The sufficiency claim requires a domain qualification. For a continuously differentiable vector field on all of , or more generally on a simply connected open domain, the equivalence is valid. On an arbitrary domain, vanishing curl is necessary but may fail to be sufficient.
Necessity. Suppose every closed-curve line integral vanishes. Fix a point in the open domain and a unit vector . A sufficiently small planar disk of radius , centred at and normal to , lies in the domain. Stokes theorem givesDivide by and let . By continuity, the average tends to . Taking the three coordinate directions proves everywhere.
Sufficiency on . A direct proof constructs a potential of a conservative vector field. PutWrite for the components of . Vanishing curl says . Differentiation under the integral, followed by the chain rule, givesThis is the radial integral potential for a curl-free field. The fundamental theorem for line integrals now gives zero on every closed curve. On a simply connected open domain the analogous argument uses path integrals: every loop can be contracted within the domain, and applying Stokes theorem to a piecewise smooth contraction makes its circulation zero. Equivalently, whenever a particular loop bounds an oriented spanning surface entirely in the domain, Stokes theorem immediately gives zero for that loop.
Why the domain matters. On , the smooth vector fieldhas zero curl, but its line integral around the unit circle in is , as in ii. No spanning surface for this loop can lie entirely in . The literal claim without a condition on the domain therefore has this counterexample.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.