Green's Thm: How am I not applying it correctly?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter math_maj0r
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Green's Theorem in evaluating a line integral over a specific curve defined by a portion of a circle and its associated vector field. Participants explore the correct setup for the integral, including the bounds of integration and the nature of the region involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about their application of Green's Theorem, noting their calculated answer differs from expected results.
  • Several participants point out that the bounds of integration do not describe a circular region, but rather a triangular one.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of closing the path for Green's Theorem, with emphasis on the importance of including the straight line segments along with the arc of the circle.
  • One participant suggests changing to polar coordinates for the integration, while another corrects the initial polar coordinate transformation provided by the original poster.
  • Participants discuss the need to account for the line segments when setting up the path integral and express uncertainty about how to do so effectively.
  • There is a clarification that Green's Theorem is used to relate area integrals to path integrals, not to directly set up a path integral.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to properly close the path for the application of Green's Theorem and the importance of accurately defining the region of integration. However, there are competing views on how to correctly set up the integrals and the specifics of the transformations involved, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the correct bounds and transformations for the integrals, as well as the implications of not closing the path in the application of Green's Theorem. There are unresolved mathematical steps related to the integration process and the definitions of the regions involved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners interested in vector calculus, particularly those studying Green's Theorem and its applications in evaluating line and area integrals.

math_maj0r
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Curve consists of part of a circle x2 + y2 = 4
theta from 0 to pi/4

Vector field F = <y2-yx2 , yx2>

(let the i component be P, and the j component be Q)

I used the following formula: double integral of [(partial derivative of Q with respect to x) - (partial derivative of P with respect to y) dA]

So I got: double integral of [ (2xy) - (2y - x2) dy dx ] y from 0 to x, and x from 0 to 2

I got answer = 16/3 which is wrong.

My question is: What is wrong about the way I applied Green's thm?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, for one thing, your bounds of integration do not describe a circle.
 
nicksauce said:
Well, for one thing, your bounds of integration do not describe a circle.

the curve doesn't consist of the whole circle. it is only part of the circle where theta is from 0 to pi/4
 
Still, your bounds of integration describe a triangular region, not a circular region.
 
math_maj0r said:
the curve doesn't consist of the whole circle. it is only part of the circle where theta is from 0 to pi/4

That's the whole point! Green's theorem says that
[tex]\int Mdx+ Ldy= \int\int \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}- \frac{\partial M}{\partial y}\right)dxdy[/tex]
Where the path integral is over a closed path and the double integral is over the region bounded by that path. The arc of a circle from 0 to [itex]\pi/4[/itex] is not a closed path. And your double integral was over the triangle bounded by the lines y= 0, x= 2, and y= x which doesn't have anything to do with the given path! The lines y= 0 and y= x are okay but the curved side is NOT the straight line x= 2.

If you really want to use Green's theorem to find that integral you will have to add the line y= 0, from x=0 to 2 and the line y= x. To integrate over the area bounded by those and the arc of the circle, I would recommend changing to polar coordinates, taking [itex]\theta[/itex] from 0 to [itex]\pi/4[/itex] and r from 0 to 2. If you really want to use rectangular coordinates, you will need to do two integrals, the first with y from 0 to x and then x from 0 to [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex], since y= x intersects [itex]x^2+ y^2= 4[/itex] at [itex](\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{2})[/itex]. The second integral would be with y from 0 to [itex]\sqrt{4- x^2}[/itex] and x from [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] to 2.

And, of course, the integral on that region will NOT be the path integral on the arc, it will be the path integral on the arc plus the path integrals on the two straight lines. To find the path integral on the arc, you would need to calculate the path integrals on the two straight lines separately and subtract them from the area integral.
 
HallsofIvy said:
That's the whole point! Green's theorem says that
[tex]\int Mdx+ Ldy= \int\int \left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}- \frac{\partial M}{\partial y}\right)dxdy[/tex]
Where the path integral is over a closed path and the double integral is over the region bounded by that path. The arc of a circle from 0 to [itex]\pi/4[/itex] is not a closed path. And your double integral was over the triangle bounded by the lines y= 0, x= 2, and y= x which doesn't have anything to do with the given path! The lines y= 0 and y= x are okay but the curved side is NOT the straight line x= 2.

