dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc6fdpf.1d4.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin: 
> 
>  >For you who even full proof don't accept as a grounds, just the
>  >function will tell nothing.
> 
>   Sure it will. If you claim that there is a function \Phi for which the
> curl of its gradient is no zero, then all you have to do to prove that is
> post the function so I can take the curl of its gradient and see for
> myself. Nothing could be simpler. I predict that you won't post your
> so-called function, but will instead revert to some convoluted argument
> which spends pages avoiding anything specific.
> 
>  >I understand your hurry, but please have a patience and wait few days. ;-)
>  
>   What happened? Did you discover you didn't have such a function and
> you got a non-zero answer due to an arithmetic error and are going
> try and find a new one? If not, then just post the function for which
> you claim \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) is non-zero. If you are correct, the
> function will make that self-evident, without any need for you to
> create a convoluted, several page argument that handwaves your way 
> to a non-zero result for a result which is zero by any straight-forward
> mathematical argument.
> 
>   Just post the function. If it exists and you know what it is, then
> nothing prevents you from posting it, especially given the fact that
> you would be quite happy to rub my nose in being wrong for telling
> you that \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = 0 is a mathematical identity.

;-) 

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#dipole

Sergey