Curl of Function: Constant Magnitude or Way Off?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nolanp2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curl Function
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the gradient of the curl of a function is not always zero, countering a common misconception. It emphasizes that while the divergence of the curl is always zero, this does not imply that the gradient of the curl is constant. The conversation highlights the distinction between the properties of curl and gradient, specifically noting that the curl of a gradient is zero, not the other way around. Additionally, it points out that the term "grad of curl" is not defined, as the gradient applies to scalar fields. Overall, the thread underscores the importance of understanding the fundamental properties of vector calculus.
nolanp2
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
if the grad of the curl of a function is always zero does this mean the magnitude of the curl is constant? or am i way off here?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
edit: misread the question- sorry!
 
Last edited:
Firstly note that it is NOT true that the grad of the curl of a function is always zero.

Actually nolan I think you are mixing up two separate properties of "curl" there to come to this misconception. The properties that you are thinking of are probably these two :

1. The div of the curl of a function is always zero. (div is not the same thing as grad ok).

2. If a given function can be written as the grad of another function then that given function has a curl of zero.

Note that neither of thse two things (taken seperately or together) imply what you have written.
 
Ok looking at your question again I can see that it's probably the second property that I wrote that is the one you have gotten mixed up. It's the curl of a grad that is zero (a zero vector) not the way you put it, grad of a curl is not neccessarily zero
 
that the curl of the grad is zero is essentially trivial. it follows from the trivial fact that the integral of GRAD is zero around a closed curve. this is because that integral is evaluated by subtracting the values of some function at the two endpoints, which are equal.

that in turn is true by the FTC, which holds by the trivial fact that the derivative of the area function is the height functon, which holds trivially because the area of a rectangle is the base times the height.

on the other hand, sticking all these trivialities together, maybe we have a pathologically amazing theorem!

more interesting is the investigation of forms with zero curl which are not gradients, like dtheta.
 
One other thing I should have noticed about the original post. "Grad of Curl" isn't even defined. Grad is normally applied to a scaler field, giving a vector result. So "div of curl" makes sense but "grad of curl" doesn't. So my guess is that the OP is getting confused between grad and div.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top