Stokes's Theorem showing 2 surface integrals are equal

In summary: You have done a good job choosing your parameters for ##x## and ##y## (for which you didn't show your steps). I would use the same ##r,\theta## parameters for ##D_2##. You might find it easier to calculate the curl in terms of the x and y variables, then make the substitutionSo for D2 is (r cosθ, r sinθ, r^2), 0<θ<2pi, 0<r^2<2r(cosθ + sinθ) -1 correct?That is not the same parameterization of ##x## and ##y## as you used for ##D_1##.[Edit, added]. For your problem ##
  • #1
sandylam966
12
0

Homework Statement


Let F = <z,x,y>. The plane D1: z = 2x +2y-1 and the paraboloid D2: z = x^2 + y^2 intersect in a closed curve. Stoke's Theorem implies that the surface integrals of the of either surface is equal since they share a boundary (provided that the orientations match).


Homework Equations



show each of the following integral and show them that they are equal.
∫∫[itex]_{D1}[/itex](∇[itex]\wedge[/itex]F).N dS
∫∫[itex]_{D2}[/itex](∇[itex]\wedge[/itex]F).N dS

The Attempt at a Solution



I first found that the boundary is given by ]r[/U]=(cosθ +1, sinθ +1, 2(sinθ + cosθ) +3), 0<θ<2pi. Then ∫F.dr on this boundary = -3pi. Then I will try to show the 2 surface integrals equal to this.

But I have trouble parameterising the surfaces.
for D1, r = (u cosθ +1, u sinθ +1, 2r(sinθ + cosθ) +3), 0<r<1, 0<θ<2pi
for D2, r = (x, y, x^2+y^2), ,0<x^2+y^2<2x+2y-1

I tried to solve both but got really complicated integrals which I could not solve. Could someone please tell me if I have parameterise them correctly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
sandylam966 said:

Homework Statement


Let F = <z,x,y>. The plane D1: z = 2x +2y-1 and the paraboloid D2: z = x^2 + y^2 intersect in a closed curve. Stoke's Theorem implies that the surface integrals of the of either surface is equal since they share a boundary (provided that the orientations match).


Homework Equations



show each of the following integral and show them that they are equal.
∫∫[itex]_{D1}[/itex](∇[itex]\wedge[/itex]F).N dS
∫∫[itex]_{D2}[/itex](∇[itex]\wedge[/itex]F).N dS

I presume the ##\wedge## symbol is supposed to be ##\times##, right?

The Attempt at a Solution



I first found that the boundary is given by ]r[/U]=(cosθ +1, sinθ +1, 2(sinθ + cosθ) +3), 0<θ<2pi. Then ∫F.dr on this boundary = -3pi. Then I will try to show the 2 surface integrals equal to this.

But I have trouble parameterising the surfaces.
for D1, r = (u cosθ +1, u sinθ +1, 2r(sinθ + cosθ) +3), 0<r<1, 0<θ<2pi

Don't use r for two different things. And I suppose the u is supposed to be r? So$$
D_1:~~\vec R = \langle 1 + r\cos\theta, 1 + r\sin\theta, 2r(\sin\theta+\cos\theta)+3\rangle$$

for D2, r = (x, y, x^2+y^2), ,0<x^2+y^2<2x+2y-1

I tried to solve both but got really complicated integrals which I could not solve. Could someone please tell me if I have parameterise them correctly?

You have done a good job choosing your parameters for ##x## and ##y## (for which you didn't show your steps). I would use the same ##r,\theta## parameters for ##D_2##. You might find it easier to calculate the curl in terms of the x and y variables, then make the substitution. Or better yet, use$$
\iint_S \nabla \times \vec F\cdot d\vec S =\pm \iint_{(r,\theta)}\vec F\cdot \vec R_r\times \vec R_\theta~drd\theta$$
 
Last edited:
  • #3
LCKurtz said:
Don't use r for two different things. And I suppose the u is supposed to be r? So$$
D_1:~~\vec R = \langle 1 + r\cos\theta, 1 + r\sin\theta, 2r(\sin\theta+\cos\theta)+3\rangle$$

Yes that's a mistake, u is the radius

LCKurtz said:
You have done a good job choosing your parameters for ##x## and ##y## (for which you didn't show your steps). I would use the same ##r,\theta## parameters for ##D_2##. You might find it easier to calculate the curl in terms of the x and y variables, then make the substitution

So for D2 is (r cosθ, r sinθ, r^2), 0<θ<2pi, 0<r^2<2r(cosθ + sinθ) -1 correct?
 
  • #4
sandylam966 said:
Yes that's a mistake, u is the radius



So for D2 is (r cosθ, r sinθ, r^2), 0<θ<2pi, 0<r^2<2r(cosθ + sinθ) -1 correct?

That is not the same parameterization of ##x## and ##y## as you used for ##D_1##.

[Edit, added]. For your problem ##\nabla \times \vec F = \langle 1,1,1\rangle##. There is a typo in my last formula in post #2 which is too late for me to edit. All you have to do now is calculate$$
\pm\iint_{(r,\theta)} \langle 1,1,1\rangle \cdot \vec R_r\times \vec R_\theta~drd\theta$$with the proper sign to verify your (correct) answer of ##-3\pi##.
 
Last edited:

Related to Stokes's Theorem showing 2 surface integrals are equal

1. What is Stokes's Theorem?

Stokes's Theorem is a mathematical theorem that relates the surface integral of a vector field over a surface to the line integral of the same vector field over the boundary curve of the surface. It is a fundamental tool in vector calculus and is used to solve problems involving fluid flow, electromagnetism, and other physical phenomena.

2. How does Stokes's Theorem relate to Green's Theorem?

Green's Theorem is a special case of Stokes's Theorem, where the surface is a flat plane and the boundary curve is a simple closed curve. Stokes's Theorem expands on Green's Theorem by allowing for more complex surfaces and boundary curves.

3. What is the significance of showing that 2 surface integrals are equal using Stokes's Theorem?

Showing that 2 surface integrals are equal using Stokes's Theorem allows us to evaluate difficult surface integrals by transforming them into simpler line integrals. It also provides a way to check the accuracy of our calculations, as the two integrals should always be equal if the theorem is applied correctly.

4. What are the conditions for applying Stokes's Theorem?

There are two main conditions for applying Stokes's Theorem: the surface must be a smooth, orientable surface with a continuous boundary curve, and the vector field must be continuously differentiable on the surface. This means that the surface cannot have any sharp edges or corners, and the vector field must be well-behaved on the surface.

5. Can Stokes's Theorem be generalized to higher dimensions?

Yes, Stokes's Theorem can be generalized to higher dimensions. In three-dimensional space, the theorem is known as the Generalized Stokes's Theorem or the Kelvin-Stokes Theorem. It can also be extended to higher dimensions, but the concept becomes more abstract and difficult to visualize.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
623
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
910
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
976
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
839
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
391
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
532
Back
Top