Integral through a path in 2D (or ND) What's the usual definition ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of path integrals in two-dimensional (or higher-dimensional) spaces, particularly focusing on how to approach the integration of a scalar function along a specified path. Participants explore different methods of reasoning about the integration process, including the treatment of infinitesimals and the implications of different approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 presents two methods for reasoning about path integrals: summing infinitesimals separately for x and y, or summing them with respect to the change in r.
  • Post 2 asserts that a path integral should be defined along the length of the path, supporting the second method from Post 1.
  • Post 3 emphasizes that for line integrals of a scalar field, the integral is typically taken with respect to arc length, indicating that the second method is the standard approach. However, it notes that in vector fields, the integral can be expressed in terms of dx and dy.
  • Post 4 expresses gratitude for the clarifications provided by other participants, inviting further contributions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is a general agreement that the second method of integration (with respect to arc length) is the standard approach for path integrals. However, there is some contention regarding the validity and applicability of the first method, particularly for general paths.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the potential limitations or assumptions underlying the different methods of integration, nor does it clarify the conditions under which each method may be applicable.

Swimmingly!
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Integral through a path in 2D (or ND) What's the usual "definition"?

[Bold letters are vectors. eg: r]
We have a scalar function f(r) and a path g(x)=y.
I see two ways to reason:
(1) The little infinitesimals are summed with the change of x and on the change of y separately.
(2) The little infinitesimals are summed with the change of r.

For example:
The scalar function is f(r)=1
The path is the straight line x=y, from x=0 to x=1.
(1) ∫dx+∫dy=1+1=2 ∫dx from 0 to 1, and since x=y, ∫dy from 0 to 1.
(2) ∫dr=√2 It's a straight path so ∫dr from 0 to √2.

What is the regular way to take an integral through a path?
(1) treats x and y totally independently, (2) seems more "physical/relative" but harder to calculate
 
Physics news on Phys.org


A path integral is the integral along the length of the path, so (2).
I think (1) is not possible (in a meaningful way) for general paths.
 


Like mfb said, 99% of the time when you're asked for a line integral of a scalar field you'll want it with respect to arc length, and then you'll want the integral with ds in it. As you showed in your post, ##\int_C{F(x,y) dx}## + ##\int_C{F(x,y) dy}## ≠ ##\int_C{F(x,y) ds}##, so the line integral is defined like (2) in your post.

When you are doing line integrals in a vector field ##\vec{F}(x,y) = <P,Q>##however, you'll find out that ##\int_C{\vec{F}(x,y) \cdot d\vec{r}} = \int_C{P dx} + \int_C{Q dy}##, so then you'll use line integrals with regards to dx and dy.
 
Last edited:


Thank you for your answers.
I think it completely clears it up. (feel free to add anything if you want of course)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K