Take to be continuously differentiable everywhere on , as in the question. Its zero curl says . Construct a potential of a conservative vector field explicitly by
All segments lie in . Differentiating under the integral and using the symmetry of the derivatives,
Hence . This radial integral potential for a curl-free field also works on a star-shaped domain after translating its centre. On an arbitrary domain, zero curl only guarantees local potentials; the everywhere-on- interpretation is important for this global assertion.
For the given field, put . The three pairs of derivatives entering its curl are
Thus the field is irrotational. To find its potential using , integrate to get . Comparison with gives , and comparison with gives . Therefore
Differentiating this expression reproduces all three components with the required minus sign; the only freedom on the connected domain is the additive constant.
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 gives
Divide 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. Put
Write for the components of . Vanishing curl says . Differentiation under the integral, followed by the chain rule, gives
This 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 field
has 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.