles between each modified Frenet vector of the base curve and the unit normal vector of the surface to be constant. Within this context, the conditions for such surfaces to be minimal, developable, and Weingarten surfaces have been derived. Notably, this study presents novel insights, as constant-angle ruled surfaces have not been previously examined in the context of MOFs. Finally, the study provides examples of some constant-angle surfaces, accompanied by their graphics, and offers a new perspective for future research in the field of surface theory.
Kemal Eren, Soley Ersoy and Mohammad N. I. Khan: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The researchers would like to thank the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at Qassim University for financial support (QU-APC-2025).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] | M. Lazarevic, Advanced topics on applications of fractional calculus on control problems, WSEAS Press, 2014. |
[2] |
A. Elsaid, M. S. Abdel Latif, M. Maneea, Similarity solutions of fractional order heat equations with variable coefficients, Miskolc Math. Notes, 17 (2016), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.18514/MMN.2016.1610 doi: 10.18514/MMN.2016.1610
![]() |
[3] |
K. K. Ali, M. Maneea, M. S. Mohamed, Solving nonlinear fractional models in superconductivity using the q-homotopy analysis transform method, J. Math., 2023 (2023), 6647375. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6647375. doi: 10.1155/2023/6647375
![]() |
[4] |
K. K. Ali, M. A. Maaty, M. Maneea, Optimizing option pricing: Exact and approximate solutions for the time-fractional Ivancevic model, Alex. Eng. J., 84 (2023), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.10.066 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.10.066
![]() |
[5] |
K. K. Ali, A. M. Wazwaz, M. Maneea, Efficient solutions for fractional Tsunami shallow-water mathematical model: A comparative study via semi analytical techniques, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 178 (2024), 114347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114347 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114347
![]() |
[6] |
F. Mirzaee, K. Sayevand, S. Rezaei, N. Samadyar, Finite difference and spline approximation for solving fractional stochastic advection-diffusion equation, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Sci., 45 (2021), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-020-01036-6 doi: 10.1007/s40995-020-01036-6
![]() |
[7] |
F. Mirzaee, N. Samadyar, Implicit meshless method to solve 2D fractional stochastic Tricomi-type equation defined on irregular domain occurring in fractal transonic flow, Numer. Meth. Part. Differ. Equ., 37 (2021), 1781–1799. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22608 doi: 10.1002/num.22608
![]() |
[8] |
F. Mirzaee, S. Rezaei, N. Samadyar, Solving one-dimensional nonlinear stochastic Sine-Gordon equation with a new meshfree technique, Int. J. Numer. Model., 34 (2021), e2856. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnm.2856 doi: 10.1002/jnm.2856
![]() |
[9] | F. Mirzaee, S. Rezaei, N. Samadyar, Application of combination schemes based on radial basis functions and finite difference to solve stochastic coupled nonlinear time fractional sine-Gordon equations, Comp. Appl. Math., 41 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-021-01725-x |
[10] |
F. H. Jackson, On q-functions and a certain difference operator, Earth Env. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb., 46 (1909), 253–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0080456800002751 doi: 10.1017/S0080456800002751
![]() |
[11] |
R. Askey, The q-Gamma and q-Beta functions, Appl. Anal., 8 (1978), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036817808839221 doi: 10.1080/00036817808839221
![]() |
[12] |
M. H. Annaby, Z. S. Mansour, q-Taylor and interpolation series for Jackson q-difference operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 334 (2008), 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.02.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.02.033
![]() |
[13] | M. H. Annaby, Z. S. Mansour, q-fractional calculus and equations, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30898-7 |
[14] |
Y. Sheng, T. Zhang, Some results on the q-calculus and fractional q-differential equations, Mathematics, 10 (2022), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10010064 doi: 10.3390/math10010064
![]() |
[15] | S. Abbas, B. Ahmad, M. Benchohra, A. Salim, Fractional difference, differential equations, and inclusions, Elsevier, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2023-0-00030-9 |
[16] |
T. Zhang, Q. X. Guo, The solution theory of the nonlinear q-fractional differential equations, Appl. Math. Lett., 104 (2020), 106282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2020.106282 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2020.106282
![]() |
[17] |
T. Zhang, Y. Z. Wang, The unique existence of solution in the q-integrable space for the nonlinear q-fractional differential equations, Fractals, 29 (2021), 2150050. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218348X2150050X doi: 10.1142/S0218348X2150050X
![]() |
[18] |
M. El-Shahed, M. Gaber, Two-dimensional q-differential transformation and its application, Appl. Math. Comput., 217 (2011), 9165–9172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.03.152 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2011.03.152
