158
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
158 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43934 readers
418 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Prove the Generalized Stokes Theorem.
So there was this guy, named Stokes. And, in 1966, pick up sticks, he proved that it was actually better to leave the bottle of ketchup upside-down. Pretty sure he won the Noble Prize, plus American Idol for that discovery.
You forgot the most important part: the QED.
If stuff go in stuff must go out
I had to look up "nerd sniping", I've been there. If it makes you feel any better, the Generalized Stokes' Theorem has a proof, e.g. it is a solved problem, it just requires a lot of reading.
I flipped through a few books in my e-library and found that Manifolds, Tensors, And Forms by Paul Renteln has two equivalent proofs starting on pg. 164. That was the "soonest" I could find the proof appearing in the books I know have a proof, e.g. building on the least material. IMO it's an "easy" book compared to other books I've read on manifolds and differential forms. There's a copy on LibGen.
Dammit now I want to go read my books :)