Talk:Generalized Stokes theorem

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

General formulation

The classical Stokes theorem doesn't seem to follow from the general one as given here, since in the former v is a three-dimensional vectorfield while the latter wants a two-dimensional one. We need the more general formulation of Stokes theorem which talks about k dimensional submanifolds of M and k-1 forms. AxelBoldt

Spelling

As per this apostrophes article from Economist.com's style guide, shouldn't "Stokes' theorem" be changed to "Stokes's theorem"? ✈ James C. 03:17, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

Actually I think Stokes theorem is probably even better. Charles Matthews 09:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. should this page then to be moved to "Stokes theorem", and "Stokes' theorem" be kept as a redirect? ✈ James C. 19:57, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

moved from Stokes' theorem as per discussion on that page.

Mathematical Interpretation - Kelvin-Stokes theorem?

User:Binishjoshi recently gave a mathematical section in the introduction its own subheading and paragraph. The conceptual split seems appropriate but now it looks oddly placed, having a subsection in the introduction.

Is the description given under Mathematical Interpretation the Kelvin-Stokes theorem specifically? Meanwhile the subsection Kelvin-Stokes theorem is missing a statement of its main formula. Suggest moving this content if someone can confirm that the content can be identified with Kelvin-Stokes theorem. CyreJ (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Stokes theorem" redirection

I believe going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_theorem should not automatically lead here, but instead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem

Stokes theorem from 3D vector calculus is a term known and used by every first year student in physics and engineering around the world. The Generalized Stokes theorem is a topic for some graduate students and scholars in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics. Obviously, redirecting automatically to the generalized theorem makes it much harder for the typical reader to find what they need! 2A05:1D43:563:0:55AC:4CE7:CDDE:2D62 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. D.Lazard (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it is you fixed, but I'd say something is broken and needs to be fixed. There seems to be a redirect to this page from https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stokes%27_Theorem&redirect=no which I think is pretty silly when there is an actual article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem - the links differing only in the capitalisation of the T on the page that is a redirect here. And then there's the redirect at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stokes_theorem&redirect=no which redirects to the other article also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem AND https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stokes_Theorem&redirect=no which goes here. It's been a while since I was a bit more active on WP, but I doubt that the links with capital T Theorem need even be there - or the other way around, and I am sure there is a guideline. The way it is now is an ugly mess. 5.186.55.135 (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]