Calculating Line Integrals with Vector Fields on a Bounded Region in 3D Space

ElDavidas
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Again, I'm stuck on a question:

"Let C be the region in space given by 0 \leq x,y,z \leq 1 and let \partial C be the boundary of C oriented by the outward pointing unit normal. Suppose that v is the vector field given by

v = (y^3 -2xy, y^2+3y+2zy, z-z^2).

Evaluate \int_{\partial C} v . dA

Stating clearly any result used"

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well if the integral you need to evaluate is a surface integral then just use Gauss/Divergence theorem. But in this context, your notation, more specifically the dA, is unfamiliar to me.
 
Benny said:
more specifically the dA, is unfamiliar to me.

This is what I don't understand. If you have to calculate the area, why are you given x,y, and z? Unless it's the surface of the cube you have to find out. I'm not sure how to go about doing that though
 
If it's the surface integral over the cube then it should be

<br /> \int\limits_{}^{} {\int\limits_{\partial W}^{} {\mathop v\limits^ \to } } .d\mathop S\limits^ \to = \int\limits_{}^{} {\int\limits_{}^{} {\int\limits_W^{} {\nabla \bullet \mathop v\limits^ \to } } } <br />

Where the terminals of the triple integral go from -1 to 1 for each of x,y and z.
 
Benny said:
<br /> \int\limits_{}^{} {\int\limits_{\partial W}^{} {\mathop v\limits^ \to } } .d\mathop S\limits^ \to = \int\limits_{}^{} {\int\limits_{}^{} {\int\limits_W^{} {\nabla \bullet \mathop v\limits^ \to } } } <br />

Sorry but I don't understand this notation. Are you integrating the gradient of v?
 
It's the divergence of v (there is a dot in between grad and v). If you are unsure about what the problem is asking then you should ask whoever set the question. If it is a textbook problem then surely there should be a related theory section with relevant formulas and explanations.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top