Stokes Theorem Problem: Evaluating Line Integral with Vector Field

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves evaluating a line integral of a vector field using Stokes' Theorem. The closed curve C is defined by specific points in three-dimensional space, and the vector field F is given in component form. Participants are exploring the relationship between the line integral and the curl of the vector field, as well as the appropriate surface to apply Stokes' Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply Stokes' Theorem by calculating the curl of the vector field and expressing the line integral as a surface integral. Some participants question the method of taking the dot product with a plane and clarify the notation used in the expressions. Others suggest alternative formulations of Stokes' Theorem and discuss the implications of the chosen surface.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing clarifications and corrections regarding the application of Stokes' Theorem. There is a recognition of potential confusion surrounding the notation and the setup of the problem. Multiple interpretations of the surface integral and the choice of function are being explored, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly identifying the surface and the corresponding projections in the context of the problem. There is also mention of imposed homework rules that may limit the methods of evaluation.

Simfish
Gold Member
Messages
811
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Let C be the closed curve that goes along straight lines from (0,0,0) to (1,0,1) to (1,1,1) to (0,1,0) and back to (0,0,0). Let F be the vector field [tex]F = (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) i + (xy + xz + yz) j + (x + y + z)k. Find \int F \cdot dr[/tex]

By Stokes Theorem, I know that I can transform this into a curl (instructions say don't evaluate the line integral directly).

So I know I get a form of square that goes CCW. Projected on the xz-plane, it is simply a square (but the y-coordinate of the right end is 1).

I think the plane is described by x = z, since there is no dependence on y. So x-z = 0

Anyways, I take the curl of F to get

[tex]F \cdot dr = (1-x-y) i + (1-2z) j + (y+z-2y) k.[/tex]

I take the dot product of this with the plane z - x = 0 to get

[tex]\nabla f = -i + k[/tex]

and dot that with F to get
[tex]F \cdot \nabla f = x + y -1 + y + z - 2y = x + z -1[/tex]

so then

[tex]\int_0^1 \int_0^1 (x + z -1) dx dy.[/tex] Since x = z...

[tex]\int_0^1 \int_0^1 dx dy = \int_0^1 x^2 - x dy = \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{2} = - \frac{1}{6}[/tex]

am I doing this correctly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Part of your LaTex didn't come through. How do you take the dot product of a vector with a plane?

And what do you mean by "dot that with F"?

You have [tex]F \cdot \nabla f[/tex]

That confuses me greatly. You have a function "F" but say nothing about "f". If you meant [itex]F \cdot \nabla F[/itex], that is not at all what you want.
Stokes theorem has
[tex]\int\int \nabla \times \vec{F}\cdot \vec{n}dA[/tex]
 
Okay, here you have the dot product of a vector with the gradient of the plane:
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calcIII/stokestheorem.aspx
(example 2). But this could be confusing, and there is an alternative way to express Stokes Theorem after the dot product has been taking.

This is Stokes Theorem as a surface integral. (the gradient approach to the surface integral is at http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/SurfIntVectorField.aspx )

As we know,

[tex]\int\int \nabla \times \vec{F}\cdot \vec{n}dA = \int\int F \cdot dS = \int\int -P \frac{\partial g}{\partial x} - Q \frac{\partial g}{\partial y} + R[/tex]

where
[tex]\nabla \times F(x,y,z) = P i + Q j + R k[/tex] and [tex]g = f(x,y) = z[/tex]

The equation of my plane should be z = f(x,y) = x, right? (the plane is f, and determined by "Let C be the closed curve that goes along straight lines from (0,0,0) to (1,0,1) to (1,1,1) to (0,1,0) and back to (0,0,0).")

in that case, [tex]\frac{\partial g}{\partial x} = 1, \frac{\partial g}{\partial y} = 0[/tex]

So correcting my arithmetic..

[tex]F \cdot \nabla f = -(1 - x - y) + y + z - 2y dA[/tex]
= [tex]\int_0^1 \int_0^1 -1 + x + z[/tex]

We take z = x. Is this an appropriate choice? If so

[tex]\int_0^1 \int_0^1 2x - 1 dx dy = \int_0^1 x^2 - x (1,0) = \int_0^1 0 ...[/tex]

what am I doing wrong here?
 
Last edited:
You set [tex]g = f(x,y) = z[/tex], so your D will be the projection of graph g at x-y plane.
You can substitute [tex]z=x[/tex] at there. I got zero as well for this question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K