Proving a theorem in line integrals

anhtu2907
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
At the bottom of the picture, I couldn't understand why differentiating with respect to x gives the first integral at the right-hand side 0. Thanks for reading.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 374
Physics news on Phys.org
In my opinion, that is simply wrong. Rather than taking C_1 to be "any path from (a, b) to (x_1, y)" we must choose C_1 to be the vertical line from (a, b) to (a, y) then take C_2 to be the horizontal line from (a, y) to (x, y).
 
I'm no math pro, but my guess would be that since you have the hypothesis that your integral is path independent, then
<br /> \int_{C_1} F\cdot dr = \int^{(x1,y)}_{(a,b)} F\cdot dr = f(x1,y) - f(a,b)<br />
which differentiated w.r.t. x gives 0 and w.r.t. y does not (since the point (x,y) is arbitrary, y is arbitrary but x1,a,b are fixed)
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top