Test Stokes' Theorem for the function

stunner5000pt
Messages
1,443
Reaction score
4
Test Stokes' Theorem for the function
\vec{v} = (xy) \hat{x} + (2yz) \hat{y} + (3yz) \hat{z} /

for the triangular shaded region

\int_{S} (\grad \times v) \dot da = \oint_{P} v \bullet dl

for the left hand side

\int_{0}^{2} \int_{0}^{2} (-2y \hat{x} - 3z \hat{y} - x \hat{z}) \hat{x} dy dz = \int_{0}^{2} \int_{0}^{2} (-2y) dy dz = \left[ \frac{-y^2} \right]_{0}^{2} \int_{0}^{2} dz = (-4)(2) = -8

so far so good??

ok for hte right hand side

i) x=0, z=0, v \bullet dl = 2y dy integration limits 0 to 2

ii) x=0, y=2, v \bullet dl = 0 dz integration from 0 to 2

i am not sute about the last one though...

am i right with i and ii though??

thank you for any advice!
 

Attachments

  • noise.JPG
    noise.JPG
    8.1 KB · Views: 1,245
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
stunner5000pt said:
Test Stokes' Theorem for the function
\vec{v} = (xy) \hat{x} + (2yz) \hat{y} + (3yz) \hat{z} /

for the triangular shaded region

\int_{S} (\grad \times v) \dot da = \oint_{P} v \bullet dl

for the left hand side

\int_{0}^{2} \int_{0}^{2} (-2y \hat{x} - 3z \hat{y} - x \hat{z}) \hat{x} dy dz = \int_{0}^{2} \int_{0}^{2} (-2y) dy dz = \left[ \frac{-y^2} \right]_{0}^{2} \int_{0}^{2} dz = (-4)(2) = -8

so far so good??
No, your \nabla \vec{v} is wrong. The \hat{y} component is 0.

ok for hte right hand side

i) x=0, z=0, v \bullet dl = 2y dy integration limits 0 to 2
That should be v \bullet dl= 2yz dy= 0

ii) x=0, y=2, v \bullet dl = 0 dz integration from 0 to 2

i am not sute about the last one though...
for the last one, you can take y= t, z= 2- t integrating from t= 0 to 2.

am i right with i and ii though??

thank you for any advice!
By the way, to get \nabla use "\nabla", not "\del".
 
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