Stokes's Theorem for Vector Function v=(x-y)^3: Area & Perimeter Analysis

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying Stokes's theorem for the vector function v=(x-y)^3 in the context of a specific area and perimeter. Participants are exploring the relationship between line integrals and surface integrals as dictated by Stokes's theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss how to start checking Stokes's theorem, with some suggesting the need to compute both line and surface integrals. There are questions about the correctness of computed integrals and the interpretation of results, including the sign of the integral.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their calculations and questioning each other's methods. Some have provided partial results and are seeking confirmation or clarification on their approaches. There is an ongoing exploration of integration limits and the implications of the orientation of the surface.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the problem as presented, including the specific region of integration and the orientation of the axes. There is mention of the fourth quadrant and the implications for the signs of the integrals involved.

wifi
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Problem:

Check Stokes's theorem for the vector function ## v=(x-y)^3 \hat{x} + (x-y)^3 \hat{y} ## using the area and perimeter shown below.

Where do I start?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20130905_111201.jpg
    IMG_20130905_111201.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 424
Physics news on Phys.org
wifi said:
Problem:

Check Stokes's theorem for the vector function ## v=(x-y)^3 \hat{x} + (x-y)^3 \hat{y} ## using the area and perimeter shown below.

Where do I start?

Well, what does Stoke's theorem say? How do you think you might check it? I kind of think you might want to compute a line integral and see if you get the same thing as when you compute a surface integral, yes?
 
Thanks Dick. I computed the surface integral & I got 101/6. Is this correct?
 
wifi said:
Thanks Dick. I computed the surface integral & I got 101/6. Is this correct?

I have no idea if you are correct. You just asked how to start it. How did you get that so fast? It doesn't look that easy to me. Certainly not this late. Can you show your method?
 
Is your region in the first quadrant or the fourth? The convention is to draw positive y pointing up on the page. If your region is in the fourth quadrant, your y values should be negative.
 
SteamKing, the region is the fourth quadrant. Positive y is pointing vertically upwards. This is just the way the problem was given.

According to Stokes' Theorem, ## \int\limits_S \, (\nabla \times \vec{v}) \cdot d\vec{a} = \oint\limits_P \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell} ##.

For the RHS I did the following:

##y=2x-2 \Rightarrow dy=2dx ##

## \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell}=(x-3)^3 \hat{x} + (x-y)^3 \hat{y} ##

Is this an acceptable answer? Does it make sense that the answer is negative?

## \int \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell} = \int\limits_0^1 (x-3)^3dx + \int\limits_0^1 (x-(2x-2))^32dx = -20 ##.
 
Last edited:
Anyone?
 
wifi said:
For the RHS I did the following:

##y=2x-2 \Rightarrow dy=2dx ## (1)

## \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell}=(x-3)^3 \hat{x} + (x-y)^3 \hat{y} ##(2)

Is this an acceptable answer? Does it make sense that the answer is negative?

## \int \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell} = \int\limits_0^1 (x-3)^3dx + \int\limits_0^1 (x-(2x-2))^32dx = -20 ##.

The path integral should be split into three parts: One along the x axis, one along the y-axis and one along the line y=2x-2. (I think) you have only considered the path along the line y=2x-2 in (1). (2) does not make sense because the LHS is a scalar and the RHS is a vector.

I obtain a different answer than you do, but a negative is ok since the integral is a measure of the net flux through a surface. +/- depending on whether there is a net outward or net inward flux respectively.
 
I skipped the other 2 integrals because I believe they come out to be 0.
 
  • #10
## \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell}=(x-3)^3 \hat{x} + (x-y)^3 \hat{y} ## should have been## \vec{v} \cdot d\vec{\ell}=(x-3)^3 dx + (x-y)^3 dy ##
 
  • #11
wifi said:
I skipped the other 2 integrals because I believe they come out to be 0.

Can you show your work?
 
  • #12
Certainly! I'll type it out right now. Thanks for the help by the way!
 
  • #13
So for the LHS of Stokes's theorem, I get:

## \nabla \times \vec{v} = (\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y})\hat{z} = 6(x-y)^2 \hat{z}## (since ## \vec{v} ## does not have a z-component)

## (\nabla \times \vec{v}) \cdot d\vec{a} = [6(x-y)^2 \hat{z}] \cdot [dx \ dy \ \hat{z}] = 6(x-y)^2dx \ dy##

## \int (\nabla \times \vec{v}) \cdot d\vec{a} = \int \int 6(x-y)^2dx \ dy = 6 \int \int (x-(2x-2))^2dx \ dy = 6 \int \int (2-x)^2dx \ dy = 6 \int \int (x^2-4x+4) dx \ dy##.

So putting in the limits & carrying out the integration, is just left for the LHS. Right?
 
  • #14
So with the limits, it should be this ## 6 \int_0^{-2} \int_0^{\frac{2+y}{2}} (x^2-4x+4) dx \ dy##, correct?
 
  • #15
wifi said:
So for the LHS of Stokes's theorem, I get:

## \nabla \times \vec{v} = (\frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial v_x}{\partial y})\hat{z} = 6(x-y)^2 \hat{z}## (since ## \vec{v} ## does not have a z-component)

## (\nabla \times \vec{v}) \cdot d\vec{a} = [6(x-y)^2 \hat{z}] \cdot [dx \ dy \ \hat{z}] = 6(x-y)^2dx \ dy##

## \int (\nabla \times \vec{v}) \cdot d\vec{a} = \int \int 6(x-y)^2dx \ dy##

I think it is correct up to here. Putting y=2x-2 in your next step means that y=2x-2 everywhere on the planar triangular surface, which is clearly not the case. The next step from here is to put in the appropriate limits of integration for x and y. The integration limits for y will depend on x since the region of integration is not rectangular.
 
  • #16
So that means I must integrate over y first and then x?
 
  • #17
The limits would then be y: 0 -> 2x-2 and x: 1 -> 0?
 
  • #18
wifi said:
So that means I must integrate over y first and then x?

Or x then y, as long as the outer integral has only constants. Integrating wrt to y then x or x then y will result in different limits of integration but the end result is of course the same.

Your limits in post #17 are correct.
 
  • #19
I integrated wrt to y & then x & got an answer of 7. I wasn't sure if the x limits should be from 0->1 or 1->0. I picked 1->0 because that follows the counter-clockwise path, is that correct?
 
  • #20
wifi said:
I integrated wrt to y & then x & got an answer of 7. I wasn't sure if the x limits should be from 0->1 or 1->0. I picked 1->0 because that follows the counter-clockwise path, is that correct?

The line integral around the boundary of the surface is counterclockwise, so the oreintation of the surface is already known. So yes, you are right, the limits for x are from 1 to 0.
 
  • #21
CAF123, thanks so much! I ended up getting 7 for the answer for both the surface integral & line integral. I handed in my work already, but I'll try to post my solution on here.
 

Similar threads

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