Proving Independence of x in Line Integral for Vector Calculus Proof

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jackiefrost
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the independence of the variable x in the context of a line integral for vector calculus, specifically examining a proof presented in a multivariable calculus textbook. Participants explore the implications of this independence and the structure of the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how the line integral can be considered independent of x, noting that the integral seems dependent on r, which they assume is a function of both x and y.
  • Another participant clarifies that the integral is a function of x1 and y only, suggesting that locally, x1 can be treated as independent of x when y is held constant.
  • A later reply appreciates the clever structure of the proof, indicating a shift in understanding regarding the independence of x.
  • Another participant introduces a method involving the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) to demonstrate the independence of x, suggesting a specific approach to calculating partial derivatives along chosen paths.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the independence of x in the integral, with some appreciating the proof's structure while others remain confused. There is no clear consensus on the interpretation of the independence of x.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of the FTC and the choice of paths in evaluating the integral, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the dependence of variables and the conditions under which independence holds.

jackiefrost
Messages
140
Reaction score
1
This isn't homework. I was browsing through my old James Stewart multivariable calc textbook and am having a mental block concering an aspect of the "proof", shown in the file attachment, below. I've highlighted the portion giving me trouble.

My confusion concerns how the first integral (the line integral for C1) can be regarded as independent of x. The integral isn't independent of r which I assume would be dependent on both x and y.

Thanks in advance...

Sorry - the file attachment was hard to read - here is a link instead...

http://home.comcast.net/~ut1880h/Files/stewart_theorem.jpg"

jf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
jackiefrost said:
My confusion concerns how the first integral (the line integral for C1) can be regarded as independent of x. The integral isn't independent of r which I assume would be dependent on both x and y.

Hi jackiefrost! :smile:

The integral is [tex]\int_{(a.b)}^{(x_1,y)}\bold{F}\cdot d\bold{r}[/tex]

This is a function of x1 and y only.

If you increase or decrease x a little (keeping y the same), you can still use the same x1 … so, locally, x1 is independent of x (and so is y, of course). :smile:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi jackiefrost!
If you increase or decrease x a little (keeping y the same), you can still use the same x1 … so, locally, x1 is independent of x (and so is y, of course). :smile:
Hi tt,
Thanks for the insight. Once was I blind but now I see... :bugeye:

I'm starting to appreciate how cleverly this proof is structured to efficiently arrive at the desire end. It kinda tickles my head in a way that feels good (if you know what I mean) :smile:

jf
 
thou once wast lost, but now art found …

jackiefrost said:
Hi tt,
Thanks for the insight. Once was I blind but now I see... :bugeye:

I'm starting to appreciate how cleverly this proof is structured to efficiently arrive at the desire end. It kinda tickles my head in a way that feels good (if you know what I mean) :smile:

jf

Hi jf,

it is a champagne amongst proofs! :smile:

hallelujah! :approve:

 
this is a trivial fact that follows instantly from the FTC. write your field as Pdx + Qdy, and then define the primitive function f(p) as the path integral of Pdx + Qdy taken along any path from a fixed point a to p.

all you need to do is show the x partial of f is P and the y partial is Q.

since the integral is the same for all paths, you choose the path to make this calculation easy.

e.g. to calculate ∂f/∂x make the path piecewise rectangular, with the last bit parallel to the x axis.

then the part of the integral for Qdy is zero (since y is not changing along a path parallel to the x axis), and the derivative of the Pdx bit is P by the FTC. etc...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
20K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K