What is the value of the line integral

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The value of the line integral \(\int_C F \, dr\) is zero when \(F = \nabla f\) and \(C\) is a curve on a level surface of the function \(f\). This is established by the fundamental theorem of line integrals, which states that \(\int_C \nabla f \cdot d\vec{r} = f(\vec{r}(b)) - f(\vec{r}(a))\). Since the curve lies on a level surface, both endpoints of the curve yield the same value of \(f\), resulting in the integral equating to zero. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding level surfaces and the implications of the curl being zero in gradient fields.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gradient fields and potential functions
  • Familiarity with the fundamental theorem of line integrals
  • Knowledge of level surfaces in multivariable calculus
  • Concept of curl in vector calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the fundamental theorem of line integrals in detail
  • Learn about level surfaces and their properties in multivariable calculus
  • Explore the concept of curl and its implications in vector fields
  • Investigate Stokes' theorem and its applications in line integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying vector calculus, as well as anyone looking to deepen their understanding of line integrals and gradient fields.

UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
Suppose F=F(x,y,z) is a gradient field with F=\nabla f, S is a level surface of f, and C is a curve on S. What is the value of the line integral \int_C F dr?

I know the answer is 0 but I cannot visualize why it would be zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't remember what a level surface is right now, so please remind me what it is? I seem to recall it is some function set equal to a constant. But honestly don't remember.


The fundamental theorem of line integrals is:
\int_C \nabla f \cdot d\vec r = f(\vec r(b)) - f(\vec r(a))

Since you said \vec F is a vector field with \vec F = \nabla f you know that the curl is 0. Right?
So since the curl is 0, and a potential function exists (which is f(x,y,z)=f).

I have no idea if this will help, because I really don't remember what a level surface is. I could speculate, or just look it up...
 
Ok. I looked it up. So level surface would be if you set f(x,y,z) equal to some constant. Now, you have a curve that lies on this surface.

Ummm... is that the full question?
This kinda seems harder then I originally thought it was going to be. Might need to use Stoke's thm, or wait for someone else to give you some better advice :) Cause I don't know why it would be zero either. (but shoot, that doesn't mean anything)

*sorry dude.

Personally, I would make up some examples and test them out to get a better understanding.
 
Try Stoke's theorem.

Hint: curl of the gradient ?
 
Stoke's works nicely. Actually, in this simple case, it's just the "fundamental theorem of calculus": since F= grad f, the integral of F on any path is independent of the path- it's just f evaluated at the endpoints. But this is a closed path. We can take the two endpoints to be the same.
 
Halls:
Just out of curiosity. How do you know it is a closed path? That greatly simplfies it. Let's just say it is not... then in general, it would not be zero right?
 
FrogPad said:
I can't remember what a level surface is right now, so please remind me what it is? I seem to recall it is some function set equal to a constant. But honestly don't remember.


The fundamental theorem of line integrals is:
\int_C \nabla f \cdot d\vec r = f(\vec r(b)) - f(\vec r(a))

Since you said \vec F is a vector field with \vec F = \nabla f you know that the curl is 0. Right?
So since the curl is 0, and a potential function exists (which is f(x,y,z)=f).

I have no idea if this will help, because I really don't remember what a level surface is. I could speculate, or just look it up...

This automatically shows that the result is zero because the curve C is on a level surface of the potential function (as stated in theoriginal post). That means that all the points on that surface have the same value of "f". therefore the end and starting points of the curve have the same value of f therefore the integral is zero.
 
Ahh yeah. That makes sense.

When I originally read the problem I was thinking that the fundamental theorem would easily show that it is zero... But, then I wasn't sure if it was a closed path or not. Didn't see how to get to that step from the question. Got it now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K