I am trying to understand how the Cauchy-Goursat theorem of complex analysis differs from the usual conditions for independence of path in real vector calculus.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

My complex analysis textbook emphasizes that the Cauchy-Goursat theorem is true even if the function we are integrating does not have continuous first partials and that this differs from the real case.

Looking over the proof in my textbook, I don't really see anything being done that couldn't be done in R^2. So why do we need the first partials to be continuous when we integrate over a closed curve in R^2 but not when we integrate over a closed contour in C?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Independence of path

Loading...

Similar Threads for Independence path | Date |
---|---|

Path independence | Sep 19, 2014 |

What is the difference between path independence and a conservative ve | Nov 7, 2013 |

Understanding geometrically the equivalence between path independence and exactness | Oct 31, 2011 |

My Mind going to blow! Why Conservative field Path independ? | Aug 7, 2010 |

A question about path independence and curl of a vector field | Nov 28, 2004 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**