Find Surface Area Via a Line Integral (Stokes' Theorem)












1














I am trying to use Stokes' Theorem to calculate the surface area of a parametrized surface via a line integral. The surface is the part of $z= x^2+y^2$ below the plane $z=5$. I know this can be done the usual way, without Stokes' Theorem, but there is another surface whose area I'm trying to calculate for which the usual way doesn't work well due to tough limits of integration.



As stated in the question Un-Curl Operator, we can find the surface area via $ointvec{F}cdot vec{ds}$ over the curve of intersection of the paraboloid and plane, provided we can find a field $vec{F}$ such that $text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=1.$ This would mean that



$$text{curl}(vec{F}) = frac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2},$$



so that,



$$text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=leftVertfrac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}rightVertcdotVert vec{n} Vert=frac{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}=1,$$as required.
But finding such a vector field has proven difficult. I first tried using the method described in the question Anti-Curl Operator, but realized that this wouldn't work because $text{curl}(vec{F})$ has a nonzero divergence. I then turned to the method described in an answer to the Un-Curl Operator question, known as the Helmholtz decomposition. The idea is that given our vector field, $text{curl}(vec{F})$ in this case, we can split it into a curl-free part and a divergence-free part:



$$text{curl}(mathbf{F})=-nablaPhi+nablatimes mathbf{A}$$



I believe (I could be wrong though) that it remains only to find $mathbf{A}$, since the first term will not contribute to the line integral around a closed path. However, this is where my confusion begins. According to Wikipedia, $mathbf{A}$ is found as follows:



$$ mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=frac{1}{4pi}int_Vfrac{nabla'timesmathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}V'
-
frac{1}{4pi}oint_Smathbf{hat{n}}'timesfrac{mathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}S'$$



I do not know how to use this formula. Specifically, I do not know what most of the symbols represent in the context of this problem. What is the difference between $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}'$? What is the region of integration? Also, the Wikipedia page mentions that the second term can be dropped if the field satisfies certain conditions. Does that apply here?



I am also wondering if there is anything else I need to do to specify that the dot product of $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$ and $mathbf{n}$ is $1$. The answer on the Un-Curl Operator question used the following notation:



$$mathbf{G}vert_{partialOmega}cdotmathbf{n}=1,$$



where $mathbf{G}$ = $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$. I'm pretty sure that $partialOmega$ represents the boundary of a domain $Omega$, but what is $Omega$ in the context of this problem? Am I missing something?



How would we use the Helmholtz decomposition to find the vector field $mathbf{A}$ in this problem?










share|cite|improve this question





























    1














    I am trying to use Stokes' Theorem to calculate the surface area of a parametrized surface via a line integral. The surface is the part of $z= x^2+y^2$ below the plane $z=5$. I know this can be done the usual way, without Stokes' Theorem, but there is another surface whose area I'm trying to calculate for which the usual way doesn't work well due to tough limits of integration.



    As stated in the question Un-Curl Operator, we can find the surface area via $ointvec{F}cdot vec{ds}$ over the curve of intersection of the paraboloid and plane, provided we can find a field $vec{F}$ such that $text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=1.$ This would mean that



    $$text{curl}(vec{F}) = frac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2},$$



    so that,



    $$text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=leftVertfrac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}rightVertcdotVert vec{n} Vert=frac{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}=1,$$as required.
    But finding such a vector field has proven difficult. I first tried using the method described in the question Anti-Curl Operator, but realized that this wouldn't work because $text{curl}(vec{F})$ has a nonzero divergence. I then turned to the method described in an answer to the Un-Curl Operator question, known as the Helmholtz decomposition. The idea is that given our vector field, $text{curl}(vec{F})$ in this case, we can split it into a curl-free part and a divergence-free part:



    $$text{curl}(mathbf{F})=-nablaPhi+nablatimes mathbf{A}$$



    I believe (I could be wrong though) that it remains only to find $mathbf{A}$, since the first term will not contribute to the line integral around a closed path. However, this is where my confusion begins. According to Wikipedia, $mathbf{A}$ is found as follows:



    $$ mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=frac{1}{4pi}int_Vfrac{nabla'timesmathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}V'
    -
    frac{1}{4pi}oint_Smathbf{hat{n}}'timesfrac{mathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}S'$$



    I do not know how to use this formula. Specifically, I do not know what most of the symbols represent in the context of this problem. What is the difference between $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}'$? What is the region of integration? Also, the Wikipedia page mentions that the second term can be dropped if the field satisfies certain conditions. Does that apply here?



