Same vortex field $\mathbf{u} = \langle -y/(x^2+y^2),\; x/(x^2+y^2)\rangle$ all over the plane, four different closed loops drawn on top. We've already pre-computed the value of $\oint \mathbf{u}\cdot d\mathbf{r}$ for each loop:

Loop A (small CCW)$\oint = 2\pi$
Loop B (medium CCW)$\oint = 2\pi$
Loop C (no origin)$\oint = 0$
Loop D (twice CCW)$\oint = 4\pi$

Four loops, one field, four very different shapes - and yet just three answers: $0$, $2\pi$, $4\pi$. Why do A and B agree even though the loops look nothing alike? Why does C give zero? Why is D exactly twice the others? §5.7 says the integral doesn't care about shape - it cares about which holes you wrap, and how many times. These exact integers - $0, 2\pi, 4\pi$ - show up in real physics: they're the magnetic flux quantum, the Aharonov-Bohm phase, and the residues of complex analysis. The topology really does the work.

The vortex field puzzle, picked back up

We've met the vortex before, at the end of §5.6:

$$\mathbf{u}_{\text{vortex}} \;=\; \left\langle \frac{-y}{x^2+y^2},\; \frac{x}{x^2+y^2}\right\rangle, \qquad D = \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \{(0,0)\}.$$

A direct calculation gives $\partial P/\partial y = \partial Q/\partial x$ at every point of $D$ - the curl condition holds everywhere the field is defined. By Theorem III's converse we'd love to conclude path independence. But Theorem IV demanded one more thing - the domain has to be simply connected - and the punctured plane is not. It has a hole at the origin. And the unit-circle calculation,

$$\oint_C \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2} \;=\; \int_0^{2\pi} 1\,dt \;=\; 2\pi \;\neq\; 0,$$

certifies that the integral really does depend on the path on this domain. So Theorem IV failed - exactly where its hypothesis failed.

Here's the question that §5.7 sets out to answer. If the integral isn't a single function of endpoints anymore, what does it depend on? Looking at the hook: A and B both gave $2\pi$ even though one is a tiny circle and the other is some lopsided medium loop. C gave $0$. D - the loop wrapping the origin twice - gave $4\pi$. The shape doesn't matter; the holes you wrap and the number of wraps do. That's the whole story, and we're about to make it precise.

Domains with holes - the vocabulary

First, language. A planar domain $D$ (open and connected) is called $n$-tuply connected if its boundary consists of exactly $n$ disjoint simple closed curves. Equivalently: $D$ has $n - 1$ holes punched out of a single outer boundary.

  • $n = 1$ - simply connected. Just an outer boundary. Disk, half-plane, square, all of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
  • $n = 2$ - doubly connected. Outer boundary plus one hole. The annulus. The punctured plane $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\}$ (think of the "outer boundary" as the circle at infinity).
  • $n = 3$ - triply connected. Outer boundary plus two holes. A disk with two pebbles removed.
Simply connected $n = 1$ Doubly connected $n = 2$ - one hole Triply connected $n = 3$ - two holes

Each shaded region is the domain $D$. Its boundary is the union of the highlighted closed curves.

Why does this matter? Theorem IV (§5.6) needed simply connected so that for any closed curve $C$ in $D$, the region inside $C$ also lies in $D$ and Green's theorem can fire. As soon as $D$ has a hole, you can draw a loop around the hole - and the inside is no longer entirely in $D$. The proof breaks. We need a replacement.

The deformation theorem

Here is the central statement of §5.7. Kaplan calls it just "the theorem." We'll call it the deformation theorem because of how we'll use it: it lets us deform the curve we integrate over, as long as we don't cross any holes.

Roughly speaking, the headline is one line: outer integral = sum of inner integrals, when curl-free in between. To make that airtight, here's what we need.

Deformation Theorem (Kaplan §5.7). Let $P, Q$ be continuous with continuous first partial derivatives on a domain $D$. Let $C_0, C_1, \ldots, C_n$ be piecewise smooth simple closed curves such that $C_1, \ldots, C_n$ all lie inside $C_0$, no two of the inner curves meet or contain one another, and the closed region $R$ between $C_0$ and the inner curves lies entirely in $D$. Then $$\oint_{C_0} P\,dx + Q\,dy \;-\; \sum_{k=1}^{n} \oint_{C_k} P\,dx + Q\,dy \;=\; \iint_R \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial P}{\partial y}\right) dA,$$ where every $C_k$ is oriented counterclockwise. In particular, if $\partial Q/\partial x = \partial P/\partial y$ throughout $D$, the right-hand side vanishes and $$\oint_{C_0} P\,dx + Q\,dy \;=\; \sum_{k=1}^{n} \oint_{C_k} P\,dx + Q\,dy.$$

Read the second equation again - it's the headline. Outer-curve integral equals the sum of inner-curve integrals, whenever the region between them is curl-free. The integrals over loops that all enclose the same set of holes are tied together: they don't have to be equal pointwise, but their sum-relations are forced.

