Surface area proof (vector analysis)

randomcat
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
edit: vector* analysis; sorry for the typo

Homework Statement


Given that A = ||ru||2, B = ru\bulletrv, C = ||rv||2
surface area of S is Area(S) = \int^{d}_{c}\int^{b}_{a} = sqrt (AC - B2) dudv

The Dirichlet energy can be thought of as a function as follows

E(S) = 1/2\int^{d}_{c}\int^{b}_{a} = (||ru||2+||rv||2) dudv

Show that Area(S) ≤ 1/2 E(S) and that equality holds if
||ru||2 = ||rv||2 and ru \bullet rv = 0

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Given that ||ru||2 = ||rv||2 and A = ||ru||2 I know that
E(s) = 1/2\int^{d}_{c}\int^{b}_{a} = (2A) dudv
= \int^{d}_{c}\int^{b}_{a} = (A) dudv


Since A = C, and B = 0, then Area(S) = Area(S) = \int^{d}_{c}\int^{b}_{a} = sqrt (A2) dudv

which is just
\int^{d}_{c}\int^{b}_{a} = A dudv

So I showed that they're equal, but how do I justify that Area(S) is less than 1/2 E(S)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks to me that it should not depend on the integration, i.e. If it is going to be true then it should be provable by comparing the integrands.
So investigate (||ru||2+||rv||2) 2
 
haruspex said:
Looks to me that it should not depend on the integration, i.e. If it is going to be true then it should be provable by comparing the integrands.
So investigate (||ru||2+||rv||2) 2

Hmm...I'm not sure where that leads me in the proof, could you please elaborate?
 
(Just noticed that in every one of your integrals the integral sign is separated from the integrand by an equals sign. I'm assumng that's a typo. If not, there's somethng in your notation I'm not familiar with. Also, you seem to have too many 1/2s floating around. Either there's a 1/2 in the definition of E(S) or there's a 1/2 in the inequality to be proved, not both.)

Compare the squares of the integrands, i.e. compare (||ru||2+||rv||2) 2/4 with AC-B2. Can you see that one is guaranteed at least as large as the other?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top