    I am also wondering if there is anything else I need to do to specify that the dot product of $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$ and $mathbf{n}$ is $1$. The answer on the Un-Curl Operator question used the following notation:



    $$mathbf{G}vert_{partialOmega}cdotmathbf{n}=1,$$



    where $mathbf{G}$ = $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$. I'm pretty sure that $partialOmega$ represents the boundary of a domain $Omega$, but what is $Omega$ in the context of this problem? Am I missing something?



    How would we use the Helmholtz decomposition to find the vector field $mathbf{A}$ in this problem?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1


      1





      I am trying to use Stokes' Theorem to calculate the surface area of a parametrized surface via a line integral. The surface is the part of $z= x^2+y^2$ below the plane $z=5$. I know this can be done the usual way, without Stokes' Theorem, but there is another surface whose area I'm trying to calculate for which the usual way doesn't work well due to tough limits of integration.



      As stated in the question Un-Curl Operator, we can find the surface area via $ointvec{F}cdot vec{ds}$ over the curve of intersection of the paraboloid and plane, provided we can find a field $vec{F}$ such that $text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=1.$ This would mean that



      $$text{curl}(vec{F}) = frac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2},$$



      so that,



      $$text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=leftVertfrac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}rightVertcdotVert vec{n} Vert=frac{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}=1,$$as required.
      But finding such a vector field has proven difficult. I first tried using the method described in the question Anti-Curl Operator, but realized that this wouldn't work because $text{curl}(vec{F})$ has a nonzero divergence. I then turned to the method described in an answer to the Un-Curl Operator question, known as the Helmholtz decomposition. The idea is that given our vector field, $text{curl}(vec{F})$ in this case, we can split it into a curl-free part and a divergence-free part:



      $$text{curl}(mathbf{F})=-nablaPhi+nablatimes mathbf{A}$$



      I believe (I could be wrong though) that it remains only to find $mathbf{A}$, since the first term will not contribute to the line integral around a closed path. However, this is where my confusion begins. According to Wikipedia, $mathbf{A}$ is found as follows:



      $$ mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=frac{1}{4pi}int_Vfrac{nabla'timesmathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}V'
      -
      frac{1}{4pi}oint_Smathbf{hat{n}}'timesfrac{mathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}S'$$



      I do not know how to use this formula. Specifically, I do not know what most of the symbols represent in the context of this problem. What is the difference between $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}'$? What is the region of integration? Also, the Wikipedia page mentions that the second term can be dropped if the field satisfies certain conditions. Does that apply here?



      I am also wondering if there is anything else I need to do to specify that the dot product of $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$ and $mathbf{n}$ is $1$. The answer on the Un-Curl Operator question used the following notation:



      $$mathbf{G}vert_{partialOmega}cdotmathbf{n}=1,$$



      where $mathbf{G}$ = $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$. I'm pretty sure that $partialOmega$ represents the boundary of a domain $Omega$, but what is $Omega$ in the context of this problem? Am I missing something?



      How would we use the Helmholtz decomposition to find the vector field $mathbf{A}$ in this problem?










      share|cite|improve this question















      I am trying to use Stokes' Theorem to calculate the surface area of a parametrized surface via a line integral. The surface is the part of $z= x^2+y^2$ below the plane $z=5$. I know this can be done the usual way, without Stokes' Theorem, but there is another surface whose area I'm trying to calculate for which the usual way doesn't work well due to tough limits of integration.



      As stated in the question Un-Curl Operator, we can find the surface area via $ointvec{F}cdot vec{ds}$ over the curve of intersection of the paraboloid and plane, provided we can find a field $vec{F}$ such that $text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=1.$ This would mean that



      $$text{curl}(vec{F}) = frac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2},$$



      so that,



      $$text{curl}(vec{F})cdot vec{n}=leftVertfrac{vec{n}}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}rightVertcdotVert vec{n} Vert=frac{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}{{Vert vec{n} Vert}^2}=1,$$as required.
      But finding such a vector field has proven difficult. I first tried using the method described in the question Anti-Curl Operator, but realized that this wouldn't work because $text{curl}(vec{F})$ has a nonzero divergence. I then turned to the method described in an answer to the Un-Curl Operator question, known as the Helmholtz decomposition. The idea is that given our vector field, $text{curl}(vec{F})$ in this case, we can split it into a curl-free part and a divergence-free part:



