Home›Calculus 3›Conservative fields and potential functions›Problem 12.164

Conservative fields and potential functions

Problem 12.164 · easy

Is \( \displaystyle \mathbf F = \left(y + z\right)\mathbf i + \left(2 x + z\right)\mathbf j + \left(x + y\right)\mathbf k \) conservative? If so, find a potential function \( \displaystyle f \).

\[ \left[\begin{matrix}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left(2 x + z\right)\\\frac{\partial}{\partial y} \left(y + z\right)\end{matrix}\right] = \left[\begin{matrix}2\\1\end{matrix}\right] \]
Compare ∂Q/∂x with ∂P/∂y.✓ Proved
They differ, so curl F ≠ 0 and F is not conservative: no potential exists.

Answer \( \text{not conservative} \)

Lines: 1 proved, 1 not checked. The answer was also checked a second way, without looking at the solution. The reviewers disagree about how one step is explained; every verdict is in the receipt.

The full receipt

Line	Status	Checked by	Detail
1	✓ Proved	sympy 1.14.0	simplify(lhs - rhs) reduced to 0
2	Not checked	—	a sentence; read, not computed
answer, a second way	✓ Checked independently	sympy 1.14.0 + mpmath 1.3.0	∂Q/∂x − ∂P/∂y recomputed: not identically zero

Reviewers

gpt-oss:20b: pass
qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) — The solution incorrectly checks 2D curl conditions (∂Q/∂x vs ∂P/∂y) for a 3D vector field, ignoring the z-component and other curl components. The field is actually conservative (∇×F = 0), so the conclusion is false.

Every verdict on record (4)

qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) 2026-10-04 — The solution incorrectly checks 2D curl conditions (∂Q/∂x vs ∂P/∂y) for a 3D vector field, ignoring the z-component and other curl components. The field is actually conservative (∇×F = 0), so the conclusion is false.
gpt-oss:20b: pass 2026-10-04
qwen3.6:27b-mlx: fail (error) 2026-10-04 — The solution incorrectly compares partial derivatives of the wrong components (P and Q) instead of checking all three curl conditions. Specifically, it checks ∂Q/∂x vs ∂P/∂y but ignores ∂R/∂y vs ∂Q/∂z and ∂P/∂z vs ∂R/∂x. In this specific problem, the field is actually conservative (curl is zero), so the conclusion is false.
gpt-oss:20b: pass 2026-10-04

Proved: SymPy reduced the difference between the two sides to zero. Checked independently: a separate method, named above, confirmed it. Checked numerically: the two sides agree at every sampled point, which is evidence, not proof. Reviewed: a model or a person read it; that is all a sentence can have. Solution by generator:structured/conservative_fields, checked 2026-10-04 with SymPy 1.14.0.