Scribd
Upload
65 views

Math45061 Coursework Feedback: Curvilinear Coordinates: I I I, I I Ij J

The document provides feedback on a coursework for a math course covering curvilinear coordinates. It discusses 4 questions: 1) All students correctly determined the coordinate system was orthogonal but not orthonormal. 2) Most students correctly computed the metric tensor and Christoffel symbols, though some had algebraic errors. 3) Computing the divergence proved more difficult. The correct process involves writing out all terms in the divergence expression and substituting the Christoffel symbols. 4) Establishing that the divergence of a vector field is invariant across coordinate systems. Direct computation also shows the divergence of r is 3 in these coordinates.

Uploaded by

Muhammad Pervez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views

Math45061 Coursework Feedback: Curvilinear Coordinates: I I I, I I Ij J

The document provides feedback on a coursework for a math course covering curvilinear coordinates. It discusses 4 questions: 1) All students correctly determined the coordinate system was orthogonal but not orthonormal. 2) Most students correctly computed the metric tensor and Christoffel symbols, though some had algebraic errors. 3) Computing the divergence proved more difficult. The correct process involves writing out all terms in the divergence expression and substituting the Christoffel symbols. 4) Establishing that the divergence of a vector field is invariant across coordinate systems. Direct computation also shows the divergence of r is 3 in these coordinates.

Uploaded by

Muhammad Pervez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MATH45061 COURSEWORK FEEDBACK:

CURVILINEAR COORDINATES
In general the coursework was answered to a good standard. The most common error was
actually including too much working and not making the most efficient use of previous
calculations!

1.) Everybody correctly computed the covariant and contravariant base vectors corre-
sponding to the paraboloidal coordinates. Everybody also correctly determined
that the system was orthogonal, but not orthonormal. There was a mark available
for explicitly stating why the system was not orthonormal.

2.) Again, everybody correctly computed the metric tensor and had the right idea for
the Christoffel symbols, but there were some algebraic errors that crept in. Almost
everybody got this part correct, however, so well done.

3.) This question proved to be more difficult. It should have been a simple application
of the definition in the lecture notes:

∇ · F = F i |i = F,ii + Γiij F j .

Writing out all the terms in the sum gives

F i |i = F,11 +Γ111 F 1 +Γ112 F 2 +Γ113 F 3 +F,22 +Γ221 F 1 +Γ222 F 2 +Γ223 F 3 +F,33 +Γ331 F 1 +Γ332 F 2 +Γ333 F 3 ,

and using the previously-computed Christoffel symbols we obtain


   
1 2 3 2u 1 1 2v 1
∇ · F = F,1 + F,2 + F,3 + + F + + F 2. (1)
u2 + v 2 u u2 + v 2 v

Many people took the additional step of writing the expression in terms of compo-
nents corresponding to unit base vectors in each coordinate direction, but this was
not needed and was considerable extra algebra. Still that way you can check your
answer against wikipedia, so not all is lost!
Another error here was to start from the Cartesian form of the divergence and write

∂FI ∂FI ∂ξ j ∂F I j 
∇·F = = = g ·eI ,
∂xI ∂ξ j ∂xI ∂ξ j
which is an expression for the divergence, but the components of the vector field F
are still Cartesian, rather than being referred to the paraboloidal base vectors.

4.) The simplest explanation is that the divergence of a vector is a scalar invariant and
therefore the answer must be the same in all coordinate systems. In Cartesians
∇ · r = xI,I = 3, so the divergence of r must be 3 in any coordinate system.
You could also use the argument that
∂r
∇ · r = gj · j
= g j ·g j = δjj = 3,
∂ξ
from the definitions of divergence, covariant base vectors and the Kronecker delta.
This shows directly that the result must be true in all coordinate system.
Having established the result and the expression (1) in question 3, my intention
was that you work out r1 = r · g 1 = u/2, r2 = r · g 2 = v/2 and r3 = r · g 3 = 0
and then simply substitute these into (1). Alternatively many people just verified
the fact that g j ·g j = 3 (again). This does answer the question, but does not give
verification that the formula (1) is correct, which was the point of this part. Anyway,
my fault for leaving some slack in the question! Full marks were given if the result
was established for paraboloidal coordinates using any method.

You might also like