      $$text{curl}(mathbf{F})=-nablaPhi+nablatimes mathbf{A}$$



      I believe (I could be wrong though) that it remains only to find $mathbf{A}$, since the first term will not contribute to the line integral around a closed path. However, this is where my confusion begins. According to Wikipedia, $mathbf{A}$ is found as follows:



      $$ mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=frac{1}{4pi}int_Vfrac{nabla'timesmathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}V'
      -
      frac{1}{4pi}oint_Smathbf{hat{n}}'timesfrac{mathbf{F}(mathbf{r}')}{leftvertmathbf{r}-mathbf{r}'rightvert}text{d}S'$$



      I do not know how to use this formula. Specifically, I do not know what most of the symbols represent in the context of this problem. What is the difference between $mathbf{r}$ and $mathbf{r}'$? What is the region of integration? Also, the Wikipedia page mentions that the second term can be dropped if the field satisfies certain conditions. Does that apply here?



      I am also wondering if there is anything else I need to do to specify that the dot product of $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$ and $mathbf{n}$ is $1$. The answer on the Un-Curl Operator question used the following notation:



      $$mathbf{G}vert_{partialOmega}cdotmathbf{n}=1,$$



      where $mathbf{G}$ = $text{curl}(mathbf{F})$. I'm pretty sure that $partialOmega$ represents the boundary of a domain $Omega$, but what is $Omega$ in the context of this problem? Am I missing something?



      How would we use the Helmholtz decomposition to find the vector field $mathbf{A}$ in this problem?







      multivariable-calculus line-integrals stokes-theorem






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21









      Community

      1




      1










      asked May 26 '16 at 3:40









      eg001

      212




      212






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          I'm not sure whether this helps you or not. Suppose $mathbf{B}$ is a constant vector. Define
          $$
          mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=-frac{1}{2}mathbf{r}times mathbf{B}Longrightarrow nablatimes mathbf{A}=mathbf{B}
          $$
          Then by Stokes theorem
          $$
          mathbf{B}cdot mathbf{S}=int_{Omega} mathbf{B}cdot dmathbf{a}=oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{A}cdot dmathbf{r}=
          -frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} (mathbf{r}timesmathbf{B})cdot dmathbf{r}=
          mathbf{B}cdot
          left(frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}right)
          $$
          where $mathbf{S}$ is the total (vector) surface area of $Omega$. Now choose $mathbf{B}=mathbf{e}_1, mathbf{e}_2, mathbf{e}_3$ to obtain
          $$
          mathbf{S}_Omega=int_{Omega} dmathbf{a}=frac{1}{2}oint_{partial Omega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}
          $$
          This is a formula for calculating the surface area via line integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 18:56












          • It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
            – Hamed
            May 26 '16 at 18:58










          • Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 19:02











          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%2f1800342%2ffind-surface-area-via-a-line-integral-stokes-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0














          I'm not sure whether this helps you or not. Suppose $mathbf{B}$ is a constant vector. Define
          $$
          mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=-frac{1}{2}mathbf{r}times mathbf{B}Longrightarrow nablatimes mathbf{A}=mathbf{B}
          $$
          Then by Stokes theorem
          $$
          mathbf{B}cdot mathbf{S}=int_{Omega} mathbf{B}cdot dmathbf{a}=oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{A}cdot dmathbf{r}=
          -frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} (mathbf{r}timesmathbf{B})cdot dmathbf{r}=
          mathbf{B}cdot
          left(frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}right)
          $$
          where $mathbf{S}$ is the total (vector) surface area of $Omega$. Now choose $mathbf{B}=mathbf{e}_1, mathbf{e}_2, mathbf{e}_3$ to obtain
          $$
          mathbf{S}_Omega=int_{Omega} dmathbf{a}=frac{1}{2}oint_{partial Omega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}
          $$
          This is a formula for calculating the surface area via line integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 18:56












          • It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
            – Hamed
            May 26 '16 at 18:58










          • Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 19:02
















          0














          I'm not sure whether this helps you or not. Suppose $mathbf{B}$ is a constant vector. Define
          $$
          mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=-frac{1}{2}mathbf{r}times mathbf{B}Longrightarrow nablatimes mathbf{A}=mathbf{B}
          $$
          Then by Stokes theorem
          $$
          mathbf{B}cdot mathbf{S}=int_{Omega} mathbf{B}cdot dmathbf{a}=oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{A}cdot dmathbf{r}=
          -frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} (mathbf{r}timesmathbf{B})cdot dmathbf{r}=
          mathbf{B}cdot
          left(frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}right)
          $$
          where $mathbf{S}$ is the total (vector) surface area of $Omega$. Now choose $mathbf{B}=mathbf{e}_1, mathbf{e}_2, mathbf{e}_3$ to obtain
          $$
          mathbf{S}_Omega=int_{Omega} dmathbf{a}=frac{1}{2}oint_{partial Omega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}
          $$
          This is a formula for calculating the surface area via line integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 18:56












          • It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
            – Hamed
            May 26 '16 at 18:58










          • Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 19:02














          0












          0








          0






          I'm not sure whether this helps you or not. Suppose $mathbf{B}$ is a constant vector. Define
          $$
          mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=-frac{1}{2}mathbf{r}times mathbf{B}Longrightarrow nablatimes mathbf{A}=mathbf{B}
          $$
          Then by Stokes theorem
          $$
          mathbf{B}cdot mathbf{S}=int_{Omega} mathbf{B}cdot dmathbf{a}=oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{A}cdot dmathbf{r}=
          -frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} (mathbf{r}timesmathbf{B})cdot dmathbf{r}=
          mathbf{B}cdot
          left(frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}right)
          $$
          where $mathbf{S}$ is the total (vector) surface area of $Omega$. Now choose $mathbf{B}=mathbf{e}_1, mathbf{e}_2, mathbf{e}_3$ to obtain
          $$
          mathbf{S}_Omega=int_{Omega} dmathbf{a}=frac{1}{2}oint_{partial Omega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}
          $$
          This is a formula for calculating the surface area via line integrals.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          I'm not sure whether this helps you or not. Suppose $mathbf{B}$ is a constant vector. Define
          $$
          mathbf{A}(mathbf{r})=-frac{1}{2}mathbf{r}times mathbf{B}Longrightarrow nablatimes mathbf{A}=mathbf{B}
          $$
          Then by Stokes theorem
          $$
          mathbf{B}cdot mathbf{S}=int_{Omega} mathbf{B}cdot dmathbf{a}=oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{A}cdot dmathbf{r}=
          -frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} (mathbf{r}timesmathbf{B})cdot dmathbf{r}=
          mathbf{B}cdot
          left(frac{1}{2}oint_{partialOmega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}right)
          $$
          where $mathbf{S}$ is the total (vector) surface area of $Omega$. Now choose $mathbf{B}=mathbf{e}_1, mathbf{e}_2, mathbf{e}_3$ to obtain
          $$
          mathbf{S}_Omega=int_{Omega} dmathbf{a}=frac{1}{2}oint_{partial Omega} mathbf{r}times dmathbf{r}
          $$
          This is a formula for calculating the surface area via line integrals.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered May 26 '16 at 5:03









          Hamed

          4,753521




          4,753521












          • Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 18:56












          • It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
            – Hamed
            May 26 '16 at 18:58










          • Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 19:02


















          • Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 18:56












          • It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
            – Hamed
            May 26 '16 at 18:58










          • Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
            – eg001
            May 26 '16 at 19:02
















          Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
          – eg001
          May 26 '16 at 18:56






          Thank you, I was looking for that kind of formula. I just have a couple questions: Does $mathbf{r}$ represent $langle x,y,z rangle$ and $dmathbf{r}$ represent $langle dx,dy,dz rangle$?
          – eg001
          May 26 '16 at 18:56














          It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
          – Hamed
          May 26 '16 at 18:58




          It might not be very useful to you though since it is the vector surface area which is very different from surface area. But maybe you can play around with it and find what you want.
          – Hamed
          May 26 '16 at 18:58












          Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
          – eg001
          May 26 '16 at 19:02




          Oh I see, that could explain why the final line integral is of a vector and not a scalar. I was wondering about the interpretation of that. I am also not familiar with vector surface area, but maybe there is a way to get regular surface area out of this.
          – eg001
          May 26 '16 at 19:02


















          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%2f1800342%2ffind-surface-area-via-a-line-integral-stokes-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

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten