Understanding How Closed Curves Work in Maths

In summary, the area under a closed curve is the same, regardless of the path taken. This is because the area is the sum of the area of the initial and final points. This is known as the "path independence of the integral."
  • #1
GrizzlyBat
36
0
Hey, I am wondering if anyone can help me understand a mathematical explanation as to how they work.

From what I understand, the area under a closed curve is the same, independent of the path taken. So when doing an integral you only need to take the initial and final into account. There have been 2 a few situations so far when I have come across these curves. Particularly when dealing with conservative forces, i.e. Gravity, Electricity. So with these forces, it is saying the work done is the same independent of the part taken. But what actually makes it a closed curve? What part of it all makes it so the path does not matter when getting the area under the curve?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It looks like you are talking about line integrals. But, line integrals do not find the area under the curve that you integrate over. One interpretation (the one it looks like you are talking about) is that if f is a force field, then the line integral of f over a curve is the amount of work done in transporting a particle along the curve.

Line integrals are independent of parameterization of the curve. If f is a complex-analytic function (a conservative force field), then the line integral does depend only on the end points, but if the curve is closed, the integral is zero. For instance:
[tex]\int_C f = F(b)-F(a)[/tex]
where F'=f and a is the starting point of C and b is the ending point. So if C is closed, a=b and the integral is zero.
 
  • #3
Ah, so how does a line integral work then, if it does not find the area under the curve? Does it use the fact that the integral is always equal to zero in a closed curve?
 
  • #4
Do you have a particular example that you want clarified? Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_integral" [Broken] seems to do a decent job of explaining it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Yeah, that Article does a pretty good job of explaining it. It made a lot of sense once I saw it. So from what I understand at the moment, it sounds like a line integral, in a vector field, is when you do the dot product between the 2 vectors at each little point then add them all up. Is that the right idea? or have I missed a detail out?
 
  • #6
GrizzlyBat said:
Hey, I am wondering if anyone can help me understand a mathematical explanation as to how they work.

From what I understand, the area under a closed curve is the same, independent of the path taken.
The area under a closed curve? Do you mean the area inside a closed curve? And what "path" are you talking about? If you are trying to calculate the area contained in a closed curve the only "path" that makes any sense is the closed curve itself- and that is certainly NOT "independent of the path taken".

So when doing an integral you only need to take the initial and final into account.
Do you mean integrating along a path from one point to another? Or along a closed path from a given point back to itself? In either case, the result is "independent of the path" if and only if the integrand itself is an "exact" differential. That's not true in general.
(And, if you are integrating around a closed path, the integral of an exact differential is 0- definitely NOT the area!)

There have been 2 a few situations so far when I have come across these curves. Particularly when dealing with conservative forces, i.e. Gravity, Electricity. So with these forces, it is saying the work done is the same independent of the part taken. But what actually makes it a closed curve? What part of it all makes it so the path does not matter when getting the area under the curve?
You seem to have memorized a number of words without assigning any meaning to them! A "closed curve" is simply any curve that goes back to its beginning point. that has nothing to do with "the path does not matter". You seem to be confusing the path with the integral. In any case, "what makes it so the path does not matter" is given in any Calculus text: the integral [itex]\int f(x,y,z)dx+ g(x,y,z)dy+ h(x,y,z)dz[/itex] is "independent of the path" if and only if there exist a function F(x,y,z) so that dF= f(x,y,z)dx+ g(x,y,z)dy+ h(x,y,z)dz. In that case, [itex]\int f(x,y,z)dx+ g(x,y,z)dy+ h(x,y,z)dz= \int dF= F[/itex] evaluated at the two end points just as in Calculus I.
 
  • #7
Hahaha it seems that I do not know what I am talking about when I say area under the curve. I have only seen closed curves from a physics point of view, but in terms of maths, I am not really sure what it actually means. I understand if I was to talk about a closed path, it is a path that meets back where it started. But other than that, I am not too sure about how they work.

Also when I am integrating with this closed curve, I have not been told if I am finding the area, I just have a habit of saying that when I do integrals. I guess since I am generally dealing with a vector field, I would use a line integral? I am sure I am being confusing and unspecific but that is because I am not completely sure about what is going on, when dealing with closed paths and integrating.

Oh and if a path is different to a curve, please let me know. I probably should be using path.
 
  • #8
It seems HallsofIvy just repeated exactly what I had said. In terms of math, line integrals are defined. Then they are given physical interpretations. They can have different meanings based upon the interpretation. See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146029&postcount=6" there too). I'm sure there are others as well.

For instance. If f is a complex valued function and [itex]\gamma(t)[/itex] is a curve where [itex]t\in[a,b][/itex], then the line integral is defined to be
[tex]\int_\gamma f(z)\,dz = \int_a^b f(\gamma(t)) \gamma'(t) \,dt . [/tex]
This is just the definition. As I explained above and in the post I linked to, this can be given different interpretations depending on what you treat f as. The line integral is just another version of an integral, and you don't want to always think of integrals computing areas. I think if you view them as summing something up, then this works better for the physical interpretations. You just need to determine what you are summing.

I used a complex function for my definitions because it is the simplest in notation. You can think of a complex function as a vector field (it takes a point in [itex]\mathds{R}^2[/itex] and assigns a point in [itex]\mathds{R}^2[/itex]).

Curve and path are often used interchangeably. There are some books though that make a small technical distinction between them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Cool thanks, I have a good idea of what is going on. I think it is kind of deceptive that I had never been told about the line integral, no wonder it did not make sense to me.

