Surface Integral Homework: Is the Author's Solution Wrong?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the ambiguity in the author's homework problem regarding surface integrals and the application of Stokes' theorem. Participants note that if the author intends to evaluate the surface integral of the form ∫F · dA, Gauss' law would not apply unless it encloses a volume. For the integral ∫∇ × F · dA, Stokes' theorem can be utilized, allowing for the computation of the line integral around the perimeter. There is speculation that the author may have made an error or intended to focus on line integrals instead. Overall, clarity on the specific integral required is essential for accurate problem-solving.
fonseh
Messages
521
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Is the solution provided by the author wrong ? Stokes theorem is used to calculate the line integral of vector filed , am i right ?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


To find the surface integral of many different planes in a solid , we need to use Gauss theorem , right ?
 

Attachments

  • 492.JPG
    492.JPG
    17.8 KB · Views: 459
  • 490.JPG
    490.JPG
    26.4 KB · Views: 483
  • 491.JPG
    491.JPG
    28.4 KB · Views: 457
Physics news on Phys.org
The author doesn't seem to specify what surface integral he is asking for. If he wants ## \int F \cdot dA ##, Gauss' law works for the surface enclosing a volume, and wouldn't apply here. If he wants you to evaluate ## \int \nabla \times F \cdot \, dA ##, you can use Stokes theorem and alternatively compute the line integral of ## \oint F \cdot \, ds ## around the perimeter. ## \\ ## editing... If the author wants you to evaluate ## \int F \cdot \, dA ##, there are no shortcuts that I know of=neither Gauss' law or Stokes theorem will apply. You simply need to crank it out the long way... And none of us are infallible=it is my guess the author made a mistake.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes fonseh
Charles Link said:
The author doesn't seem to specify what surface integral he is asking for. If he wants ## \int F \cdot dA ##, Gauss' law works for the surface enclosing a volume, and wouldn't apply here. If he wants you to evaluate ## \int \nabla \times F \cdot \, dA ##, you can use Stokes theorem and alternatively compute the line integral of ## \oint F \cdot \, ds ## around the perimeter. ## \\ ## editing... If the author wants you to evaluate ## \int F \cdot \, dA ##, there are no shortcuts that I know of=neither Gauss' law or Stokes theorem will apply. You simply need to crank it out the long way... And none of us are infallible=it is my guess the author made a mistake.
Do you mean that the author maybe mean find the line integral and not find surface integral in this question ?
 
fonseh said:
Do you mean that the author maybe mean find the line integral and not find surface integral in this question ?
Frequently in such problems the author wants you to demonstrate Stokes' theorem by working it both ways. It's a learning thing.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K