Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

One example of a nonholonomic constraint is a disk rolling around in the cartesian plane that is constrained to not be slipping.

These leads to the constraint $dx - a \sin\theta d\phi = 0$ and $dy - a\cos\theta d\phi = 0$ Where $\phi$ is the angle of how far the disk has rotated, $-\theta$ is angle that velocity makes with respect to $x$.

We know that these aren't exact differentials because to put it in form $Mdx + Ndy = 0$, we don't have $\partial M/\partial y = \partial N / \partial x$. But that doesn't mean we can't find some integrating factor to multiply it by and make it an exact differential? So I don't see how we know that is it nonintegrable?

If I take $f(x,\phi)[ dx - a \sin\theta d\phi] = 0$ and try to manipulate it to get something analogous to $\partial M/\partial y = \partial N / \partial x$, then I get a tricky PDE, which I don't know how to solve.

share|cite|improve this question
You can explicitly build an example that shows that these constraints are not path-independent. – yohBS Feb 18 '12 at 23:08
up vote 2 down vote accepted

1) We give a proof by contradiction.

2) Assume there is a time-independent holonomic constraint of the form

$$ f(x,y,\theta,\phi)~=~0.$$

3) Now, by performing a small loop of various sizes, we can (by all the time obeying the rolling condition) make the disc return to the same values of $x$, $y$ and $\theta$, but with an arbitrary value of $\phi$. We conclude that the $f$ constraint cannot depend on $\phi$, i.e.,

$$ f(x,y,\theta)~=~0.$$

4) By performing a small loop, we can return the disc to point in an arbitrary new direction $\theta$. We conclude that the $f$ constraint cannot depend on $\theta$ either, i.e.,

$$ f(x,y)~=~0.$$

5) This constrains where the disc can touch the table, which is absurd. Hence $f$ does not exist.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.