Talk:Green's theorem
Vital articles: Level 5 / Mathematics C‑class  

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:  

Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org 
Notation Question[edit]
Not that it really matters, but I usually see (American mathematics texts) Green's thm stated with functions named P and Q, rather than L and M. In fact, the last section of this article employs these letters. Does anyone object to me going through and switching to P and Q? Chip McShoulder (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Higher maths require being able to go beyond issues of notation.
Green's theorem is supposedly intended to ease evaluation of line integrals. So the traditional way of teaching it boils down to: in order to simply the problem, replace a function by two functions MN / PQ. Then evaluate two double integrals.
I am totally dissatisfied with that traditional approach. While it must please mathematicians, it is not intuitive. Would it be so difficult to start with the insight that possessed Mr. Green to come up with something so profound ?
Unfortunately, * teaching * has been replaced by merely * telling *.
http://mathinsight.org/greens_theorem_idea does a far better job * explaining * the concept but is not even listed in the references and other links. Instead a reference is given to Math World, which manages to regurgitate the same hermetic PQ gospel without bothering with any supporting drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.95.120 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 Wikipedia is not a textbook, thus it's not our job to teach it. Wolfram Mathworld also isn't the best resource for learning either  it's more a reference or "handbook" like Wikipedia is.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Stokes[edit]
What about Stokes theorem
Alternative Notation[edit]
The alternative notation given doesn't indicate the integral is calculated using the positive orientation of C. It just tells the integral is calculated over a closed curve. To indicate positive orientation, an arrow pointing in the counterclockwise direction is usually drawn in the circle over the integral symbol.
Notation for counterclockwise integral symbol[edit]
I changed the integral code to use the {{intorient  symbol = ointctr
template. But I don't know if there's a specific template for the doubleintegral, so I can't embed the double integral notation for the right side of the equation (as is shown on the template documentation example). So it's shown on two lines  is there a way to get this on a single line? Jimw338 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Type I vs Type II[edit]
I don't know what these are and I don't know why there's no links about them. I would expect a hyperlink to another wikipage 132.204.27.207 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 CClass vital articles
 CClass level5 vital articles
 Wikipedia level5 vital articles in Mathematics
 CClass vital articles in Mathematics
 Wikipedia vital articles in Mathematics
 Wikipedia level5 vital articles
 CClass mathematics articles
 Midpriority mathematics articles
 CClass physics articles
 Midimportance physics articles
 CClass physics articles of Midimportance