what do mean the author by the red underline line?
Why would 33.22abe false? Thanks.
His point is that a discontinuity in E_\parallel would require an infinite dB/dt.
The continutiy of E_\parallel is more frequently shown usilng Stokes' theorem, which I think is a bit clearer, but also depends on finite dB/dt.
Oké thanks I understand that.
But by contradiction if 33.22b would be discontinue than equation 33.22a would be false why can he say that?
The first argument about the continuity of 33.2b is clear but for me not the second contraction proof.
I think his mention 0f 33.2a is a misprint.
I don't know what you mean by "contraction proof".
Sorry for my bad English I mean a proof by contradiction.
Separate names with a comma.