Green's theorem: problem with proof

In summary, Wikipedia's proof for Green's theorem is incorrect. The proof claims that equation (2) is what comes with similar computations, but in fact equation (2) doesn't come with similar computations with those assumptions.
  • #1
Valis2k
1
0
hi everybody, this is my first post, hope you can help me

check this proof for Green's theorem for a particular case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green's_theorem

rigth after equation (3) you have to calculate the integral
4e531757dbd074bc25a314fa61c2e4d6.png

4e531757dbd074bc25a314fa61c2e4d6.png

\int_{C_1} L(x,y)\, dx = \int_a^b \Big\{L[x,g_1(x)]\Big\}\, dx
but this is an integral of a function calculated on a curve, so there should be also
norm( C1' ) = sqrt( 1^2 + g'(x)^2 )

wikipedia's proof is rigth, I checked it on a book, so where am I wrong? :confused:

big thanks to all those who will answer!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose you have a real valued function on a plane, [tex]r:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex] and a path on the plane, [tex]\phi:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}^2[/tex]. Then an integral of the r along the path defined by phi is [tex]\int_a^b r|D\phi|dx[/tex]. I think this is what you had in mind when you were talking about [tex]\sqrt{1+(g'(x))^2}[/tex].

If you instead have a vector field [tex]v:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2[/tex], and want to calculate an integral of this field along the path, then it is [tex]\int_a^b (v\cdot D\phi)dx[/tex]. This is the case in the Green's theorem. L and M should be considered as components of one vector field. phi is defined to be [tex]\phi(x)=(x,g(x))[/tex], so that [tex]D\phi=(1,g'(x))[/tex]. So the expression to be integrated is [tex]v_1 + v_2g'(x)[/tex]. In wikipedia, only the first term is integrated.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
green in a rectangle becomes the one variable FTC if you use repeaT5ED INTEGRATION.
 
  • #4
So Wikipedia's proof is erroneous?
 
  • #5
Valis2K says that he has found the wikipedia's proof in his books, but Jostpur states that the proof contains wrong equations (not including all the terms that must be integrated). May someone clarify this, please??
 
  • #6
I did not say that the Wikipedia's proof had any wrong equations.

but this is an integral of a function calculated on a curve, so there should be also
norm( C1' ) = sqrt( 1^2 + g'(x)^2 )

That was a wrong expression. Valis2k wondered why that wasn't in the Wikipedia's integral, and I explained why that expression wasn't in the integral.

But I just started thinking more about Wikipedia's proof. In fact it isn't of a most complete kind. They say in the end that

Similar computations give (2).

but in fact equation (2) doesn't come with similar computations with those assumptions.

EDIT: Oh, sorry Castilla, I didn't read carefully what you claimed to be what I had called wrong. It looks like Wikipedia's proof leave some part of the integration out on purpose. Very typical. Prove half of the theorem and say that rest comes easily. You know this stuff?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Of course! "Simple to prove" means "I haven't the slightest idea how to do this, so I'll just say it's too easy to bother showing you"!
 
  • #8
I am reading Apostol's and Stewart's chapters about line integrals. Apostol only refers to line integrals of vector fields. Stewart says that line integrals can be referred also to scalar fields but I fail to grasp how to link these line integrals with those ones.

To an amateur like me, this brings trouble for understanding Green's theorem, because they always use line integrals of vector fields and of scalar fields as well.

Does someone knows a page where these issues are reviewed?

By the way, i am studying these things only by myself (no teacher, no nothing) so don't smile if I fail to see obvious connections in the matter of study or something like that...

Also excuse my clumsy english.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
take a rectangle, and a simple one form like f(x,y)dx. and prove greens thm for that.

that is really all there is to it.
 

What is Green's theorem and why is there a problem with its proof?

Green's theorem is a fundamental theorem in vector calculus that relates the line integral around a simple closed curve to a double integral over the region enclosed by the curve. The problem with its proof lies in its assumptions, specifically the assumption of the existence of a continuous first-order partial derivative of the vector field in the region enclosed by the curve.

What is the significance of the problem with Green's theorem's proof?

The problem with the proof of Green's theorem calls into question the validity and applicability of the theorem in certain cases, particularly when the vector field does not have a continuous first-order partial derivative in the region enclosed by the curve.

Is there a solution to the problem with Green's theorem's proof?

There is no definitive solution to the problem with Green's theorem's proof, but there have been various attempts to address it. Some mathematicians have proposed alternative versions of the theorem with different assumptions, while others have explored the use of generalized functions or distribution theory to extend the validity of the theorem.

How does the problem with Green's theorem's proof impact its applications in real-world problems?

The problem with Green's theorem's proof may limit its applicability in certain real-world problems where the vector field does not satisfy the necessary assumptions. In these cases, alternative techniques or the use of more general theorems may be necessary to solve the problem.

Are there any ongoing research efforts to address the problem with Green's theorem's proof?

Yes, there are ongoing research efforts to address the problem with Green's theorem's proof, with the goal of finding a more general and robust version of the theorem that can be applied in a wider range of situations. This includes exploring connections to other mathematical theories and developing new techniques for solving problems that would typically use Green's theorem.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
643
  • Calculus
Replies
29
Views
520
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
289
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top