the theory of parallel parking

It turns out that parallel parking is surprisingly simple.
In theory.

I first encountered this as a homework problem in general relativity. Graduate level.
Since I believe it is still assigned as a homework problem, I will merely highlight the key points, and not provide the solution.

Consider the infinite real two dimensional plane (or a Mall parking lot, after closing).

You are in a vehicle, which can be idealised as a rectangle, width a, length b, with four wheels. For simplicity, assume only the front wheels turn, on a rigid axle, and the rear wheels provide traction displacing the vehicle.

Then the entire degree of freedom of your vehicle is well described by two differential operators:
R, the infinitesimal rotation of the front wheels, and
D, the infinitesimal displacement of the wheels, translating the vehicle.
Pick your own sign convention.

Clearly, R and D do not commute: "RD" does not lead to the same effect as "DR"

Equally clearly, this is adequate to cover the entire plane, through repeated operation of R and D in some succession.
There are a number of interesting properties, notably the vehicle is not oriented on the plane, and by assumption R and D can have either sign.

Now consider the "parallel parking problem":

b
----------
| |
| | a
----------

------------ _______________
| |
| | W
------------------
L

Through a succession of R, and D operations, the vehicle can in general be translated into the "space" limited by W >= a, and L >= b

Clearly there is some minimum L=Lmin for which this is possible.
Calculating Lmin, is left as an exercise for the reader.
For any L' > Lmin, parallel parking the vehicle is trivial, requiring merely some algorithmically determined sequence of R and D operations, depending on the initial conditions only.

QED.

Tags

More like this

Technorati Tags: ddftw, bozos, markcc-screwups So, as I said in the edit to my previous post about the wind-driven cart, I seriously blew it. The folks who pointed out the similarity of the cart to a tacking sailboat were absolutely correct. The guys who built this cart, and recorded the demo…
(With apologies to Georg Cantor) Theorem: There are an infinite number of stupid ways to park. Definition: We define as stupid any parking method that places any fender of a car outside the legal lines bounding the space. Proof:Consider a line L through the center of a legal parking space, parallel…
The Harvard multimedia team that put together that pretty video of the Inner Life of the Cell has a whole collection of videos online (including Inner Life with a good narration.) Go watch the one titled F1-F0 ATPase; it's a beautiful example of a highly efficient molecular motor, and it's the…
We talk about the earth rotating on its axis. We say the same thing about tops, and spinning basketballs, and gyroscopes, and car tires, and pretty much everything else that spins. Rotations happen around an axis. Well, except that they actually don't. No, I'm serious. Rotations happen in a…

The problem is due to Nelson, as far as I can tell. I first encountered it in Rossman's "Lie Groups" book, and in fact I did a fairly detailed post about this on my blog (though I made a mistaken claim, which I left in and was corrected in the comments). Normally I don't post links to myself, but something funny seems to be going on and the link to see old posts is missing, so here's my post on parallel parking:
http://rigtriv.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/parallel-parking/

You assume L >= b! I used to be able to park my Civic on the streets of Chicago in L < b...

Of course this required the use of a third infinitesimal 'bumper contraction' operator C.

Dang ... I meant "in L .lt. b."

Here is a hint from an experimentalist: parallel parking need not be "collisionless"...

By Dr Skepto (not verified) on 27 Dec 2007 #permalink