Finding the normal of manifold in $mathbb{R}^3$ (Divergence theorem)












0















Calculate $oint_gamma f(X) dX$ where $f(x,y,z) = (yz,xz,xy)$,
$gamma = {X(t)| 0 le t le 2pi}$, $X(t) = (cos(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}))$




I know that I need to use the Divergence theorem(that's the subject of the exercise). I want to calculate the normal $N(x)$ of the manifold $gamma$, so I could try and get anything close to $oint_gamma f(X)dX$ in the form of $int<F,N> dx$ where $F$ is some vector field (and then use the Divergence theorem).



I know that usually the normal of manifold which is given by parameterization is $N(x)=frac{r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}}{||r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}||}$ (Where $r(U)$ is the parameterization) but here I'm given a parameterization that operate over single variable, $t$.



How does that formula for the normal $N(x)$ works in that case? Or perhaps is there any other way to calculate the normal?



Or is there any other trick that I'm missing to use the Divergence theorem with the current integral?










share|cite|improve this question





























    0















    Calculate $oint_gamma f(X) dX$ where $f(x,y,z) = (yz,xz,xy)$,
    $gamma = {X(t)| 0 le t le 2pi}$, $X(t) = (cos(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}))$




    I know that I need to use the Divergence theorem(that's the subject of the exercise). I want to calculate the normal $N(x)$ of the manifold $gamma$, so I could try and get anything close to $oint_gamma f(X)dX$ in the form of $int<F,N> dx$ where $F$ is some vector field (and then use the Divergence theorem).



    I know that usually the normal of manifold which is given by parameterization is $N(x)=frac{r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}}{||r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}||}$ (Where $r(U)$ is the parameterization) but here I'm given a parameterization that operate over single variable, $t$.



    How does that formula for the normal $N(x)$ works in that case? Or perhaps is there any other way to calculate the normal?



    Or is there any other trick that I'm missing to use the Divergence theorem with the current integral?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0








      Calculate $oint_gamma f(X) dX$ where $f(x,y,z) = (yz,xz,xy)$,
      $gamma = {X(t)| 0 le t le 2pi}$, $X(t) = (cos(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}))$




      I know that I need to use the Divergence theorem(that's the subject of the exercise). I want to calculate the normal $N(x)$ of the manifold $gamma$, so I could try and get anything close to $oint_gamma f(X)dX$ in the form of $int<F,N> dx$ where $F$ is some vector field (and then use the Divergence theorem).



      I know that usually the normal of manifold which is given by parameterization is $N(x)=frac{r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}}{||r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}||}$ (Where $r(U)$ is the parameterization) but here I'm given a parameterization that operate over single variable, $t$.



      How does that formula for the normal $N(x)$ works in that case? Or perhaps is there any other way to calculate the normal?



      Or is there any other trick that I'm missing to use the Divergence theorem with the current integral?










      share|cite|improve this question
















      Calculate $oint_gamma f(X) dX$ where $f(x,y,z) = (yz,xz,xy)$,
      $gamma = {X(t)| 0 le t le 2pi}$, $X(t) = (cos(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(t)cos(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}),sin(frac{pi}{8} + frac{t(2pi-t)}{4pi}))$




      I know that I need to use the Divergence theorem(that's the subject of the exercise). I want to calculate the normal $N(x)$ of the manifold $gamma$, so I could try and get anything close to $oint_gamma f(X)dX$ in the form of $int<F,N> dx$ where $F$ is some vector field (and then use the Divergence theorem).



      I know that usually the normal of manifold which is given by parameterization is $N(x)=frac{r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}}{||r_{u_1}timesdotstimes r_{u_{n-1}}||}$ (Where $r(U)$ is the parameterization) but here I'm given a parameterization that operate over single variable, $t$.



      How does that formula for the normal $N(x)$ works in that case? Or perhaps is there any other way to calculate the normal?