The geometric punch line is even better. Take any two simple closed CCW curves $C$ and $C'$ in $D$ that enclose the same holes in the same order, so that we can find a curl-free annular region between them. Apply the theorem with $C_0 = C$ and $C_1 = C'$: we get $\oint_C = \oint_{C'}$. We can deform one curve into the other without changing the integral. The integral depends only on which holes $C$ wraps - not on the shape of $C$.

That's why loops A and B in the hook gave the same answer: both wrap the origin once, CCW. They don't have to look alike.

Why it's true - the cut trick

This is one of the prettier arguments in the chapter - the cuts cancel and the topology drops out for free. We can't apply Green's theorem directly to the annular region $R$ because it's not simply connected. So we make it simply connected by hand.

For each inner curve $C_k$ we draw an auxiliary arc - a "cut" - from $C_0$ to $C_k$, picking the cuts so they don't cross each other. With one cut per hole, the original ring-with-holes region $R$ splits into a finite collection of simply connected sub-regions $R_1, \ldots, R_m$. (For a single hole, one cut already does the job - see the figure.)

$C_0$ CCW $C_1$ CW (when $R$ kept on left) cut, traversed -> cut, traversed <- A single radial cut turns the annulus into one simply connected piece.

Now Green's theorem applies on every simply connected piece. Adding the closed-loop integrals around each piece's boundary,

$$\sum_{j} \oint_{\partial R_j} P\,dx + Q\,dy \;=\; \sum_{j} \iint_{R_j} \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial P}{\partial y}\right) dA \;=\; \iint_R \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial P}{\partial y}\right) dA.$$

And here's the cancellation. Each cut-arc is shared by two adjacent sub-regions, and the sub-region boundaries traverse it in opposite directions (we always keep the sub-region on our left). So the contributions of every cut-arc cancel pairwise. What's left is the integral around the outer curve $C_0$ in the CCW direction minus the integrals around the inner curves $C_1, \ldots, C_n$ in the CCW direction (since to keep $R$ on our left, we traverse the inner curves clockwise).

Putting it together,

$$\oint_{C_0} P\,dx + Q\,dy \;-\; \sum_{k=1}^n \oint_{C_k} P\,dx + Q\,dy \;=\; \iint_R \left(\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial P}{\partial y}\right) dA.$$

Exactly the theorem. The cuts were a piece of accounting; once they cancelled, the curl-free hypothesis did the rest.

Orientation watch. The theorem statement orients all $C_k$ CCW and writes a difference (outer minus inners). Some textbooks instead orient the inner curves CW and write a sum. Both say the same thing - just keep the rule "the region $R$ stays on your left as you traverse $\partial R$" and you'll never get the sign wrong.

The vortex revisited - winding number

Let's apply the deformation principle to the vortex and see exactly why the hook integers came out as they did.

We're working on $D = \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \{0\}$, with $\partial Q/\partial x = \partial P/\partial y$ on all of $D$. There's one hole, at the origin. Take any small CCW circle $C_*$ around the origin: we computed

$$\oint_{C_*} \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2} \;=\; 2\pi.$$

Call this number $\alpha$ - the fundamental period of the form around the origin. It's a property of the singularity, not of the loop we used: by the deformation theorem, every CCW simple closed curve around the origin in $D$ gives the same $2\pi$. Loops A and B in the hook both wrap the origin once CCW, so both equal $\alpha = 2\pi$. Loop C avoids the origin, so it lies in a simply connected sub-domain (e.g. a half-plane not containing $0$); Theorem IV gives $\oint = 0$ there.

What about loop D, which wraps the origin twice CCW? It's not a simple closed curve - it self-intersects, or doubles back on itself. Decompose it into two simple loops, each wrapping the origin once CCW; each contributes $\alpha = 2\pi$, total $4\pi$. More generally:

Winding number formula. For any piecewise smooth closed curve $C$ in $\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \{0\}$, $$\oint_C \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2} \;=\; 2\pi \cdot n(C, \mathbf{0}),$$ where $n(C, \mathbf{0}) \in \mathbb{Z}$ is the winding number of $C$ about the origin - the net number of CCW wraps (CW wraps count negative).

Three remarks about $n(C, \mathbf{0})$ that are worth pausing on. First, it's an integer, always. The integral comes out a multiple of $2\pi$ because polar angle is well defined modulo $2\pi$ - going around the loop, $\theta$ has to return to a value differing from its start by a multiple of $2\pi$. Second, it depends only on the homotopy class of $C$ in $D$: any two loops you can deform into each other through $D$ have the same winding number. Third, you can read it off a picture by counting net CCW crossings of a ray from $0$. No integral needed.

ray from $\mathbf{0}$ $\mathbf{0}$ +1 -1 +1 +1 Net signed crossings on the ray: $+1 - 1 + 1 + 1 = 2$. So $n(C, \mathbf{0}) = 2$.