So with a complex function, why would you not use a matrix? Is it not always linear or something?

Yeah, I had the idea they were almost the same, but wanted to be careful because I remember reading a textbook I had awhile back, and it talked about how they were different, but could not remember how.
 
  • #10
GrizzlyBat said:
Cool thanks, I have a good idea of what is going on. I think it is kind of deceptive that I had never been told about the line integral, no wonder it did not make sense to me.

So with a complex function, why would you not use a matrix? Is it not always linear or something?
Where in the world did you get that idea? Or, perhaps, exactly what do you mean by "complex function"?

Yeah, I had the idea they were almost the same, but wanted to be careful because I remember reading a textbook I had awhile back, and it talked about how they were different, but could not remember how.
 
  • #11
n!kofeyn said:
I used a complex function for my definitions because it is the simplest in notation. You can think of a complex function as a vector field (it takes a point in [itex]\mathds{R}^2[/itex] and assigns a point in [itex]\mathds{R}^2[/itex]).

Now if I was to take a vector and change it around, ie. translate it, change length, or rotate it, and it was linear, I would use a matrix. Of course because I am not familiar with a complex function, I could imagine that the transformation is not always linear. So I am wondering how they work when getting a vector at one point and assigning it to another point in the same vector space.

I am also told that I can think of a complex function as a vector field. Which means I am probably over complicating things by bring in the idea of matrices. But to me they seem related in the fact that they manipulate vectors.

I guess another way of dealing with how they move is to use a parametric system, in which you have the components of the vectors as a function of t.
 
  • #12
GrizzlyBat said:
Cool thanks, I have a good idea of what is going on. I think it is kind of deceptive that I had never been told about the line integral, no wonder it did not make sense to me.

So with a complex function, why would you not use a matrix? Is it not always linear or something?

I remember having the same questions about what a line integral means and is used for, and I am still learning. What classes are you taking? Are you a physics or math major? Also, complex functions aren't always linear and so can't always be represented by a matrix, although some can (see below).
GrizzlyBat said:
Now if I was to take a vector and change it around, ie. translate it, change length, or rotate it, and it was linear, I would use a matrix. Of course because I am not familiar with a complex function, I could imagine that the transformation is not always linear. So I am wondering how they work when getting a vector at one point and assigning it to another point in the same vector space.

I am also told that I can think of a complex function as a vector field. Which means I am probably over complicating things by bring in the idea of matrices. But to me they seem related in the fact that they manipulate vectors.

I guess another way of dealing with how they move is to use a parametric system, in which you have the components of the vectors as a function of t.

http://books.google.com/books?id=og...&dq=complex functions vector fields&pg=PA450" is a good one page explanation with some pictures. The complex numbers or complex plane is just R^2. A complex variable can be represented by z=x+iy, where x and y are real numbers. This can also be represented by z=(x,y), a point in R^2. A complex function takes this point and assigns to it another point f(z) = f(x,y) = u+iv = (u,v), which can be viewed as a vector emanating from the point (x,y). This is a little of what the link explains. So a complex function is just a vector field because it takes points in R^2 and assigns vectors to the points.

Complex functions (and thus the vector fields associated with them) can be manipulated by fractional-linear transformations, which can be represented by matrices. They can perform translations, dilations, rotations, and inversions (or any combination thereof) which is what you are referring to matrices changing vector fields. These are complex valued functions, but not all complex valued functions are fractional-linear transformations and thus can't always be represented by matrices.

I don't know what class you are taking, but this is why complex variables is one of the most applicable areas of math. If you view complex functions as vector fields or some other physical interpretation, the theory gives you powerful results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
I am a math and physics major. But first year in both. I end up learning most of this stuff next year so I am in no hurry to become an expert in it all, how ever it is nice to understand how things work, and properly. I have definitely dealt with the complex plain before, and used complex numbers as vectors. Hahaha I just did not think that you would use vectors with complex numbers. I know complex numbers have lots of useful properties to do with waves and so on, but did not expect vectors to find them useful.

I have been told before that you can treat complex numbers like vectors but there are some small things that are not the same. For example I am not sure if you can use a vectors reflection along the y-axis like you can with complex numbers and their conjugate. So I understand that you have to be careful with small things.
 

1. What is a closed curve in mathematics?

A closed curve is a geometric shape that forms a continuous loop without any breaks or openings. It is a simple curve that starts and ends at the same point, and does not intersect itself. Examples of closed curves include circles, ellipses, and squares.

2. How can closed curves be represented mathematically?

Closed curves can be represented mathematically using equations or functions. These equations describe the relationship between the x and y coordinates of points on the curve. For example, the equation of a circle is x² + y² = r², where r is the radius of the circle.

3. What is the difference between a closed curve and an open curve?

The main difference between a closed curve and an open curve is that a closed curve forms a complete loop, while an open curve does not. An open curve can have breaks or openings, and it does not start and end at the same point. Examples of open curves include lines, parabolas, and hyperbolas.

4. What is the importance of understanding closed curves in mathematics?

Understanding closed curves is important in many areas of mathematics, including geometry, calculus, and physics. Closed curves are used to model and represent real-world objects and phenomena, and they play a crucial role in solving mathematical problems and proving theorems.

5. How can closed curves be used in practical applications?

Closed curves have many practical applications, such as in architecture, engineering, and design. They are used to create aesthetically pleasing shapes and structures, and they also have practical applications in fields such as computer graphics, animation, and robotics.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
218
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
981
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
4K
Back
Top