-1

$\renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}$ Given a vector field $\vec{F}(\vec{r}) = (P(\vec{r}),Q(\vec{r})) = (P(x,y),Q(x,y))$ that is defined and continuous on some open subset of the plane $D$, and a curve $\gamma$ in $D$ given by some $C^1$-parametrization $\vec{r}(t) = (x(t),y(t))$, where $\alpha \leq t \leq \beta$, I would like to show that the line integral of $\vec{F}$ over $\gamma$ is independent of the parametrization of $\gamma$. That is, that the integral $$\int_\alpha^\beta(P(x(t),y(t))x'(t)+Q(x(t),y(t))y'(t))\;dt$$ is independent of the chosen parametrization.

How would I go about doing this? I'm not clear as to what hypothesis are required. Nor am I sure what's meant by a different parametrization of $\gamma$.

Simon SMN
  • 163
  • 4
    I’m voting to close this question because @paulinho did his very best to answer OP's questions. – Kurt G. Mar 07 '24 at 19:26
  • I don't understand why that's a reason to close the question rather than upvote @paulinho's answer. – ronno Mar 11 '24 at 10:33
  • @KurtG. And he did a good job of it. I wasn't completely satisfied with the answer at the time, though, because it alludes to more advanced mathematics which one typically isn't in a position to understand when taking a first class in multivariate calculus. That dissatisfaction was due to the textbook I was using, which wasn't transparent about this fact. – Simon SMN Mar 12 '24 at 10:16
  • @ronno Five days ago I have upvoted paulinho's answer hoping that this will forever keep that post away from the active queue. I see many post being pushed back there by the community bot because they did not have an accepted answer. – Kurt G. Mar 12 '24 at 10:19
  • @SimonSMN thanks for coming back. Can you help to resolve the issue I just mentioned? Perhaps accept paulinho's answer now? If not why not? – Kurt G. Mar 12 '24 at 10:21
  • @KurtG. I've now accepted it. – Simon SMN Mar 12 '24 at 17:27
  • @KurtG. I must say, I don't really understand why I've been downvoted. Nor do I understand why this question is labeled off topic. – Simon SMN Mar 13 '24 at 10:58
  • I have not downvoted the question. What I did is documented in the comments here. Thanks for accepting the answer finally but you should also understand those who try to clean up the active queue from such orphaned posts. – Kurt G. Mar 13 '24 at 13:10
  • @KurtG. Sure, I understand that. Did you label the question as off topic? – Simon SMN Mar 14 '24 at 11:23
  • 1
    Moderators are the only single users that have the power to do that. To close a question it needs five votes from normal users. If you don't like that situation you can edit it an vote to reopen. – Kurt G. Mar 14 '24 at 12:37

1 Answers1

5

Note that to evaluate a line integral, you must parameterize the curve on which you are evaluating the line integral with some parameter $t$. A common curve that we are interested in integrating along, for example, is the unit circle, which we know well can be parameterized as $$(\cos t, \sin t), ~ 0 \leq t \leq 2\pi$$ But note that this parameterization is not unique! Note that $$(\cos t^2, \sin t^2), 0 \leq t \leq \sqrt{2\pi}$$ is also a parameterization of the unit circle (and there are infinitely more such parameterizations of the unit circle). So when we say that line integrals are independent of choice of parameterization, it means that the line integral should evaluate to the same result independent of which such parameterization of the curve we choose. So if my line integral was along the unit circle, I could choose either of the above parameterizations and I should get the same result.

We will need the following definition: a regular parameterization $p(t) : [\alpha, \beta] \to C$ of a curve $C$ is one of nonzero velocity, i.e. $p'(t) \neq \vec{0}$ for every $t \in [\alpha, \beta]$.

We will now prove this result. Let us assume the curve is smooth, and we have two regular parameterizations, $p(t): [\alpha, \beta] \to C$ and $q(u): [\gamma, \delta] \to C$, where $C$ is the curve you are trying to integrate along. Assume furthermore that there is also a smooth function $r(t): [\alpha, \beta] \to [\gamma, \delta]$ such that $q(r(t)) = p(t)$. (For essentially all parameterizations, you can find such a function.) We want to show that $$\int_\alpha^\beta \mathbf{F}(p(t)) \cdot p'(t) dt = \int_\gamma^\delta \mathbf{F}(q(u)) \cdot q'(u) du$$ Let us apply a change of variables in the integral on the right-hand side. We will replace $u$ by $r(t)$: $$\int_\gamma^\delta \mathbf{F}(q(u)) \cdot q'(u) du ~ \stackrel{u \to r(t)}{\to} ~ \int_{r(\gamma)}^{r(\delta)} \mathbf{F}(q(r)) \cdot q'(r) r'(t) dt$$ Because $u = r(t) \implies du = r'(t) dt$. Note also that the bounds have changed, as is the case when you change variables. But by the chain rule, we know that $$p'(t) = \frac d {dt} q(r(t)) = q'(r(t)) \cdot r'(t)$$ With this fact and also the fact that $r(\gamma) = \alpha$ and $r(\delta) = \beta$, we can rewrite the above expression as $$\int_{\alpha}^{\beta} \mathbf{F}(q(r(t))) \cdot p'(t) dt = \int_{\alpha}^{\beta} \mathbf{F}(p(t)) \cdot p'(t) dt$$ and hence we have achieved our result.