Crossing left-to-right counts $+1$ (CCW), right-to-left counts $-1$. Add them up.

So the hook table reads as a winding-number census: $n_A = 1, n_B = 1, n_C = 0, n_D = 2$. Multiply by $\alpha = 2\pi$. Done.

How to evaluate $\oint$ over a multiply connected domain

Putting it all into a recipe. You're handed a closed curve $C$ in some domain $D$, and an integral $\oint_C P\,dx + Q\,dy$ to compute. Here's the decision tree.

  1. Compute $Q_x - P_y$. If it's nonzero on $C$ or on the region enclosed, your best move is usually plain Green's theorem - reduce $\oint$ to a 2D integral $\iint(Q_x - P_y)\,dA$. Done.
  2. If $Q_x = P_y$ everywhere on $D$, look at the holes (singularities of $P, Q$).
    • Zero holes (i.e. $D$ already simply connected): Theorem IV gives $\oint_C = 0$ for free.
    • One or more holes $A_1, \ldots, A_k$: for each hole compute the fundamental period $\alpha_j = \oint$ of a small CCW loop encircling $A_j$ alone. Then for any CCW closed curve $C$ in $D$, $$\oint_C P\,dx + Q\,dy \;=\; \sum_{j=1}^k m_j(C)\,\alpha_j,$$ where $m_j(C)$ is the winding number of $C$ about $A_j$.

This is the deformation theorem in working dress. Steps: catalog the singularities, compute one period per singularity (these are the constants of the field, computed once), then read the integral off any new loop just by counting wraps.

Worked example - vortex, twice around

Evaluate $\displaystyle\oint_C \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2}$ where $C$ is the curve $x = \cos t + t \sin t$, $y = \sin t$, $0 \le t \le 2\pi$ (Kaplan Problem 5(b)).

Step 1. $D = \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \{0\}$, one hole at the origin, $\alpha_0 = 2\pi$ (computed once and remembered).

Step 2. Trace the curve. It turns out that this is basically a circle that's been pushed and stretched to one side: as $t$ runs from $0$ to $2\pi$, the $\sin t$ in $y$ traces the unit interval up and back, while the $\cos t + t \sin t$ in $x$ swings out to the right (peaking near $t = \pi$, where $x \approx \pi$) and returns. Following $t: 0 \to 2\pi$ you'll see it loops the origin exactly once CCW. So $m_0 = 1$.

Step 3. Answer: $\oint_C = m_0 \cdot \alpha_0 = 1 \cdot 2\pi = 2\pi$. We never parametrized the integral.

If we'd had to integrate $\int_0^{2\pi} \cos^2 t / (1 + 2t \sin t \cos t + t^2 \sin^2 t)\,dt$ directly - which is what Step 3 would have given without the deformation theorem - we'd still be sweating. The whole point of §5.7 is that the topology does the integration for us.

Practice Problems - §5.7

From Kaplan, problems following §5.7 (selected for direct deformation-principle, winding-number, and multi-hole practice).

