Cauchy Goursat, why triangles? Cauchy Goursat: Let
  $f$ be analytic in a simply connected domain $D$.If $C$ is a simple closed contour that lies in $D$ , then $$\int_C f(z) dz = 0.$$


I've been reading a lot of proofs on this theorem and all of them treats the contour $C$ as a triangle at first, but doesn't explain why it is sufficient to only show for triangles. Is it because every other simply connected curve is homotopic to a triangle?

Also, why are we allowed to assume, without any loss of generality, that one of the interior triangles is bigger than the other $3$?
First you prove cauchy-goursat for closed triangles and $f$ holomorph in an open set $U \subseteq \mathbb{C}$

Then you prove that if in adition $U$ is convex, then $f$ has a primitive in $U$.

Then you prove cauchy theorem for $U$ in convex set: you just use ths Leibniz-Newton formula in any closed path and it gives zero. 

This way you get the result without having to triangulate the closed curve.
First you prove cauchy-goursat for closed triangles and $f$ holomorph in an open set $U \subseteq \mathbb{C}$

Then you prove that if in adition $U$ is convex, then $f$ has a primitive in $U$.

Then you prove cauchy theorem for $U$ in convex set: you just use ths Leibniz-Newton formula in any closed path and it gives zero. 

This way you get the result without having to triangulate the closed curve.