If you really want to use Green's theorem to find that integral you will have to add the line y= 0, from x=0 to 2 and the line y= x. To integrate over the area bounded by those and the arc of the circle, I would recommend changing to polar coordinates, taking [itex]\theta[/itex] from 0 to [itex]\pi/4[/itex] and r from 0 to 2. If you really want to use rectangular coordinates, you will need to do two integrals, the first with y from 0 to x and then x from 0 to [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex], since y= x intersects [itex]x^2+ y^2= 4[/itex] at [itex](\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{2})[/itex]. The second integral would be with y from 0 to [itex]\sqrt{4- x^2}[/itex] and x from [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] to 2.

And, of course, the integral on that region will NOT be the path integral on the arc, it will be the path integral on the arc plus the path integrals on the two straight lines. To find the path integral on the arc, you would need to calculate the path integrals on the two straight lines separately and subtract them from the area integral.

The question did say that the curve is bounded by x = 0 and y = 0. I didn't mention it because I mistakenly thought it was obvious.

Anyway, so to convert [y2 - 2y + x2] dx dy into polar coordinates I did: x = 2cos(theta), y = 2sin(theta), then got: [r2-4sin(theta)]r dr d(theta) Is that incorrect? Because I'm not getting the right answer even though I integrated r from 0 to 2, and theta from 0 to pi/4
 
math_maj0r said:
The question did say that the curve is bounded by x = 0 and y = 0. I didn't mention it because I mistakenly thought it was obvious.

Anyway, so to convert [y2 - 2y + x2] dx dy into polar coordinates I did: x = 2cos(theta), y = 2sin(theta), then got: [r2-4sin(theta)]r dr d(theta) Is that incorrect? Because I'm not getting the right answer even though I integrated r from 0 to 2, and theta from 0 to pi/4
No. [itex]x= r cos(\theta)[/itex] and [itex]y= r sin(\theta)[/itex], not "[itex]2cos(\theta)[/itex] and [itex]2sin(\theta)[/itex]. [itex]y^2- 2y+ ^2[/itex] becomes [itex]r^2- 2r sin(\theta)[/itex]. Your integral should be
[tex]\int_{\theta= 0}^{\pi/4}\int_{r= 0}^2 (r^2- 2r sin(\theta))r drd\theta[/tex]

And that double integral will NOT be the path integral over the curve because you have not taken into acount the two straight line boundaries of the region. That will be equal to the integral on the x-axis, from x= 0 to x= 2 plus the integral over the curve, plus the integral on y= x from x= [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] to 0.
 
HallsofIvy said:
No. [itex]x= r cos(\theta)[/itex] and [itex]y= r sin(\theta)[/itex], not "[itex]2cos(\theta)[/itex] and [itex]2sin(\theta)[/itex]. [itex]y^2- 2y+ ^2[/itex] becomes [itex]r^2- 2r sin(\theta)[/itex]. Your integral should be
[tex]\int_{\theta= 0}^{\pi/4}\int_{r= 0}^2 (r^2- 2r sin(\theta))r drd\theta[/tex]

And that double integral will NOT be the path integral over the curve because you have not taken into acount the two straight line boundaries of the region. That will be equal to the integral on the x-axis, from x= 0 to x= 2 plus the integral over the curve, plus the integral on y= x from x= [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] to 0.

i can't figure out how to take into account the line segments from (0,0) to (2,0), and from (square root of 2, square root of 2) to (0, 0)

what's the most efficient way to set up the path integral using green's thm?
 
I don't know what you mean by "set up the path integral using green's thm". You don't use Green's theorem to set up a path integral! You use it to give a hopefully simpler area integral equal to the path integral on a closed path. One difficulty I have with this is that you have never said what the original problem was!

If the problem is just to find the path integral you cite- the integral of [itex]<y^2-yx^2 , yx^2>[/itex] over the unit circle from [itex]\theta= 0[/itex] to [itex]2\pi[/itex], I see no reason to use Green's theorem at all.

If you must use Green's theorem then, like I said, you must take into account the straight line sides. On the x-axis, y= 0 so you can take x= t, y= 0, dx= dt, dy= 0. The vector function [itex]<y^2-yx^2 , yx^2>= < 0, 0>[/itex] so the integral is just 0.

On the line y= x, take x= t, y= t so dx= dy= dt. [itex]<y^2-yx^2 , yx^2>= <t^2- t^3, t^3>[/itex] so the integral is

[tex]\int_{t=\sqrt{2}}^0 (t^2- t^3)dt+ t^3dt[/tex]

[tex]= \int_{t= \sqrt{2}}^0[/tex][tex]t^2 dt[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
thank you so much :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K