Integrating n.curl F and n^grad(phi) on a Closed Surface

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tiggy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Vectors
Tiggy
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am trying to show for a closed surface
the integral n.curlF ds and
the integral n^grad(phi) ds
both equal zero.

Any ideas? Do I need to use identities such as div curl F=0
I can't seem to find a way to make the integrands equal zero.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
does ^ mean a cross product? If that is the case, then what do you mean by the integral of a vector being equal to zero? Do you mean the vector (0,0,0)?
 
Siberius, I assume dS is actually a vector too, Tiggy just didn't put in the 'dot' to make it a scalar.

Tiggy, Stokes Theorem is that for a nice surface/volume you have the relation

\int_{V}d\eta = \int_{\partial V}\eta

You're asking to find \int_{S = \partial V}\eta where \eta is the integrands you've given. Can you work out their divergences? The first one is quite clearly zero by the identity you mention. The second one is zero by the fact a.(b \times a) = 0, even when a = \nabla (proof by suffix notation).
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top