Green's Theorem with Singularities

In summary: I can't remember the exact number, but it was something like infinity. So I was wondering if the same thing would happen if we had a singularity in our vector field.Yes, the area would be infinite because the line integral would be trying to go around the point that has a singularity.
  • #1
Umar
37
0
So here's the question:

You are given that F is a conservative vector field, except for singularities
at the points (0,1), (2,0), (3,0), and (0,4). You are given the following information
about line integrals around the following closed paths:

1) Around the curve C1 given by x^2 + y^2 = 2,

$\int$ F $\cdot$ dr = 2

2) Around the curve C2 given by x^2 + y^2 = 5,

$\int$ F $\cdot$ dr = 5

3) Around the curve C3 given by x^2 + y^2 = 10,

$\int$ F $\cdot$ dr = 10

What is the $\int$ F $\cdot$ dr equal to for C4 where C4 is given by (x-2.5)^2 + y^2 = 4, the circle of radius 2 centered at (2.5,0)?

(a) 15
(b) 5
(c) 10
(d) 8
(e) 17

The answer is apparently 8. I've tried drawing out the curves and for C4, I notice it bounds the singularities (2,0) and (3,0). But since we are not given the vector field, I assume I need to use the results listed above to somehow compute the line integral for C4, though I'm not sure how exactly to go about doing this.

Any help is greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Umar said:
So here's the question:

You are given that F is a conservative vector field, except for singularities
at the points (0,1), (2,0), (3,0), and (0,4). You are given the following information
about line integrals around the following closed paths:

1) Around the curve C1 given by x^2 + y^2 = 2,

$\int$ F $\cdot$ dr = 2

2) Around the curve C2 given by x^2 + y^2 = 5,

$\int$ F $\cdot$ dr = 5

3) Around the curve C3 given by x^2 + y^2 = 10,

$\int$ F $\cdot$ dr = 10

What is the $\int$ F $\cdot$ dr equal to for C4 where C4 is given by (x-2.5)^2 + y^2 = 4, the circle of radius 2 centered at (2.5,0)?

(a) 15
(b) 5
(c) 10
(d) 8
(e) 17

The answer is apparently 8. I've tried drawing out the curves and for C4, I notice it bounds the singularities (2,0) and (3,0). But since we are not given the vector field, I assume I need to use the results listed above to somehow compute the line integral for C4, though I'm not sure how exactly to go about doing this.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Hi Umar,

This is not so much about Green's Theorem, but more about the Residue theorem.
To summarize, the line integral along a closed path is zero unless a it loops around 1 or more poles.
And if poles are involved, then we can sum the contribution of each pole separately.
That is, the contribution of a pole, when looping around it once in a counter clock wise fashion is fixed.

From the given information, we can deduce that:

\(\oint_{C_1} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1)}} F\cdot dr = 2 \\

\oint_{C_2} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1) and (2,0)}} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1)}} F\cdot dr + \oint_{\text{loop around (2,0)}} F\cdot dr= 5 \\

\oint_{C_3} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1), (2,0), and (3,0)}} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1)}} F\cdot dr + \oint_{\text{loop around (2,0)}} F\cdot dr + \oint_{\text{loop around (3,0)}} F\cdot dr= 10
\)

and we're looking for:

\( \oint_{C_4} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (2,0) and (3,0)}} F\cdot dr \)

Can you find it?
 
  • #3
I like Serena said:
Hi Umar,

This is not so much about Green's Theorem, but more about the Residue theorem.
To summarize, the line integral along a closed path is zero unless a it loops around 1 or more poles.
And if poles are involved, then we can sum the contribution of each pole separately.
That is, the contribution of a pole, when looping around it once in a counter clock wise fashion is fixed.

From the given information, we can deduce that:

\(\oint_{C_1} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1)}} F\cdot dr = 2 \\

\oint_{C_2} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1) and (2,0)}} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1)}} F\cdot dr + \oint_{\text{loop around (2,0)}} F\cdot dr= 5 \\

\oint_{C_3} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1), (2,0), and (3,0)}} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (0,1)}} F\cdot dr + \oint_{\text{loop around (2,0)}} F\cdot dr + \oint_{\text{loop around (3,0)}} F\cdot dr= 10
\)

and we're looking for:

\( \oint_{C_4} F\cdot dr = \oint_{\text{loop around (2,0), and (3,0)}} F\cdot dr \)

Can you find it?

Yup, I see it! Thank you for explaining it so easily (Yes). On a unrelated side note, these poles you mentioned are the singularities in the question, yes? So if we had a conservative vector field, and we wanted to compute the area using Green's Theorem over a region with a singularity, as in the question above, would we be able to draw a circle around the point and compute the line integral that way to get around the problem? I'm asking this because in my textbook, there was an example with a rectangle, that had a singularity at the point (0,0). After some derivation, it was proved that the line integral around the rectangle was equal to a line integral of a circle that was entirely within the rectangle, but surrounded the origin, and the result was computed that way. Not sure if that made sense but hopefully you can provide some insight!
 
  • #4
Umar said:
Yup, I see it! Thank you for explaining it so easily (Yes). On a unrelated side note, these poles you mentioned are the singularities in the question, yes? So if we had a conservative vector field, and we wanted to compute the area using Green's Theorem over a region with a singularity, as in the question above, would we be able to draw a circle around the point and compute the line integral that way to get around the problem? I'm asking this because in my textbook, there was an example with a rectangle, that had a singularity at the point (0,0). After some derivation, it was proved that the line integral around the rectangle was equal to a line integral of a circle that was entirely within the rectangle, but surrounded the origin, and the result was computed that way. Not sure if that made sense but hopefully you can provide some insight!

Yes, those poles are the same as the singularities in the question.

Not sure what you mean by 'compute the area'.
Either way, the line integral along a rectangle would indeed be the same as any line integral along a path in the same direction.
So if we can easily calculate it along a circle that's the way to go!
 

FAQ: Green's Theorem with Singularities

What is the purpose of Green's Theorem with Singularities?

Green's Theorem with Singularities is used to calculate the area enclosed by a closed curve in the presence of singularities, or points where the function is undefined. It extends the original Green's Theorem to include these types of curves.

How does Green's Theorem with Singularities differ from the original Green's Theorem?

Green's Theorem with Singularities allows for the calculation of area enclosed by curves with singularities, while the original Green's Theorem is limited to smooth curves with no singularities. It also requires the use of a different formula to account for the singularities.

What types of singularities can be accounted for using Green's Theorem with Singularities?

Green's Theorem with Singularities can account for both removable and non-removable singularities. Removable singularities are points where the function is undefined, but can be defined by removing the point. Non-removable singularities are points where the function cannot be defined, such as poles or essential singularities.

How is Green's Theorem with Singularities used in practical applications?

Green's Theorem with Singularities is commonly used in physics, engineering, and other scientific fields to calculate the work done by a force field on a particle moving along a closed curve with singularities. It can also be used to calculate the flux of a vector field over a surface with singularities.

Are there any limitations to using Green's Theorem with Singularities?

One limitation of Green's Theorem with Singularities is that it only applies to two-dimensional problems. It also assumes that the curve is continuously differentiable and that the function is defined on and inside the curve. Additionally, the results may not be accurate if the singularities are too close together or if the curve is self-intersecting.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top