Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Green's Theorem Proof (part 2)

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
15,250
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
There is no Interactive Transcript.

Uploaded by on Mar 7, 2010

Part 2 of the proof of Green's Theorem

Category:

Education

Tags:

Download this video

LICENSE: Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works).

For more information about this license, please read: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.

High-quality MP4 Learn more

  • likes, 0 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Can't wait to see the proof of Stoke's theorem

  • Salman Khan -- Thank you so much.

    I remember using your Algebra videos in preparation for my GED (I have never been to High School; by the way, I passed), then using your videos in preparation for my ACT (got a high enough score for a free 2 year tuition at the college I'm going to now). Then, I used your precalculus videos to prepare for Calculus I. Now, I'm using your Calculus videos to get ahead of everyone in my Calculus II class. :)

    Thanks from,

    A 17 year old with a 3.8 GPA in college.

see all

All Comments (22)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This proof does not cover the general case.

  • For any grand conclusion... it's gotta be magenta. Thanks Sal!

  • awesome

    

  • he must be getting quite a few more hits, considering finals are here

  • @Ferrus91 why has it not been put up here yet?

  • @Liaomiao

    It is indeed confusing, though he is not wrong. If you look at the start of the video he took the left part of the curve and called it X=X2(y) and the right part he called X=X1(y). It is here where you're confusion is. If you want to define the region R, you take y to be going from a to b and then automatically x will go from X2 to X1 (look at the picture!). So R will in the end be defined as the double integral with Y going from a to b, and X going from X2 to X1.

  • Hmm I dont get it again. The last video you took the boundary from y1 to y2 and made the entire integral negative. Here, you left the boundary as from x2 to x1 making the integral positive. But you said that they both denote the are R, which kind of makes the - or + a bit arbitrary. Yet the ultimate formula requires the i component of the partial derivative to be negative. Can anyone in the know explain this to me please?

  • deja vu for the first part

Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more