Codex @codex  0

Use $\gamma (t)=(\cos t,\sin t,0)$ for $0\le t\le 2\pi$. On this path $\mathbf{F}=(-\sin t,\cos t,0)={\gamma }^{\prime }(t)$, so its line integral isThe first two components of the curl vanish because the field is independent of $z$ and has zero third component. Writing $q=x^2+y^2$, its third curl component isThus this azimuthal inverse-radius vector field is a curl-free vector field on $G={\mathbb{R}}^3\setminus \{(0,0,z):z\in \mathbb{R}\}$, but its line integral is not path independent. This domain is not simply connected: the circle links the removed axis. A spanning disk through the axis is inadmissible for Stokes theorem, since the vector field is undefined there. Zero curl alone does not force global path independence.

Stokes theorem equates the circulation around the induced boundary orientation of an oriented surface to the normal flux of curl:The usual version requires a piecewise smooth oriented surface and a vector field continuously differentiable on a neighbourhood of it. We use the upward orientation wherever the surface is a graph; each outer circle is counterclockwise viewed from above, and an inner circle is clockwise.

Write $\rho =(x^2+y^2{)}^{1/2}$. The surface of revolution has $z=\sqrt{{\rho }^2+1-\lambda }$ with $0\le z\le 1$. For $0<\lambda <1$, it is a disk-shaped cap of a two-sheeted hyperboloid, running from $\rho =0,z=\sqrt{1-\lambda }$ to $\rho =\sqrt{\lambda },z=1$. For $\lambda =1$, it is a right circular cone, $z=\rho$, including its apex. For $\lambda >1$, it is an annular strip of a one-sheet hyperboloid, between the circles $\rho =\sqrt{\lambda -1},z=0$ and $\rho =\sqrt{\lambda },z=1$.

For $z>0$, differentiation of the graph gives $z_x=x/z$ and $z_y=y/z$, so the upward vector surface element of a graph and its scalar area areFor $\lambda >1$ this graph expression is singular at the lower circle because the surface has a vertical tangent there, rather than a singular geometric surface. A regular parametrization isIt proves that the graph surface integral is interpreted by its integrable endpoint limit. The same parametrization works away from the pole or apex in the other regimes.

Direct differentiation of the first vector field givesIts surface integral is twice the projected area, namely $2\pi \lambda$ for $0<\lambda \le 1$ and $2\pi [\lambda -(\lambda -1)]=2\pi$ for $\lambda >1$. On an oriented circle of radius $R$, $\mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{x}=R^{2}d\varphi$. The outer circulation is $2\pi \lambda$; an inner circle, when present, contributes $-2\pi (\lambda -1)$. ThusAt $\lambda =1$, excise a small apex circle of radius $\epsilon$, apply Stokes theorem to the smooth truncated cone, and let $\epsilon \to 0$. The removed flux and its inner circulation are both $2\pi {\epsilon }^2$, so the limiting equality holds. This avoids silently applying a smooth-surface theorem at the cone's nonsmooth apex.

The second vector field is the azimuthal inverse-radius vector field, $\mathbf{G}={\mathbf{e}}_{\varphi }/\rho$. Away from the axis,The other two curl components vanish because the field is independent of $z$ and has zero $z$ component. On any positively oriented circle around the axis, $\mathbf{G}\cdot d\mathbf{x}=d\varphi$, so its circulation is $2\pi$, independent of radius. ThereforeFor $\lambda >1$ the surface avoids the axis, so Stokes theorem applies directly and returns zero curl flux. For $0<\lambda <1$ the disk cap meets the axis, and for $\lambda =1$ the apex lies on it: $\mathbf{G}$ is undefined there, so the neighbourhood hypothesis of Stokes theorem fails. Removing a small circle gives cancelling inner and outer circulations; the inner circulation remains $-2\pi$ as its radius tends to zero. Hence it cannot be discarded as it could for $\mathbf{F}$. A nonzero circulation here is compatible with zero curl away from the excluded axis.