*This question is still wide open - all of the answers so far rely on magical calculations. I've only accepted an answer because, by bounty rules, otherwise one would be accepted automatically. I can't change the accepted answer, but it would be amazing to have more discussion on this question.*

I'd like a nice proof (or a convincing demonstration), for a surface in $\mathbb R^3$, that explains why the following notions are equivalent:

1) Curvature, as defined by the area of the sphere that Gauss map traces out on a region.

1.5) The integral of the product of principal curvatures.

2) The angle defect of parallel transport about a geodesic triangle.

(This equivalence may be considered as either a part of the Theorema Egregium or a part of Gauss-Bonnet. Proving that numbers 1 and 1.5 are the same is pretty easy).

**Motivation:** I'm teaching a five-day class for very bright high-school students. The idea is to give them an impression of what geometry is about. However, when I looked at Spivak's proof of this, it was much more of a messy calculation than I expected. I'd like, if at all possible, something more conceptual, ideally with a nice picture attached to it.

Since this doesn't have to be a perfectly complete class, I'll be perfectly happy with a good illustration of why this is true instead of a rigorous proof, if a conceptual *and* rigorous proof is completely out of the question.

One idea I had is to show the example of a sphere and the hyperbolic plane, and then explain that on very small scales the curvature is constant. However, then I would need a nice proof that the embeddings of the hyperbolic plane in $\mathbb R^3$ have curvature -1.

Thank you very much!

P.S. This question is related, but not quite the same (I hope), to this question: Equivalent definitions of Gaussian curvature

P.P.S. Thank you to whomever recommended to Berger's "Panoramic View of Riemannian Geometry". it was quite useful to me. I do not know why you deleted your answer.

That books claims there is no conceptual proof. However, I'd still be very happy with a nice illustration of why one should believe this, especially for negative curvature.