EDIT:

Some questions were asked concerning the existence and properties of the $r(t)$ as described above.

Under what conditions does such an $r(t)$ exist? If the parameterizations $p$ and $q$ (note that the bounds of the parameter are crucial to these parameterizations) trace out the same smooth curve $C$ (in the same directions along the curve), then we can always find such an $r(t)$. To intuitively understand why this is, suppose the two parameterizations $p(t)$ and $q(u)$ have thus far traced out the same part of the curve $C$ and are both at some point $(x,y) = p(t^*) = q(u^*)$. By simply choosing $r(t^*) = u^*$, it can be verified that $p(t^*) = q(r(t^*))$. We can choose the values of $r(t)$ for every such point along the curve in this way, thereby constructing such an $r(t)$. Note that this argument works even for self-intersecting curves, since what matters is the path along the curve that has been traced out thus far.

Don't you need this $r(t)$ to be bijective? Yes, we do, as per the change of variables theorem. But this is actually also always the case when the parameterizations trace out the same curve. Indeed, the function $r$ is monotonically increasing the way we defined it in the answer to the previous question: $r(t_1) > r(t_2) \iff t_1 > t_2$. This is again because the parameterizations trace out the same curve in the same direction. Any monotonically increasing function is invertible, so this assertion holds.

EDIT 2:

What is meant when we say two parameterizations $p$ and $q$ trace the curve in the same directions? This just means that not only is the final curve traced the same, but the two parameterizations follow the same path along the curve. For example, the two following parameterizations of the unit circle: $$p(t) = (\cos t, -\sin t), ~ q(t) = (\cos u, \sin u), ~ 0 \leq t, u \leq 2 \pi$$ do not trace out the curve in the same directions: one traverses the unit circle counterclockwise, and the other clockwise. But the parameterizations $$p(t) = (\cos t, \sin t), 0 \leq t \leq 2 \pi; ~ q(u) = (\cos u^2, \sin u^2), 0 \leq u \leq \sqrt{2 \pi}$$ do trace out the curve in the same directions. The only difference, you might say, is that the parameterization $q$ traces out the unit circle "faster" (if you think of $t$ and $u$ as time).

Is $r(t)$ continuously differentiable (smooth)? In fact it is, but this crucially depends on the fact that the parameterizations are regular. It is a result of differential topology (see here) that if $q(r(t))$ is smooth and $q(u)$ is a diffeomorphism (i.e. invertible and differentiable), then $r(t)$ is smooth as well. Since the parameterization $q$ is regular by assumption, we can use the inverse function theorem to conclude that the inverse exists of $q(u)$ exists at every point and is hence well-defined. It would follow from the assumption of $p$'s smoothness that $r(t)$ is smooth. Hence, the change of variables is valid, as $r(t)$ is too a diffeomorphism (the intuitition behind its invertibility was sketched above).

paulinho
  • 6,553
  • $\newcommand{\vec}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}} $Would you like to elaborate a bit on the following two queries I have about your answer? Firstly, what do you mean specifically by "for essentially all parametrizations, you can find such a function"? Is there some theorem that states that, given $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{q}$ as above, the smooth function $\vec{r}$ exists? Secondly, by your change of variables in evaluating the integral on the second line of calculations, you are further assuming that $\vec{r}$ is a bijection? – Simon SMN May 13 '20 at 15:33
  • Forgot tagging @paulinho. – Simon SMN May 14 '20 at 11:08
  • @SimonSMN See my edits. – paulinho May 14 '20 at 14:24
  • I appreciate your answers, but I'm still left with the same questions. What do you mean when you say that $p$ and $q$ trace out the same smooth curve $C$ $\textit{in the same directions along the curve}$? This seems like a crucial prerequisite of your argument, yet we haven't specified what that even means to begin with. Also, we are assuming $r$ is continuously differentiable, right? How do we show that? Again, I appreciate your answers, but I'm still left wondering. – Simon SMN May 14 '20 at 14:56
  • Forgot tagging, again @paulinho. – Simon SMN May 14 '20 at 17:11
  • @SimonSMN See my second round of edits. Note that the result applied to regular parameterizations now (ones with nonzero velocity). I'm not completely sure if the statement is true when extended to all non-regular parameterizations of the curve. Though it seems like it should be, since whenever the velocity of the parameterization is zero, the contribution to the integral is nothing. – paulinho May 14 '20 at 19:03