On an alternative Stokes theorem

AI Thread Summary
An alternative form of Stokes' theorem was presented, prompting a request for proof and clarification. The discussion highlights that modifying a theorem while retaining its name is inappropriate unless done collaboratively. The alternative notation appears equivalent to the original Stokes' theorem, and a method for proving this equivalence using vector calculus is suggested. There is also a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the inquiry, with the original poster clarifying that their question is general rather than homework-related. The conversation emphasizes the importance of clear communication, especially for non-native English speakers seeking assistance.
curupira
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I find in a homework an alternative Stokes theorem tha i wasn't knew before. I wold like to know that it is really true. Any can give me a proof please?

It is:

Int (line) dℓ′× A = Int (surface)dS′×∇′× A
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First off, you cannot modify someone else's theorem and still leave his name attached to it (unless you collaborate with him).
Secondly, I think that this belongs in the Homework sub-forum.
 
I can't really read your equation very well but it looks like Stoke's theorem written using alternative notation.

I bet it is equivalent and you can show it with a few lines of manipulation.
 
Use the vector field:

<br /> \vec{F} = \vec{C} \times \vec{A}<br />

where \vec{C} is an arbitrary, but constant vector in the original Stokes' Theorem. Perform some simplifications for:

<br /> \nabla \times \vec{F}<br />

using nabla calculus and you will arrive at your alternative form of Stokes' Theorem.
 
Danger said:
First off, you cannot modify someone else's theorem and still leave his name attached to it (unless you collaborate with him).
Secondly, I think that this belongs in the Homework sub-forum.

Well, First, I think that you don't understood what I say, because i don't speak english, so its hard but I try to post, others understood me and have answered my question. In fact you don't understood nothing.

Second, It is a general question, and don't a homework question, my homework I solved , but there was a little part incomprehensible to me.

I don't want damage the forum, but think that is possible stay posting here without to know english, cause there's people here that help me, and it is usefull to me.
Thanks!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top