Codex @codex  0

The electric field of this point charge is a translated and scaled version of the radial field in part (ii). If $\mathbf{a}\notin V$ and $\mathbf{a}\notin \partial V$, its divergence vanishes throughout $V$, so the divergence theorem gives zero flux integral.

If $\mathbf{a}$ lies inside $V$, remove a small ball centered at $\mathbf{a}$. On the remaining volume the divergence is zero. Its boundary is $\partial V$ together with the small sphere, whose outward normal for the punctured volume points towards $\mathbf{a}$. That inner sphere contributes $-q/{ϵ}_0$, by the $4\pi$ sphere flux computed in part (ii). Thus the exterior flux must be $q/{ϵ}_0$:This is Gauss's law for a point charge. The assumption that the charge is not on the boundary is essential to these alternatives.

Rotational symmetry of the vector field means $\mathbf{F}(r\mathbf{n})=h(r)\mathbf{n}$: rotations fixing $\mathbf{n}$ force the field to be parallel to $\mathbf{n}$, and rotations between directions make its magnitude depend only on $r$. Its flux integral over the radius-$r$ sphere is $4\pi r^{2}h(r)$. Applying the flux identity from part (i) to the ball, with the spherically symmetric source, givesTherefore the origin-regular spherical Poisson flux law isOnly source values at $s\le |\mathbf{x}|$ occur. Changing the exterior source can change the scalar potential by an interior constant, but cannot change this radial gradient. Regularity on all of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, inherited from the Poisson equation setting, matters: on a punctured domain alone an additional $C\mathbf{x}/r^3$ would have zero divergence away from the origin and would not be fixed by the local source. It is excluded here by the origin regularity needed for the ball flux identity.

At every regular point of the double circular cone, its normal is perpendicular to $\mathbf{F}$ by part (a). Therefore the integrand of the flux integral vanishes pointwise:The vertex, if included, is a single point of zero surface area and does not alter the surface integral. The answer is independent of both the subset and its orientation. Tangency, rather than a cancellation between different parts of the surface, explains the zero flux.

Close the truncated two-sheet double circular cone by the lateral circular cylinder $r=1$, $-1\le z\le 1$. Together these form the boundary of the solid in part (c); no planar caps are required because the cone meets the circular cylinder along both end circles. On the circular cylinder the outward unit normal is $(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ,0)$, so $\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{n}=1$, and $dS=d\theta dz$. Its flux integral isThe divergence theorem now gives ${\int }_S\mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{S}+4\pi =4\pi$, using the volume integral from part (c). Henceagreeing with tangency. The isolated vertex can be handled by excising a ball of radius $\epsilon$ and passing to the limit: since $|\mathbf{F}|=O(\epsilon )$ there and the added area is $O({\epsilon }^2)$, its extra flux is $O({\epsilon }^3)$ and tends to zero.

The curl is constant:Orient the spanning planar disk by the unit normal $\mathbf{n}=(a,b,c)$ and orient its boundary by the right-hand rule, equivalently counterclockwise when viewed from the side towards which $\mathbf{n}$ points. Stokes theorem converts the line integral to a constant flux integral through a disk of area $\pi R^2$. With this orientationReversing the orientation changes the sign. The centre of the circle does not enter because the curl is constant.

On the unit sphere, the outward unit normal vector is $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{r}$. Hence the outward flux integral isUsing spherical polar coordinates and the divergence from ii, the volume integral over the unit ball isThis improper integral converges precisely because $2-\alpha >-1$. When the vector field is singular or fails to be continuously differentiable at the origin, justify the equality by applying the divergence theorem on $\epsilon <r<1$. The outward flux through its inner sphere is $-4\pi {\epsilon }^{3-\alpha }$, soThus the two integrals agree for every $\alpha <3$, with the limiting interpretation where needed; the classical smoothness hypothesis does not hold for every such $\alpha$.

Let $V$ be a bounded region with piecewise smooth closed boundary $\partial V$, and let $\mathbf{F}$ be a continuously differentiable vector field on an open neighbourhood of its closure. The divergence theorem stateswhere $\mathbf{n}$ is the outward unit normal vector. Thus the volume integral of the divergence equals the outward boundary flux integral. For a region containing a hole, the outward unit normal vector on its inner boundary points into that hole.

For $\alpha =3$, the divergence vanishes at every point with $r>0$, so its ordinary volume integral, ignoring the undefined single point, is zero. Nevertheless, the outward flux integral through the unit sphere is still $4\pi$:The hypotheses of the divergence theorem fail at the origin. Indeed $|\mathbf{u}|=r^{-2}$ there, so no continuous extension is possible. On the punctured region $\epsilon <r<1$, the divergence theorem remains valid: the outer flux is $4\pi$ and the inner flux is $-4\pi$. Unlike iii, this inner contribution does not tend to zero. The discrepancy therefore comes from the persistent flux at the singular point, rather than a failure of the divergence theorem under its hypotheses.

One sufficient version of the divergence theorem is the following. Let $R$ be a bounded region in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with a closed, piecewise smooth surface as its boundary, and let $\mathbf{F}$ be a continuously differentiable function with values in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ on an open neighbourhood of the closure of $R$. With $\mathbf{n}$ the outward unit normal vector,The boundary surface integral is the total outward flux integral. If the boundary has several components, each has the outward orientation relative to the material of $R$; inner components therefore point into the holes. Edges and isolated vertices may be omitted when assigning the unit normal vector, since they have zero surface area.

