Confusion over line integrals, Green's Theoreom, Conservative fields

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
bugatti79
Messages
786
Reaction score
4
Folks,

1) If we have [itex]\int F \cdot dr[/itex] that is independent of the path, does that mean that the integral will always be 0?

2) For 2 dimensional problems when we evaluate line integrals directly and use Greens Theorem for every piece wise smooth closed curves C, arent we always calculating the area of the curve regardless what the functions f(x,y) and g(x,y) are in

[itex]\int_C F \cdot dr = \int_C f(x,y) dx + g(x,y) dy[/itex]

3) What is the definition of a 'smooth' curve?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bugatti79 said:
Folks,

1) If we have [itex]\int F \cdot dr[/itex] that is independent of the path, does that mean that the integral will always be 0?

No, but the path integral of a conservative field would always be 0 if the start and end points are the same.

bugatti79 said:
2) For 2 dimensional problems when we evaluate line integrals directly and use Greens Theorem for every piece wise smooth closed curves C, arent we always calculating the area of the curve regardless what the functions f(x,y) and g(x,y) are in

[itex]\int_C F \cdot dr = \int_C f(x,y) dx + g(x,y) dy[/itex]

Curves do not have area. The area enclosed by a curve C (let's call this region D) in ℝ2, [itex]\int_D da[/itex], is not what you would be calculating to use Green's Theorem.

Just like, in general a single integral is not equal to the length of the integration.

[itex]\int ^{b} _{a} dx[/itex] is not in general the same as [itex]\int ^{b} _{a} f(x) dx[/itex]
 
Last edited: