Parametric Hacks (I have the solution but something has gone wrong)

  • Thread starter Quantumpencil
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Parametric
In summary, the conversation discusses using Stokes Theorem to check the vector field F(x,y,z)=(z,x,y) on a region defined by z=x^2-y^2 and x^2+y^2<=1. Two different parameterizations are attempted, with one resulting in the correct answer and the other giving a slightly different result. It is noted that the two parameterizations are not equivalent as one only gives half of the boundary. The surface integral of the curl of F is also evaluated and results in the same answer using both parameterizations. Further assistance is requested in identifying the issue with the first parameterization.
  • #1
Quantumpencil
96
0

Homework Statement

Check Stokes Theorem for the Vector Field F(x,y,z)=(z,x,y), on the region defined by z=x^2-y^2 and x^2+y^2<=1.


Attempt at Solution:

Should be pretty easy problem; I tried two parameterizations, one worked and the other didn't... but I feel like they are equivalent. They were as follows: The boundary of the surface, defined when x^2+y^2 = 1, can be given by the paremetrization:

r(t)=(t, Sqrt[1-t^2], 2t^2-1)
r(t)=(Cos [Theta], Sin[Theta], Cos[2Theta]

Then the line integral along this path Should just be... the integral dt, from 0 to 1, or the integral dTheta from 0 to 2Pi of the dot product of F(r(t)) and r'(t), where r'(t) is given by

r'(t)=(1, -t/Sqrt[1-t^2], 4t)
r'(t)=(-Sin[Theta], Cos[Theta], -2Sin[2Theta]

Now, using the second parameterization, I got the value of this integral to be Pi. This is the right Answer. Using the first, I got the answer 1-Pi/4... but aren't they exactly equivalent?

I also evaluated the Surface integral of the Curls ((Curl F = 1,1,1)), and there got Pi using both co-ordinate systems (The integrals running from -Sqrt[1-x^2], to Sqrt[1-x^2] dy and -1 t0 1 dx, and from -1 to 1 dr and 0 to 2Pi dTheta, respectively)

Could someone help me figure out what is wrong with my first parameterization?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I didn't work this out in detail, but one thing I notice is that [itex]y= \sqrt{1- x^2}[/itex] only gives half of boundary: the half with y> 0. The two parameterizations are NOT equivalent.
 

FAQ: Parametric Hacks (I have the solution but something has gone wrong)

What are parametric hacks?

Parametric hacks refer to techniques or solutions that involve manipulating or adjusting the parameters of a system or process to achieve a desired outcome. It is often used in scientific research or engineering to optimize results or overcome limitations.

What can go wrong with parametric hacks?

Due to the complex nature of systems and processes, there are many potential factors that can cause parametric hacks to fail. Some common issues include incorrect assumptions, inadequate understanding of the system, or unexpected interactions between parameters.

How do I troubleshoot a failed parametric hack?

The first step in troubleshooting a failed parametric hack is to carefully review the parameters and assumptions used. It may also be helpful to consult with colleagues or experts in the field for their insights and suggestions.

Can parametric hacks be applied to any system?

While parametric hacks can be a powerful tool, they are not suitable for every system or situation. It is important to carefully assess the feasibility and potential risks of using a parametric hack before implementing it.

Are there any ethical concerns with using parametric hacks?

As with any scientific or engineering technique, there may be ethical considerations to take into account when using parametric hacks. It is important to consider potential negative impacts or unintended consequences on individuals, society, or the environment.

Back
Top