      Or is there any other trick that I'm missing to use the Divergence theorem with the current integral?







      calculus integration multivariable-calculus manifolds divergence






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 28 '18 at 20:09

























      asked Dec 26 '18 at 22:16









      ChikChak

      771418




      771418






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          The given vector field $f$ is nothing else but $f=nabla F$ for the scalar function $F(x,y,z):=xyz$. We are therefore told to integrate
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX$$
          along the curve $$gamma: quad tmapsto X(t):=bigl(cospsi(t)cos t,cospsi(t)sin t,sinpsi(t)bigr)qquad(0leq tleq2pi) ,$$
          with $$psi(t):={piover8}+{t(2pi -t)over4pi} ,$$
          hence $psi(0)=psi(2pi)={piover8}$. It follows that $gamma$ begins and ends at the point ${bf p}:=gamma(0)=bigl(cos{piover8},0,sin{piover8}bigr)$. Since $F$ is $C^1$ on all of ${mathbb R}^3$ this allows to conclude that
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX=F({bf p})-F({bf p})=0 .$$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 27 '18 at 13:55



















          0














          The whole point of the exercise is that there is no reason to find the normal to the surface at all! The "divergence theorem" says that
          $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$.



          You want to integrate $nablacdotvec{F}$ over the solid having $gamma$ as surface.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
            – ChikChak
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:35












          • You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
            – user247327
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:45










          • Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 29 '18 at 16:43











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053363%2ffinding-the-normal-of-manifold-in-mathbbr3-divergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          The given vector field $f$ is nothing else but $f=nabla F$ for the scalar function $F(x,y,z):=xyz$. We are therefore told to integrate
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX$$
          along the curve $$gamma: quad tmapsto X(t):=bigl(cospsi(t)cos t,cospsi(t)sin t,sinpsi(t)bigr)qquad(0leq tleq2pi) ,$$
          with $$psi(t):={piover8}+{t(2pi -t)over4pi} ,$$
          hence $psi(0)=psi(2pi)={piover8}$. It follows that $gamma$ begins and ends at the point ${bf p}:=gamma(0)=bigl(cos{piover8},0,sin{piover8}bigr)$. Since $F$ is $C^1$ on all of ${mathbb R}^3$ this allows to conclude that
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX=F({bf p})-F({bf p})=0 .$$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 27 '18 at 13:55
















          1














          The given vector field $f$ is nothing else but $f=nabla F$ for the scalar function $F(x,y,z):=xyz$. We are therefore told to integrate
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX$$
          along the curve $$gamma: quad tmapsto X(t):=bigl(cospsi(t)cos t,cospsi(t)sin t,sinpsi(t)bigr)qquad(0leq tleq2pi) ,$$
          with $$psi(t):={piover8}+{t(2pi -t)over4pi} ,$$
          hence $psi(0)=psi(2pi)={piover8}$. It follows that $gamma$ begins and ends at the point ${bf p}:=gamma(0)=bigl(cos{piover8},0,sin{piover8}bigr)$. Since $F$ is $C^1$ on all of ${mathbb R}^3$ this allows to conclude that
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX=F({bf p})-F({bf p})=0 .$$






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 27 '18 at 13:55














          1












          1








          1






          The given vector field $f$ is nothing else but $f=nabla F$ for the scalar function $F(x,y,z):=xyz$. We are therefore told to integrate
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX$$
          along the curve $$gamma: quad tmapsto X(t):=bigl(cospsi(t)cos t,cospsi(t)sin t,sinpsi(t)bigr)qquad(0leq tleq2pi) ,$$
          with $$psi(t):={piover8}+{t(2pi -t)over4pi} ,$$
          hence $psi(0)=psi(2pi)={piover8}$. It follows that $gamma$ begins and ends at the point ${bf p}:=gamma(0)=bigl(cos{piover8},0,sin{piover8}bigr)$. Since $F$ is $C^1$ on all of ${mathbb R}^3$ this allows to conclude that
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX=F({bf p})-F({bf p})=0 .$$






