Stoke's Theorem Validation with v = xy x + 2yz y + 3xz z, JDGriffiths Prob 1.33

  • Thread starter Thread starter Living_Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around validating Stoke's theorem for the vector field v = xy x + 2yz y + 3xz z, using a specific surface bounded by x = 0, 0 <= y <= 2, and 0 <= z = -y + 2. Participants are examining the area and line integrals to check for consistency as per Stoke's theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculations of the area and line integrals, questioning the setup and limits of integration. There are inquiries about the correct expression for the area element and the direction of integration. Some participants express confusion over the signs in the curl calculation and its implications for the dot product with the area element.

Discussion Status

There is active engagement with multiple participants providing insights and corrections regarding the integral calculations. Some participants have identified potential mistakes in the original poster's approach, particularly concerning the limits of integration and the area element. The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their reasoning and checking each other's work.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the problem as stated in JDGriffiths, 3rd ed, and are focused on ensuring that their calculations align with the requirements of Stoke's theorem. There is mention of reviewing external resources to clarify concepts related to area integrals.

Living_Dog
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
JDGriffiths, 3rd ed, Prob. 1.33:

Given v = xy x + 2yz y + 3xz z, check that Stoke's theorem is valid using the surface bounded by:
x = 0, 0 <= y <= 2, and 0 <= z = -y + 2. (See attached image.)

DJGriffiths Prob 1.33.bmp

Area Integral Result:
[tex]\int \nabla \times \mathbf{v} \cdot d\mathbf{a} = \int (-2y) (\frac{1}{2} dy dz) = -4[/tex]

Line Integral Result:
[tex]\int \mathbf{v} \cdot d\mathbf{l} } = \int (xy dx + 2yz dy + 3 xz dz) = \frac{8}{3}[/tex]

Stoke's theorem says they should be equal. What am I doing worng?
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
check your integral over the surface, note that
[tex]d\vec{a} = dy \, dz \hat{x} \Rightarrow \vec{\nabla} \wedge \vec{v}\cdot d\vec{a} = 2 \,y\,dy\,dz[/tex]
and watch the limits of the integral for dz. you should obtain the same results as your line integral. hope this helps. sincerely, x
 
Last edited:
Living_Dog said:
JDGriffiths, 3rd ed, Prob. 1.33:

Given v = xy x + 2yz y + 3xz z, check that Stoke's theorem is valid using the surface bounded by:
x = 0, 0 <= y <= 2, and 0 <= z = -y + 2. (See attached image.)

DJGriffiths Prob 1.33.bmp

Area Integral Result:
[tex]\int \nabla \times \mathbf{v} \cdot d\mathbf{a} = \int (-2y) (\frac{1}{2} dy dz) = -4[/tex]
Why "(1/2)dydz"? That area is in the yz-plane so the differential of area is just dydz.

Line Integral Result:
[tex]\int \mathbf{v} \cdot d\mathbf{l} } = \int (xy dx + 2yz dy + 3 xz dz) = \frac{8}{3}[/tex]
Be careful of the direction in which you are integrating. I presume you see that it is only the line z= 2- y that gives a non-zero integral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
xman said:
check your integral over the surface, note that
[tex]d\vec{a} = dy \, dz \hat{x} \Rightarrow \vec{\nabla} \wedge \vec{v}\cdot d\vec{a} = 2 \,y\,dy\,dz[/tex]
and watch the limits of the integral for dz. you should obtain the same results as your line integral. hope this helps. sincerely, x

I checked and get the same result. So here is what I do in detail:

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{v} = \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \vec{x} & \vec{y} & \vec{z} \\<br /> \partial_{x} & \partial_{y} & \partial_{z} \\<br /> xy & 2yz & 3xz \\<br /> \end{array} \right| = (-2y) \hat{x} + ...[/tex]

I still get a "-2y" for the curl since only the negative x component of the curl is non-zero and only that component is needed for the dot product with da.

I think I see my mistake now that you both have mentioned it - my area integral is messed up. I have to review area integrals and their limits.

Thanks for the help!
-LD

EDIT: I got it! I wasn't setting my limits correctly at all. I read Schaum's Outline Series on Advanced Calculus (Chapter 9, pg. 180) and solved it in seconds.

[tex]\int_{y=0}^{y=2} \int_{z=0}^{z=-y+2} 2y dydz = \frac{8}{3}[/tex] :!)

thx again!
-LD
 
Last edited:
xman said:
check your integral over the surface, note that
[tex]d\vec{a} = dy \, dz \hat{x} \Rightarrow \vec{\nabla} \wedge \vec{v}\cdot d\vec{a} = 2 \,y\,dy\,dz[/tex]
and watch the limits of the integral for dz. you should obtain the same results as your line integral. hope this helps. sincerely, x

Oh, I am getting a negative sign when I do the curl. How are you getting a plus sign??

[tex](\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{v})_{x} = \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \vec{x} & \vec{y} & \vec{z} \\<br /> \partial_{x} & \partial_{y} & \partial_{z} \\<br /> xy & 2yz & 3xz \\<br /> \end{array} \right| = 0 - 2y = -2y[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Living_Dog said:
Oh, I am getting a negative sign when I do the curl. How are you getting a plus sign??

[tex](\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{v})_{x} = \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \vec{x} & \vec{y} & \vec{z} \\<br /> \partial_{x} & \partial_{y} & \partial_{z} \\<br /> xy & 2yz & 3xz \\<br /> \end{array} \right| = 0 - 2y = -2y[/tex]

The minus sign dissappears from the dot product with the [tex]d\vec{a} = -yz \hat{x}[/tex] which corresponds to the direction we are transversing the loop for the line integral.
 
Living_Dog said:
Oh, I am getting a negative sign when I do the curl. How are you getting a plus sign??

[tex](\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{v})_{x} = \left| \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \vec{x} & \vec{y} & \vec{z} \\<br /> \partial_{x} & \partial_{y} & \partial_{z} \\<br /> xy & 2yz & 3xz \\<br /> \end{array} \right| = 0 - 2y = -2y[/tex]

The minus sign dissappears from the dot product with the [tex]d\vec{a} = -dydz \hat{x}[/tex] which corresponds to the direction we are transversing the loop for the line integral.
 

Similar threads

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