1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

(a) has to be 0 as u and the gradient vector are perpendicular to each other.

(b) must be false as the gradient vector is perpendicular to the surface, and v is not perpendicular to the surface.

(c) I have no idea how to approach this question.

Are my reasonings for (a) and (b) correct? How do I approach part (c)?

Any help will be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To me $\bf{v}$ Looks close enough to perpendicular to say it is false for the reason that it points opposite to the actual gradient. $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Jan 3 '18 at 4:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Triatticus Although v may be perpendicular, I said false because it is not perpendicular to the surface. If you visualize the surface that the contour map is depicting, v would not be perpendicular to it, meaning that it cannot be the gradient vector. Is this right? What do you mean by "points opposite to the actual gradient"? $\endgroup$ – StopReadingThisUsername Jan 3 '18 at 5:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The gradient isn't perpendicular to the surface, it's perpendicular to the level curves of the surface, otherwise all directional derivatives would be zero $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Jan 3 '18 at 6:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Triatticus Ahh you're right. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out. By the way, do you have any idea how to do part (c)? $\endgroup$ – StopReadingThisUsername Jan 4 '18 at 1:49
  • $\begingroup$ Well the line integral is a generalization of the 1D Riemann integral and essentially gives you the area of a curve under the graph and above the $x-y$ plane. The function looks continuous that you can guess approximate values between the level sets. The function is approximately monotone along the path, it's unlikely that you'll obtain $0$ as an answer $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Jan 4 '18 at 3:08
3
$\begingroup$

Here are a couple of ways to go about making some informed decisions in estimating a line integral given a picture:

We note the path is a simple path, it is a semi-circle of radius $r=1$ and total arc length of $\pi$, this can help in the estimation step. We also note that $f$ is approximately monotone decreasing along the path in such a way as to make estimation of values between the contour lines somewhat simple or at least probable.

First lets use a trick from single variable calculus to constrain our integral between its max and min values. We will take two integrals, both treating $f$ as a constant set by the beginning and ending of the path (because $f$ is approximately monotone we have a highest and lowest point). I will take these points as $f(3,3)\approx 4.1$ the beginning of the curve above the $f=4$ contour, and $f(3,1)\approx 1.3$ the point on the curve above the $f = 1$ contour. We then compute the two approximate integrals to help us bound the answers a bit.

Integral 1: $$\int_C f(x,y)ds = \int_C f(3,3)ds \approx \int_C (4.1)ds = 4.1 \cdot \pi \approx 12.88 $$

Integral 2:

$$\int_C f(x,y)ds = \int_C f(3,1)ds \approx \int_C (1.3)ds = 1.3 \cdot \pi \approx 4.08 $$

At least we have cut off anything less in magnitude than $4$, so the answers $-3,0,3$ are all too small.

To decide if the answer is closer to $9$ or $6$, I appeal to the drawing, the path spends more time traveling through the segment (is longer) $3<f<4$ than the segment $2<f<3$, this pushes the value closer to $9$. And lastly the integration path travels backwards towards decreasing values of $f$ and this could make the value of the integral negative, I would suspect that the value of the integral is most likely $\pm9$ with a preference towards $-9$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer! Why is there a preference towards $-9$? I thought the result had to be positive as all f values are positive and the arc length must be positive...? $\endgroup$ – StopReadingThisUsername Jan 4 '18 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ No problem, I only hope it was close enough, estimation can be difficult in those situations $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Jan 4 '18 at 12:11
  • $\begingroup$ The only reason for a negative answer is think about what happens when you switch a and b in a normal Riemann integral, it switches the sign of the result even if the area under the curve is positive. I hope you get some professional input from whomever gave this question as I too am curious if I was close in my approximations. I just made the best judgement I figured would work based on what I know about line integrals $\endgroup$ – Triatticus Jan 4 '18 at 20:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.