3(b) Evaluate $\oint \frac{y\,dx - x\,dy}{x^2 + y^2}$ on the circle $x^2 + y^2 = 4$.
Evaluate $$\oint_C \frac{y\,dx - x\,dy}{x^2 + y^2}$$ on the circle $x^2 + y^2 = 4$.
Step 1 - Spot the field. This is the negative of the vortex: $P = y/(x^2+y^2)$, $Q = -x/(x^2+y^2)$.
Domain: $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\}$, doubly connected. Check $P_y = Q_x$ off the origin: $P_y = (x^2 - y^2)/(x^2+y^2)^2 = Q_x.\;\checkmark$
Step 2 - Compute the fundamental period. On a small CCW circle around the origin, the integral equals $$-\oint \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2} = -2\pi.$$ So the fundamental period at the origin is $\alpha_0 = -2\pi$.
Step 3 - Read off the winding number. The given $C$ is the circle of radius $2$, oriented (by convention) CCW. It wraps the origin once CCW: $m_0 = 1$.
Step 4 - Multiply. $$\oint_C \frac{y\,dx - x\,dy}{x^2+y^2} \;=\; m_0 \cdot \alpha_0 \;=\; 1 \cdot (-2\pi) \;=\; -2\pi.$$ The radius of the circle is irrelevant - any CCW loop around the origin gives the same answer.
5(c) Evaluate $\oint_C \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2}$ on $x = 2\cos 2t - \cos t,\; y = 2\sin 2t - \sin t$, $0 \le t \le 2\pi$.
For $C: x = 2\cos 2t - \cos t,\; y = 2\sin 2t - \sin t,\; 0 \le t \le 2\pi$ (a closed curve not passing through the origin), evaluate $$\oint_C \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2}.$$
Step 1 - Set up. This is the vortex form. Fundamental period $\alpha_0 = 2\pi$. By the winding-number formula, $$\oint_C = 2\pi \cdot n(C, \mathbf{0}),$$ so all that's left is to count wraps.
Step 2 - Sketch and count. $r(t) = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ has $r(0) = 1$. The "$2\cos 2t$" piece dominates and goes around twice as $t: 0 \to 2\pi$, while the "$-\cos t$" piece subtracts a slower single rotation. Tracing the curve (or counting net intersections of a horizontal ray from $\mathbf{0}$), the curve encircles the origin a net two times CCW: $n(C, \mathbf{0}) = 2$.
Step 3 - Read the answer. $$\oint_C \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2} \;=\; 2\pi \cdot 2 \;=\; 4\pi.$$ Direct evaluation as a definite integral in $t$ would be brutal; the deformation principle reduces it to a sketch.
9 Three singularities at $(-4,0), (0,0), (4,0)$; given $\oint$ over three big circles, find $\oint$ over a small circle around the origin.
Let $P, Q$ be continuous with continuous partials and $\partial P/\partial y = \partial Q/\partial x$ except at the points $(4, 0)$, $(0, 0)$, $(-4, 0)$. Let
  • $C_1$: the circle $(x-2)^2 + y^2 = 9$ (encloses $(0,0)$ and $(4,0)$),
  • $C_2$: the circle $(x+2)^2 + y^2 = 9$ (encloses $(-4,0)$ and $(0,0)$),
  • $C_3$: the circle $x^2 + y^2 = 25$ (encloses all three),
all CCW, and suppose $$\oint_{C_1} = 11, \qquad \oint_{C_2} = 9, \qquad \oint_{C_3} = 13.$$ Find $\oint_{C_4}$, where $C_4$ is the unit circle $x^2 + y^2 = 1$ (encloses $(0,0)$ alone), CCW.
Step 1 - Name the fundamental periods. Let $\alpha_{-} = \oint$ over a small CCW loop around $(-4, 0)$, $\alpha_0$ around $(0, 0)$, $\alpha_+$ around $(4, 0)$. By the deformation theorem (Problem 8(a)), the integral over any CCW simple closed curve in the curl-free domain is the sum of $\alpha$'s of the holes it encloses.
Step 2 - Translate the data into a linear system. $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_0 + \alpha_+ &= 11 \quad (C_1)\\ \alpha_{-} + \alpha_0 &= 9 \quad (C_2)\\ \alpha_{-} + \alpha_0 + \alpha_+ &= 13 \quad (C_3) \end{aligned}$$
Step 3 - Solve. Subtract $C_2$ from $C_3$: $\alpha_+ = 13 - 9 = 4$.
Subtract $C_1$ from $C_3$: $\alpha_{-} = 13 - 11 = 2$.
Then from $C_1$: $\alpha_0 = 11 - 4 = 7$.
Step 4 - Read off $C_4$. $C_4$ encloses only the origin, so $\oint_{C_4} = \alpha_0 = 7$.
Sanity check: $\alpha_{-} + \alpha_0 + \alpha_+ = 2 + 7 + 4 = 13$, matching $C_3$. $\checkmark$
4 Determine all values of $\int_{(1,0)}^{(2,2)} \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2+y^2}$ on a path not passing through the origin.
Determine all possible values of $$\int_{(1,\,0)}^{(2,\,2)} \frac{-y\,dx + x\,dy}{x^2 + y^2}$$ along a path not passing through the origin.
Step 1 - The integrand is $d\theta$. On any simply connected sub-domain not containing the origin, $(-y\,dx + x\,dy)/(x^2+y^2) = d\theta$ where $\theta = \arg(x+iy)$. So the integral measures the net change in polar angle along the path.
Step 2 - One particular path. $A = (1, 0)$ has $\theta_A = 0$; $B = (2, 2)$ has $\theta_B = \pi/4$. A direct path (say, the line segment) keeps $\theta \in [0, \pi/4]$, so its integral is $\pi/4$.
Step 3 - Other paths differ by full loops. Two paths from $A$ to $B$ differ by a closed loop. Each closed loop contributes $2\pi \cdot n$ to the integral, where $n$ is its winding number about the origin. So the set of all possible values of the integral is $$\left\{\frac{\pi}{4} + 2\pi n : n \in \mathbb{Z}\right\}.$$ The integral is a multi-valued function of $A$ and $B$ on the punctured plane - exactly the symptom of the failed Theorem IV that §5.7 was built to handle.