Connecting...

This is a quick preview of the lesson. For full access, please Log In or Sign up.
For more information, please see full course syllabus of Multivariable Calculus
For more information, please see full course syllabus of Multivariable Calculus
Multivariable Calculus Green's Theorem
Lecture Description
In this lesson we are going to be talking about Green's Theorem. It is absolutely fantastic theorem and very, very important. Green's theorem is the fundamental theorem of calculus in 2 dimensions. In single variable calculus, you did the fundamental theorem of calculus. In 2 dimensions it is called the Green's theorem, and in 3 dimensions it is called Stoke's theorem. As it turns out, the fundamental theorem of calculus it actually true in any number of dimensions, and the name of that is called the generalized Stoke's theorem. We'll start off with by defining what it is that we are going to be doing here and then we'll move on to some examples.
Bookmark & Share
Embed
Share this knowledge with your friends!
Copy & Paste this embed code into your website’s HTML
Please ensure that your website editor is in text mode when you paste the code.(In Wordpress, the mode button is on the top right corner.)
×
Since this lesson is not free, only the preview will appear on your website.
- - Allow users to view the embedded video in full-size.
Next Lecture
Previous Lecture
3 answers
Tue Oct 7, 2014 3:23 AM
Post by Jinbin Chen on October 3, 2014
Hello, Mr. Raffi!
I really like your lectures on chemistry and calculus (and to be honest, these lectures sort of sparked my interest on chemistry and math).
I do have a question about the Green's Theorem (as well as the Stokes' Theorem). So you said in the video that Green's Theorem and Stokes' Theorem are just the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in higher dimensions. But for me, the Foundamental Theorem of Calculus is used to evaluate integrals (or the area under the curve) while the Green's Theorem (or Stokes' Theorem) deals with the vector field. So how are these theorems actually similar?
By the way, do you have any plan to do a real analysis course in the future?
Take good care,
Jinbin
1 answer
Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:55 PM
Post by Denny Yang [ Mod ♕ ] on August 22, 2014
For one of the questions:
Q. Evalute ∫C F for the vector field F(x,y) = (ey,xey) over the curve C.
In Step 2, you listed:
Now f1(x,y) = ey and so [(df1)/dy] = 0. Also f2(x,y) = xey so [(df2)/dx] = ey. Hence [(df2)/dx] − [(df1)/dy] = ey − (0) = ey.
Isn't [(df1)/dy]= e^y. The partial derivative of f1 with respect to y is e^y since it is a function of y. e^y would only be zero if it is the partial derivative of f1 with respect to x, where e^y is a constant.
1 answer
Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:47 PM
Post by Denny Yang [ Mod ♕ ] on August 20, 2014
Just a quick question. For example 1, you picked the integration limits for x to be (-4) and (4). I was wondering why the integration limits for X is not [(+ or -)sqrt(4-y^2)]. What i did was i solved for x from the ellipse equation. You did that for the y-integration limits, so i wanted to know if you could do that for x. Why cant the integration for y be from (-2) to (2)?
2 answers
Last reply by: Josh Winfield
Wed May 15, 2013 6:09 AM
Post by Josh Winfield on May 14, 2013
Example 2: The fact you had to traverse the inner curve didn't even seem to play a part in the mathematics besides that 1 line which didn't really seem to change anything at all. Is the answer always the same regardless. You had -∫ and the just wrote greens theorem after it as normal the fact you had to switch the sign didn't seem to carry to the next line, i dont fully understand, that may be because im in Australia, its very late and im very tired lol
3 answers
Last reply by: Josh Winfield
Wed May 15, 2013 6:09 AM
Post by Riley Argue on April 13, 2013
Great lecture.
Very clear.