My Math Forum Problem with Stoke's Theorem Intuition

 Calculus Calculus Math Forum

 August 3rd, 2014, 10:52 AM #1 Newbie   Joined: Jan 2014 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 Problem with Stoke's Theorem Intuition Let's start with its statement: The surface integral of a curl field is the same as the closed line integral of the corresponding vector field It was explained to me that the reason behind this was that all the neighboring curls within each surface element inside the surface boundary would cancel leaving the boundary uncancelled When I see the explanation being graphically depicted this way, it seems to me that this arguement hinges on the conditions: 1.) the curl fields within each surface element must be circular (for neighbors to be able to cancel) like this and not like this 2.) the curl at each surface element must be equal in magnitude; otherwise not all the neighboring surface elements would cancel. Based on the explanation i was given, it seems logical to me that (1) and (2) should be conditions for that explanation to be valid, but I'm most likely wrong. I just want to know why (1) and (2) don't naturally follow. Thanks
 August 3rd, 2014, 01:33 PM #2 Math Team   Joined: Nov 2010 From: Greece, Thessaloniki Posts: 1,989 Thanks: 133 Math Focus: pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre calculus Imagine that in an infinitesimal area of the surface, something like this happens. Do you see the arrows canceling each other in the common side? pap1.jpg Thanks from topsquark Last edited by ZardoZ; August 3rd, 2014 at 01:40 PM.
 August 3rd, 2014, 02:58 PM #3 Newbie   Joined: Jan 2014 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 i understand the rationale behind the whole cancellation concept. ie, i know how i'm supposed to treat the curls at each surface element, but i don't understand where those circular curls came from. Sure, a vector field can have a curl (curvature), but separate loops everywhere? wouldn't that make the field discontinuous? Moreover, a curl vector points straight. If we are cancelling the interior by summing all the curls, then aren't we summing up the vector field and not the curl of the vector field? For the sake of argument let's consider Green's thrm (2-D surface) If we are summing up the curl vectors, well, we're summing up a bunch of parallel vectors, why is anything cancelling?
August 3rd, 2014, 03:07 PM   #4
Math Team

Joined: Nov 2010
From: Greece, Thessaloniki

Posts: 1,989
Thanks: 133

Math Focus: pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre pre calculus
Quote:
 Originally Posted by iScience i understand the rationale behind the whole cancellation concept. ie, i know how i'm supposed to treat the curls at each surface element, but i don't understand where those circular curls came from. Sure, a vector field can have a curl (curvature), but separate loops everywhere? wouldn't that make the field discontinuous? Moreover, a curl vector points straight. If we are cancelling the interior by summing all the curls, then aren't we summing up the vector field and not the curl of the vector field? For the sake of argument let's consider Green's thrm (2-D surface) If we are summing up the curl vectors, well, we're summing up a bunch of parallel vectors, why is anything cancelling?
I think that what you call "curls", are indicating the positive (left) or anti-clockwise orientation.

 Tags intuition, problem, stoke, stoke's theorem, theorem

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post triplekite Differential Equations 3 June 11th, 2013 04:22 PM taylor_1989_2012 Algebra 1 March 14th, 2013 08:26 AM Sefrez Calculus 1 August 16th, 2011 03:17 PM Sefrez Calculus 1 February 24th, 2011 02:58 AM Billiam411 Calculus 4 October 27th, 2007 07:39 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top