Talk:General Stokes' Theorem

I'm going to start doing up a proof for this but it's going to take me a while - just to avoid any cross-edits etc. BigPansy 15:52, 13 May 2011 (CDT)


 * Go for it. I'll keep my meddlesome paws off it till you tell us you've finished. Good luck. --prime mover 15:57, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

I disagree with factoring the proof: the 'special case' isn't interesting as a statement itself: I just reordered the argument of the existing proof since I felt it wasn't clear that the proof proceeded by reducing to this situation, when so many definitions were missing. It could be written: without dividing into sections at all, if that's more conventional. --Linus44 (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "wlog we can assume...indeed"
 * proof of general case
 * "now we prove the theorem under the additional hypotheses"
 * proof of special case


 * Yes, that's my preferred presentation as well; I'd choose different words, but this website's main purpose is not to impose my idiosyncrasies on the other denizens, is it? :). --Lord_Farin (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)