I learnt the identity that if $F$ is $C^2$ then div(curl$F$)=$0$. Now if I have a vector field $G$, which happens to be that div$G$ = $0$, does this mean that $G$ is the curl of some vector field $F$? How would I find this if so?
2026-03-28 00:06:01.1774656361
What does it mean if divergence of a vector field is zero?
7.1k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in DIVERGENCE-OPERATOR
- surface integral over a hyperbolic paraboloid
- Divergence in Spherical & Cylindrical Polar co-ordinates derivation
- Why doesn't this integral for the divergence of this vector field need to be fully calculated?
- Equivalent ways of writing Kullback-Leibler divergence
- Derivation of Divergence of a Vector Field Formula
- Trivial demonstration. $\nabla J(r,t)=\frac{\hbar}{im}\nabla\psi^{*}\nabla\psi+\frac{\hbar}{im}\psi\nabla^2\psi$
- How to prove the space of divergence-free vector fields on a manifold is infinite dimensional?
- Integral of 1/norm on a surface of a ball not centered around the origin
- show that xf(x)=c if xyf(xy)=(1-x)yf((1-x)y)
- $w =\operatorname{arcsinh}(1+2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1+2^2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1+2^{2^2}\operatorname{arcsinh}(1+\dotsm$
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
We can prove that
$E=$curl$(F) \Rightarrow$ div$(E)=0$
simply using the definitions in cartesian coordinates and the properties of partial derivatives. But this result is a form of a more general theorem that is formulated in term of exterior derivatives and says that:
In this case $E$ is the exterior derivative of $F$ and div$(E)$ is the exterior derivative of $E$.
Another way to express this general result is to say that $E$ corresponds to an exact differential form just because it is the exterior derivative of a $1-$form corresponding to $F$ and the derivative of an exact form is null.
The question if the inverse is true, i.e. if a form whose exterior derivative is null (we say that it is closed) is necessarly exact, is solved by the Poincaré Lemma that says that:
This is a very deep result that has to do with the topological fact that the boundary of a boundary is zero (see this proof of div$($curl$(F))=0$) and require a definition of contractable space and, more, opens the doors of the de Raham cohomology theory (as you can see here if you want to know more about the argument).
Your last question about how we can find the vector potential of a field with null divergence, can be reduced to an integration problem as you can see here.