Why Does the Line Integral of a Square Path's Perimeter Equal Zero?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the evaluation of the line integral around a square path and why it results in zero, despite expectations that it should yield the perimeter of the square. Participants explore the implications of parameterization and the nature of the integrand.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the parameterization of the square path and questions why the line integral results in zero instead of the expected perimeter.
  • Another participant explains that if the integral is of an exact differential, the integral around a closed path will yield zero, prompting further inquiry into the nature of the integrand.
  • A participant mentions taking the arc length of a function and expresses confusion about why the integral does not yield the expected result.
  • There is a clarification that the expression for the arc length involves the differential arc length ds, and the direction of integration must be considered.
  • One participant acknowledges a miscalculation and provides a corrected calculation of the perimeter using the line integral along the path.
  • Another participant inquires about the specific values of the parameterization limits used in the calculations.
  • A participant explains that these values were derived from constructing a piece-wise vector-valued function around the rectangle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the evaluation of the line integral and the interpretation of the results. Participants express confusion and challenge each other's reasoning without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of directionality in line integrals and the nature of exact differentials, highlighting the complexity of the topic without resolving all uncertainties.

IniquiTrance
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
When I take the line integral around a square shape path "C" as follows:

From A to B to C to D to A

C1 = A(0, 0) to B (4, 0)

t i
0 <= t <= 4

C2 = B (4, 0) to C (4, 7)

4 i + (t - 4) j
4 <= t <= 11

C3 = C (4, 7) to D (0, 7)

(15 - t) i + 7 j

11 <= t <= 15

C4 = D (0, 7) to A (0, 0)

(22 - t) j

15 <= t <= 22

Why is that when I take the line integral around this path using [tex]\int_{C }||r'(t)|| dt[/tex] and the above parameterization, I end up with 0, when I should be getting the arc length of the path, which is the perimeter of the square?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you take the integral of what around that path?

If f(x,y)dx+ g(x,y)dy is an exact differential, that is if there exist F(x,y) such that dF= f(x,y)dx+ g(x,y)dy, then the integral from any point [itex](x_0,y_0)[/itex] to [itex](x_1,y_1)[/itex],
[tex]\int_{(x_0,y_0)}^{(x_1,y_1)} f(x,y)dx+ g(x,y)dy= F(x_1,y_1)- F(x_0,y_0)[/tex]
and, in particular, if [itex](x_1,y_1)= (x_0,y_0)[/itex] then [itex]F(x_1,y_1)= F(x_0,y_0)[/itex] and that difference is 0.

Now, what is ||r'(t)||?
 
HallsofIvy said:
When you take the integral of what around that path?

If f(x,y)dx+ g(x,y)dy is an exact differential, that is if there exist F(x,y) such that dF= f(x,y)dx+ g(x,y)dy, then the integral from any point [itex](x_0,y_0)[/itex] to [itex](x_1,y_1)[/itex],
[tex]\int_{(x_0,y_0)}^{(x_1,y_1)} f(x,y)dx+ g(x,y)dy= F(x_1,y_1)- F(x_0,y_0)[/tex]
and, in particular, if [itex](x_1,y_1)= (x_0,y_0)[/itex] then [itex]F(x_1,y_1)= F(x_0,y_0)[/itex] and that difference is 0.

Now, what is ||r'(t)||?

I was taking the arc length of f(x, y) = 1 along ds.

Since "x" is a potential function of 1, it seems I should then be getting 0.

Yet I thought taking a line integral where f(x, y) = 1 should be giving me the arc length of the path, yet this turns out to be 0.

Where am I mistaken?
 
Also [tex]||r'(t)||= \frac{ds}{dt}[/tex]
 
IniquiTrance said:
I was taking the arc length of f(x, y) = 1 along ds.
This makes no sense. You don't find the "arc length" of a function, you find the length of an arc. In particular, integrating the dervative of any differentiable function around a closed path will give 0.

Since "x" is a potential function of 1, it seems I should then be getting 0.

Yet I thought taking a line integral where f(x, y) = 1 should be giving me the arc length of the path, yet this turns out to be 0.

Where am I mistaken?
You are not taking direction into account. On the line (0,0) to (4,0), ds= dx and you have
[tex]\int_0^4 dx= 4[/itex]<br /> <br /> On the line segment (4, 0) to (4, 7), ds= dy and you have<br /> [tex]\int_0^7 dy= 7[/itex]<br /> <br /> But on the line segment (4, 7) to (0, 7), x is <b>decreasing</b> from 4 to 0 so ds= -dx and you integrate<br /> [tex]\int_4^0 (-dx)= -(-4)= 4[/tex]<br /> <br /> On the line integral (0,7) to (0,0), y is <b>decreasing</b> from 7 to 0 so ds= - dy and you integrate<br /> [tex]\int_7^0 (-dy)= -(-7)= 7[/tex]<br /> <br /> The integral around the entire rectangle is 4+ 7+ 4+ 7= 22.[/tex][/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, I see your point. I meant we are taking the line integral along [tex]ds[/tex] with [tex]f(x,y) =1[/tex]

I was computing it wrong, as the perimeter can be calculated with such a line integral.

[tex]\int_C f(x, y)||r'(t)|| dt =[/tex]

[tex]C_{1}=\int_0^4 dt = 4[/tex]

[tex]C_{2}=\int_4^{11} dt = 7[/tex]

[tex]C_{3}=\int_{11}^{15} ||-1|| dt = 4[/tex]

[tex]C_{4}=\int_{15}^{22} ||-1|| dt = 7[/tex]

[tex]C_{1} + C_{2} + C_{3} + C_{4} = 22[/tex]
 
How did you get the values t= 11, t= 15, t= 22?:wink:
 
By constructing a piece-wise vector valued function around the rectangle.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K