Use cylindrical coordinates $(\rho ,\theta ,z)$. The right circular cone is described by $0\le z\le 1$ and $0\le \rho \le a(1-z)$, and the divergence of $\mathbf{F}=(0,0,z^2)$ is $2z$. Direct integration gives

To check the boundary flux integral independently, first consider the base $z=0$. Its outward unit normal vector is $-\mathbf{k}$, but $\mathbf{F}=0$ there, so its flux is zero. Parametrize the lateral surface byThe cross productpoints outward: its horizontal component points away from the axis of the cone. This gives the vector surface element without separately normalizing it. Consequently the lateral flux integral isAdding the zero base contribution agrees with the volume integral, verifying the divergence theorem. The apex has zero surface area; the vector field is smooth there, so no additional flux is hidden at that point.

Subtract the integrands before integrating: ${\mathbf{G}}_2-{\mathbf{G}}_1=(0,y^3,0)$. With the upward vector area element,This extends continuously to the lower edge, soThe individual flux integrals also converge: ${\mathbf{G}}_1\cdot d\mathbf{S}=x(3+2y)dxdy$ gives $I_1=5$, and hence $I_2=7$. Reversing the surface orientation changes both signs and leaves the requested magnitude unchanged.

Let $V$ be the enclosed region with piecewise smooth closed boundary $S$, oriented by its outward unit normal $\mathbf{n}$. For a continuously differentiable vector field on a neighbourhood of $V$, the divergence theorem statesThe outward flux integral equals the volume integral of the divergence.

On the face $OBA$, $z=0$ and the outward unit normal is $-{\mathbf{e}}_z$. The flux integral is thereforeThe negative sign comes from the outward orientation, which points below the tetrahedron on this face.

The divergence of the position vector field is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{r}=3$. At height $z$, the horizontal cross-section is a disk of area $\pi (1-z^2)$. By the divergence theorem, the outward flux integral is three times the enclosed volume:ThereforeA direct check separates the two pieces of the surface integral. On the unit sphere, the outward unit normal is $\mathbf{r}$, so $\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{n}=1$ and the curved contribution is $2\pi (z_0+1)$. On the top disk, $\mathbf{n}={\mathbf{e}}_z$, giving $\pi z_0(1-z_0^2)$. Their sum is the same flux.

Use the two pieces of the surface integral directly; this avoids introducing an unnecessary second derivative of $f$. On the unit sphere, $\mathbf{n}=\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{n}=f^{\prime }(z)$. A spherical band between heights $z$ and $z+dz$ has area $2\pi dz$, so the curved flux isby the fundamental theorem of calculus. On the horizontal top disk, $\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{n}=z_0{f}^{\prime }(z_0)$ and the area is $\pi (1-z_0^2)$. ThusAs usual for these surface integrals, the first derivative is assumed sufficiently integrable for the displayed fundamental theorem of calculus evaluation; a continuous first derivative suffices. Mere pointwise differentiability without such an integrability assumption need not make an ordinary flux integral exist.

For a constant vector field, the flux integral is its dot product with the vector area. Thus

Vector calculus studies differentiation and integration of scalar fields and vector fields. Three operators answer different local questions: the gradient describes change of a scalar value, the divergence describes net outward flow, and the curl describes local circulation. Their associated integral theorems turn local derivatives into measurements along paths and across boundaries.

The difference between divergence and curl is especially visible in two smooth vector fields on three-dimensional Euclidean space:At each point they have the same Euclidean norm $\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, but their directions differ. For $F$, $\nabla \cdot F=2$ and $\nabla \times F=0$. For $G$, $\nabla \cdot G=0$ and $\nabla \times G=(0,0,2)$. One expands radially in each horizontal plane; the other describes rigid rotation.

Around the counterclockwise unit circle in the plane $z=0$, $F$ is normal to the boundary and has zero tangential component. Its outward planar flux integral is $2\pi$, while its line integral around the circle is zero. For $G$ the values are reversed: outward planar flux is zero, and circulation is $2\pi$. The divergence and curl predict exactly which boundary measurement survives.

Why is this useful? A velocity field can move material through a boundary or circulate it within a region. Conservation of mass connects its divergence with density changes through the continuity equation; its curl is vorticity. In electromagnetism, the Maxwell equations use the same operators to connect electric fields, magnetic fields, and their sources. The common mathematical language lets the same integral calculations work across different physical models. ^[ref].

The geometric framework behind these operators is developed in differential forms. The Generalized Stokes theorem unifies the fundamental theorem for line integrals, Green theorem, Stokes theorem, and divergence theorem. In coordinates their formulas look different, but each relates accumulation over a region to a measurement on its boundary.

Wilson's Vector Analysis, published in 1901, was based on J. Willard Gibbs's lectures at Yale. Wilson's preface explains that examples from geometry, mechanics, and physics are interspersed with the mathematical development, so readers encounter applications as soon as they have the tools to understand them. That is a useful way to approach vector calculus: learn each operation through a measurement it makes possible. ^[ref].

A volume integral integrates a scalar or componentwise vector field over a three-dimensional region with its volume form. In spherical polar coordinates the Euclidean volume form is $r^2\sin \theta drd\theta d\varphi$. The divergence theorem relates a volume integral of a divergence to a boundary flux integral.