Why can't I get Stoke's Theorem to Work ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orson1981
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Stokes' Theorem in the context of a vector field defined over a right triangle in the x-y plane. The original poster is attempting to evaluate both a line integral and a surface integral involving the vector field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster describes their attempts to compute the line integral and the surface integral, noting discrepancies in their results. They express uncertainty about the factor of one half they introduced in their calculations.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided feedback on the original poster's calculations, pointing out a typo and suggesting that the surface integral requires careful consideration of integration limits. There is acknowledgment of the original poster's effort to work through the problem independently.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions spending significant time on the problem and expresses frustration with their progress. They also indicate a desire to understand the material better without being given direct answers.

Orson1981
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Why can't I get Stoke's Theorem to Work!?

Homework Statement


This is very similar to the problem I put up last night actually part c of the same problem. I really have put an amazing amount of time into this problem (week and a half/ 5 hrs a day) and it countinues to stump me. At this point I'm spinning mental wheels and could use some help.

we have a 3-4-5 right triangle lying on the x-y plane with the length three side on the x-axis and the length 4 side on the y-axis. we define a field
\vec{u}=x^2\hat{x} + xy\hat{y}

and I am trying to evaluate the integral:

\oint{\vec{u}d\vec{l}}


Homework Equations



I need to solve both:

\oint{\vec{u}d\vec{l}}

and

\oint{(\nabla{}x\vec{u}) . \hat{n} dA}
please excuse my clumsy notation, this should be del cross the vector u


The Attempt at a Solution



The surface integral after doing del cross u I end up with

\frac {1}{2} \oint{ y \hat{k} dxdy}
evaluated from 0 - 3 on the x-axis and 0 - 4 on the y-axis
Doing this I get 12.
the 1/2 I added into this equation is largely a guess on my part, and could be correct or not, just seemed to make some sense for a triagle who's area is 1/2 base*height

Looking at the line integral

I placed curve 1 along the y-axis from 4 - 0 then paramaterized x = 0 and dx = 0
so for curve 1 is zero

Curve 2, I paramaterized y = 0, dy = 0 that left

\int{x^2 dx} evaluated from 0 - 3 gives me 9

Curve 3 along the hypotinous (I can't spell ... sorry) paramaterized y = 4 - 4/3 * x dy = -3/4 * dx
plugging these new values into y and dy and integrating from 3 - 0 gives me -1

So for the whole curve I have 8

So somewhere I missed something because last I checked 8 =! 12, or if you ignore my guess of 1/2 in the surface integral 8 =! 24
so I'm only off by a factor of 3 somewhere, though it could be coincidence that's a pretty nice number to be off by, makes me think I'm just missing a term somewhere.
If I had to guess I would say somehow \hat{n} is somehow equal to 1/3, or perhaps 1/6 to include my guess about 1/2 in the surface integral


Thank you for reading this long rambling thing, and thanks for any help

-Mo
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe your line integrals are all correct [though you have a typo: dy = -(4/3)dx, not -(3/4)dx].

But your surface integral is wrong. You can't just multiply by a factor of one half. You need to integrate y over the area of the triangle. This integral takes the form

\int_a^b dx \int_c^d dy \; y

where you need to figure out what the limits a, b, c, and d should be so that you are covering the triangle. Key point: c and d may depend on x.

When I do this integral with the correct limits, I get 8, matching your result from the line integrals.
 
Thank you!, armed with your hint I went back and 'carefully' looked at one of my undergrad math books I'm using as a reference, and of course there it was staring me in the face the whole time, but until you came along I was just to dense to see it.

and thank you for not giving me the answer, and letting me work it out myself.

I kinda feel bad, because I know these are such easy questions I'm throwing out and I should know this stuff, but I'm stoked now, I can do integrals - Awesome.
 
Glad to help. The easy stuff is sometimes the hardest to see when you're in the middle of a problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K