Curl and its relation to line integrals

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical concept of curl in vector calculus and its relationship to line integrals. Participants explore the implications of defining curl in terms of line integrals and how this definition may vary when considering different unit vectors in the Cartesian coordinate system.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a limit definition of curl in relation to line integrals, questioning how this definition changes when using different unit vectors, specifically curlF·x versus curlF·z.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the terminology used, questioning whether the presented formula is a definition and pointing out a lack of clarity regarding the relationship between the components of the formula.
  • A later reply clarifies that the curve C is a planar closed curve orthogonal to the unit vector u, addressing previous misunderstandings.
  • Some participants note that while the limit definition is not the standard definition of curl, it is considered equivalent under certain conditions, with one participant expressing a preference for this intuitive approach over the standard textbook definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of curl, with some agreeing that the limit definition is intuitive while others assert it is not the standard definition. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of using different unit vectors in the context of curl.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the smoothness of the vector field and the nature of the curves involved. The discussion also highlights the potential for different interpretations of definitions in vector calculus.

member 428835
hey all

i know and understand the component of curl/line integral relation as: [tex]curlF\cdot u=\lim_{A(C)\to0}\frac{1}{A(C)} \oint_C F\cdot dr[/tex] where we have vector field [itex]F[/itex], [itex]A(C)[/itex] is the area of a closed boundary, [itex]u[/itex] is an arbitrary unit vector, [itex]dr[/itex] is an infinitely small piece of curve [itex]C[/itex]

my question is, how does this definition change if i have, say [itex]curlF\cdot {x}[/itex] versus [itex]curlF\cdot {z}[/itex] where [itex]x[/itex] and [itex]z[/itex] are the unit vectors in the standard cartesian system.

thanks for the feedback! you guys/girls are amazing!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your question. First what "definition" are you talking about? The formula you give is not a definition. Second, you are given a formula for [itex]curl F\cdot u[/itex] where u can be any unit vector- but there is no reference to c on the right side- they cannot be equal. Did you mean that u is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane of C? But you did not require that C be a planar curve.
 
HallsofIvy said:
First what "definition" are you talking about? The formula you give is not a definition.
I read information about this on a vector analysis course page by the university of minnesota, where they said the line integral above was the way one formally defines curl. is this incorrect?

HallsofIvy said:
Second, you are given a formula for [itex]curl F\cdot u[/itex] where u can be any unit vector- but there is no reference to c on the right side- they cannot be equal. Did you mean that u is the unit vector perpendicular to the plane of C? But you did not require that C be a planar curve.
yes, apologies here. [itex]C[/itex] is a planar closed curve around some point in space orthogonal to [itex]u[/itex]
 
joshmccraney said:
I read information about this on a vector analysis course page by the university of minnesota, where they said the line integral above was the way one formally defines curl. is this incorrect?

It's not really incorrect, since it's equivalent to the usual definition (if everything is smooth enough). But it's not the standard definition. Usually textbooks defines curl totally differently. The standard definition is: http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/CurlDivergence.aspx

I actually do like your limit definition better since it is way more intuitive.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K