          share|cite|improve this answer












          The given vector field $f$ is nothing else but $f=nabla F$ for the scalar function $F(x,y,z):=xyz$. We are therefore told to integrate
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX$$
          along the curve $$gamma: quad tmapsto X(t):=bigl(cospsi(t)cos t,cospsi(t)sin t,sinpsi(t)bigr)qquad(0leq tleq2pi) ,$$
          with $$psi(t):={piover8}+{t(2pi -t)over4pi} ,$$
          hence $psi(0)=psi(2pi)={piover8}$. It follows that $gamma$ begins and ends at the point ${bf p}:=gamma(0)=bigl(cos{piover8},0,sin{piover8}bigr)$. Since $F$ is $C^1$ on all of ${mathbb R}^3$ this allows to conclude that
          $$int_gamma nabla F(X)cdot dX=F({bf p})-F({bf p})=0 .$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 27 '18 at 13:31









          Christian Blatter

          172k7112326




          172k7112326












          • I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 27 '18 at 13:55


















          • I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 27 '18 at 13:55
















          I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
          – ChikChak
          Dec 27 '18 at 13:55




          I really like your answer! But unfortunately I must use the Divergence theorem. I actually havn't noticed until now that $f=nabla F$. So $f$ is the normal of the space given by $F=c$, but is it related in any way to our $gamma$?
          – ChikChak
          Dec 27 '18 at 13:55











          0














          The whole point of the exercise is that there is no reason to find the normal to the surface at all! The "divergence theorem" says that
          $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$.



          You want to integrate $nablacdotvec{F}$ over the solid having $gamma$ as surface.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
            – ChikChak
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:35












          • You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
            – user247327
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:45










          • Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 29 '18 at 16:43
















          0














          The whole point of the exercise is that there is no reason to find the normal to the surface at all! The "divergence theorem" says that
          $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$.



          You want to integrate $nablacdotvec{F}$ over the solid having $gamma$ as surface.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
            – ChikChak
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:35












          • You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
            – user247327
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:45










          • Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 29 '18 at 16:43














          0












          0








          0






          The whole point of the exercise is that there is no reason to find the normal to the surface at all! The "divergence theorem" says that
          $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$.



          You want to integrate $nablacdotvec{F}$ over the solid having $gamma$ as surface.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          The whole point of the exercise is that there is no reason to find the normal to the surface at all! The "divergence theorem" says that
          $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$.



          You want to integrate $nablacdotvec{F}$ over the solid having $gamma$ as surface.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 26 '18 at 22:32









          user247327

          10.4k1515




          10.4k1515












          • Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
            – ChikChak
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:35












          • You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
            – user247327
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:45










          • Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 29 '18 at 16:43


















          • Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
            – ChikChak
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:35












          • You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
            – user247327
            Dec 26 '18 at 22:45










          • Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
            – ChikChak
            Dec 29 '18 at 16:43
















          Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
          – ChikChak
          Dec 26 '18 at 22:35






          Yes but in order to use the theorem, I need to get first to an integral which is of the form $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$, no? and then, use the theorem and calculate $intintint nablacdotvec{F} dV$ instead. But first I how can I find what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is? I mean, all I know is that I need to calculate $oint_gamma f(X)dX$, but I don't know if $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS= oint_gamma f(X)dX$...
          – ChikChak
          Dec 26 '18 at 22:35














          You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
          – user247327
          Dec 26 '18 at 22:45




          You already have that form!! That's exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n}dS$ is. You do NOT need to write it out explicitly. You just need to write $intintint nablacdot vec{F}dV$ explicitely.
          – user247327
          Dec 26 '18 at 22:45












          Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
          – ChikChak
          Dec 29 '18 at 16:43




          Why is that exactly what $intint vec{F}cdotvec{n} dS$ is?
          – ChikChak
          Dec 29 '18 at 16:43


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053363%2ffinding-the-normal-of-manifold-in-mathbbr3-divergence-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Human spaceflight

          Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

          張江高科駅