Line Integral: Computing for $\int _1 ^2 V(x)dx$

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on computing the line integral of a vector field V from the point (1,1,0) to (2,2,0) along the identity function path. The integral is expressed as ∫_1^2 V(x)dx, which simplifies the computation by allowing the use of x as the sole variable. Participants clarify that since the function depends only on x, it's valid to integrate directly along the x-axis without needing additional parametrization. One contributor finds it helpful to parametrize the variables as x=t and y=t for better understanding. Ultimately, the consensus is that using x as the parameter simplifies the integration process.
mathsciguy
Messages
134
Reaction score
1
Suppose I have a vector V and I want to compute for the line integral from point (1,1,0) to point (2,2,0) and I take the path of the least distance (one that traces the identity function).

The line integral is of the form:
\int _a ^b \vec{V} \cdot d\vec{l}

Where:

x=y, \ d\vec{l} =dx \hat{x} + dx \hat{y}

Thus the integral can be computed purely in terms of x (can also be y), which looks something like this:
\int _a ^b V(x)dx

What I don't exactly understand is why is it okay to use the limits like this:
\int _1 ^2 V(x)dx

Why can we use the limits from 1 to 2 if we express the line integral in terms purely of x. I have a very vague idea of why it is, but I'd rather take it from people who actually know this to explain this to me. Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If I understand you correctly, the function you end up integrating is only in terms of ##x##, and therefore you don't need to parametrize it (or you can look at it by saying you are using ##x## as your parameter). Either way, because your function is dependent only on ##x##, all you have to do is integrate along the x-axis, which is from 1 to 2.
 
Actually, I've found out that to 'parametrize' the variables into x=t, y=t is a more comforting method to do it. At least intuitively, I see it as tracing the path of integration when we set the x and y variables into that parametric equation.

Edit: Yes, I didn't see it, but I was using x as the parameter. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...
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...
Back
Top