![]() |
[19] | H. Jafari, A. Haghbtn, S. Hesam, D. Baleanu, Solving partial q-differential equations within reduced q-differential transformation method, Rom. Journ. Phys., 59 (2014), 399–407. https://shorturl.at/Y0kkT |
[20] |
M. O. Sadik, B. O. Orie, Application of q-calculus to the solution of partial q-differential equations, Appl. Math., 12 (2021), 669–678. https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2021.128047 doi: 10.4236/am.2021.128047
![]() |
[21] |
M. S. Semary, H. N. Hassan, The homotopy analysis method for q-difference equations, Ain Shams Eng. J., 9 (2018), 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2016.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2016.02.005
![]() |
[22] |
G. C. Wu, Variational iteration method for q-difference equations of second order, J. Appl. Math., 2012 (2012), 102850. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/102850 doi: 10.1155/2012/102850
![]() |
[23] | Y. X. Zeng, Y. Zeng, G. C. Wu, Application of the variational iteration method to the initial value problems of q-difference equations-some examples, Commun. Numer. Anal., 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.5899/2013/cna-00180 |
[24] | P. Bhattacharya, R. Ranjan, Solution to Laplace's equation using quantum calculus, Int. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. Sci., 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.46647/ijetms.2023.v07i05.066 |
[25] |
F. M. Atici, P. W. Eloe, Fractional q-calculus on a time scale, J. Nonlinear Math. Phy., 14(2007), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.2991/jnmp.2007.14.3.4 doi: 10.2991/jnmp.2007.14.3.4
![]() |
[26] |
M. El-Shahed, M. Gaber, M. Al-Yami, The fractional q-differential transformation and its application, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 18 (2013), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.06.016 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.06.016
![]() |
[27] |
L. Chanchlani, S. Alha, J. Gupta, Generalization of Taylor's formula and differential transform method for composite fractional q-derivative, Ramanujan J., 48 (2019), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139-018-9997-7 doi: 10.1007/s11139-018-9997-7
![]() |
[28] |
B. Madhavi, G. Suresh Kumar, S. Nagalakshmi, T. S. Rao, Generalization of homotopy analysis method for q-fractional non-linear differential equations, Int. J. Anal. Appl., 22 (2024), 22. https://doi.org/10.28924/2291-8639-22-2024-22 doi: 10.28924/2291-8639-22-2024-22
![]() |
[29] |
J. X. Li, Y. Yan, W. Q. Wang, Secondary resonance of a cantilever beam with concentrated mass under time delay feedback control, Appl. Math. Model., 135 (2024), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2024.06.039 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2024.06.039
![]() |
[30] | M. S. Stankovic, P. M. Rajkovic, S. D. Marinkovic, Fractional integrals and derivatives in q-calculus, Appl. Anal. Discret. Math., 1 (2007), 311–323. |
[31] | M. S. Stankovic, P. M. Rajkovic, S. D. Marinkovic, On q-fractional deravtives of Riemann-Liouville and Caputo type, arXiv, 2009. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0909.0387 |
[32] |
T. Abdeljawad, D. Baleanu, Caputo q-fractional initial value problems and a q-analogue Mittag-Leffler function, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 16 (2011), 4682–4688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2011.01.026 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2011.01.026
![]() |
[33] |
T. Ernst, On various formulas with q-integralsand their applications to q-hypergeometric functions, Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math., 13 (2020), 1241–1259. https://doi.org/10.29020/nybg.ejpam.v13i5.3755 doi: 10.29020/nybg.ejpam.v13i5.3755
![]() |
[34] | S. Liao, Beyond perturbation: Introduction to the homotopy analysis method, CRC Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203491164 |
[35] |
S. J. Liao, An optimal homotopy-analysis approach for strongly nonlinear differential equations, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 15 (2010), 2003–2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.09.002
![]() |
[36] |
M. G. Sakar, F. Erdogan, The homotopy analysis method for solving the time-fractional Fornberg-Whitham equation and comparison with Adomians decomposition method, Appl. Math. Model., 37 (2013), 8876–8885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.03.074 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.03.074
![]() |
[37] |
K. K. Ali, M. Maneea, Optical solitons using optimal homotopy analysis method for time-fractional (1+1)-dimensional coupled nonlinear Schrodinger equations, Optik, 283 (2023), 170907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2023.170907 doi: 10.1016/j.ijleo.2023.170907
![]() |
[38] |
M. Shqair, A. El-Ajou, M. Nairat, Analytical solution for multi-energy groups of neutron diffusion equations by a residual power series method, Mathematics, 7 (2019), 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/math7070633 doi: 10.3390/math7070633
![]() |
[39] |
Z. Y. Fan, K. K. Ali, M. Maneea, M. Inc, S. W. Yao, Solution of time fractional Fitzhugh-Nagumo equation using semi analytical techniques, Results Phys., 51 (2023), 106679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.106679 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2023.106679
![]() |