Stoke's theorem rewritten, not in book, but am I right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Theorem
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application and reformulation of Stokes' theorem, specifically in the context of vector calculus. Participants are examining the expression involving the curl of a vector field and its relation to surface integrals and line integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring different forms of Stokes' theorem and questioning the definitions of variables involved, such as the parametric surface derivatives. There is also a discussion about the correctness of the reformulation of the theorem.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided feedback on the formulation attempts, indicating that there may be misunderstandings regarding the theorem's expression. Clarifications about the normal vector's direction and the definitions of certain variables have been raised, suggesting a productive exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of missing definitions for certain variables, which may affect the clarity of the discussion. Additionally, the participants are navigating through the implications of the normal vector's orientation in relation to the theorem.

flyingpig
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement

This is Stoke's theorem in my textbook and I am trying to write it in a new form

[tex]\iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{S}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]\iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{S} = \iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot \hat{n} dS = \iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot \frac{(\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v})}{|\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v}|} |\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v}| dA = \iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot (\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v}) dA[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
... what is [itex]\bf{r}_u[/itex] and [itex]\bf{r}_v[/itex]?
 
The partial derivatives of my parametric surface which I forgot to define...

So r(u,v)
 
flyingpig said:

Homework Statement




This is Stoke's theorem in my textbook and I am trying to write it in a new form

[tex]\iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{S}[/tex]
No, that is not Stoke's theorem.



The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]\iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{S} = \iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot \hat{n} dS = \iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot \frac{(\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v})}{|\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v}|} |\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v}| dA = \iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot (\mathbf{r_u} \times \mathbf{r_v}) dA[/tex]
 
Sorry I meant that

[tex]\iint_S curl \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{S} = \oint \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r}[/tex]
 
The idea is correct. Except that n might be either +/-(r_u x r_v)/|r_u x r_v| depending on the direction of the normal implied by the problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K