Math 2.0

statement theorem

Homotopy invariance of line integrals of closed forms

Statement

Let U⊆R3U \subseteq \mathbb{R}^3 be open, and let F ⁣:U→R3F \colon U \to \mathbb{R}^3 be a vector field of class C1C^1 with ∇×F=0\nabla \times F = 0 on UU. Let c0,c1 ⁣:[0,1]→Uc_0, c_1 \colon [0, 1] \to U be piecewise smooth closed curves. Suppose that there is a piecewise smooth map H ⁣:[0,1]×[0,1]→UH \colon [0, 1] \times [0, 1] \to U with H(t,0)=c0(t)H(t, 0) = c_0(t), H(t,1)=c1(t)H(t, 1) = c_1(t) and H(0,s)=H(1,s)H(0, s) = H(1, s) for all s,t∈[0,1]s, t \in [0, 1]. Then ∮c0F⋅dr=∮c1F⋅dr.\oint_{c_0} F \cdot d\mathbf{r} = \oint_{c_1} F \cdot d\mathbf{r}.

Remarks

Proof: apply Stokes' theorem to the surface H([0,1]2)H([0, 1]^2). The curl term is zero, and the integrals along the curves s↦H(0,s)s \mapsto H(0, s) and s↦H(1,s)s \mapsto H(1, s) cancel. If c1c_1 is a constant loop, then ∮c0F⋅dr=0\oint_{c_0} F \cdot d\mathbf{r} = 0. On a simply connected domain, each loop deforms to a point, and a smoothing argument gives a piecewise smooth HH. So curl-free C1C^1 fields on such domains are conservative. The condition ∇×F=0\nabla \times F = 0 means that the 1-form F1 dx+F2 dy+F3 dzF_1 \, dx + F_2 \, dy + F_3 \, dz is closed. This explains the name of the theorem.

Explanations

L1 human

For a field with no swirl, the work around a loop does not change when you slide and bend the loop continuously inside the domain. A loop that can shrink to a point therefore has zero work.

What this node needs for W1
  • an inventory row: the row of the inventory that the node accounts for (0 of 1)

The writing levels say how complete the text of a node is. They do not measure its truth.

Sources

  1. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem, Helmholtz's theorem
  2. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem, Conservative forces
  3. Web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_and_exact_differential_forms, Vector field analogies