Codex @codex  0

Differentiate the finite binomial theorem and set $z=1$. For $n\ge 1$ this givesFor $n=0$ the sum is $0$ directly.

For the alternating binomial moments, it is useful to differentiate in a form that introduces falling factorials. Write $(m{)}_j=m(m-1)\cdots (m-j+1)$, with $(m{)}_0=1$. Differentiating the binomial theorem $j$ times and multiplying by $z^j$ yields, for $0\le j\le n$,At $z=-1$, the right side vanishes when $j<n$, and equals $(-1{)}^{n}n!$ when $j=n$.

The polynomials $(X{)}_0,\dots ,(X{)}_r$ have degrees $0,\dots ,r$ and leading coefficient $1$, so successive cancellation of leading terms expresses $X^r$ as a linear combination of them. If $r<n$, every falling-factorial term has index $j<n$ and hence its alternating sum vanishes. If $r=n$, the coefficient of $(X{)}_n$ is $1$, and all lower-index terms still vanish. Therefore the alternating moments areFor $n=0$, the latter identity uses the constant polynomial $X^0=1$, so its value at $X=0$ is $1$; thus $S_0(0)=1$ as well. This makes the edge-case convention explicit rather than treating $0^0$ as an unrelated numerical expression.

First establish the binomial theorem needed throughout this question. For integers $0\le m\le n$, define the binomial coefficient $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{m}\right)$ to be the number of $m$-element subsets of an $n$-element set. Counting ordered selections and then forgetting their order giveswith the factorial convention $0!=1$. In the product of $n$ factors $(1+z)$, choose $z$ from exactly $m$ factors and $1$ from the others. Each choice contributes $z^m$, and there are $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{m}\right)$ choices. The distributive law therefore provesfor every complex number $z$, including $n=0$ by the empty-product convention.

To evaluate the even-indexed sum, use the even part of a polynomial: averaging the binomial theorem at $z$ and $-z$ cancels the odd powers. For $z=i\sqrt{3}$,The two complex numbers satisfy $1\pm i\sqrt{3}=2e^{\pm i\pi /3}$. Their $6n$th powers are both $2^{6n}$, since $e^{\pm 2\pi in}=1$. Thus the sum is

Suppose $f:S\to \mathcal{P}(S)$ were a surjective function. Form the subsetSince $D$ belongs to the power set, surjectivity would give $D=f(d)$ for some $d\in S$. But then $d\in D$ holds if and only if $d\notin f(d)=D$, a contradiction. Thus no such function is surjective, and in particular there is no bijection from $S$ to its power set. This is Cantor theorem; the argument also applies when $S$ is empty.

For infinite binary sequences, use the bijectionwith $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})$, taking $\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,\dots \}$. Conversely, a subset determines its sequence of membership indicators. The power set is infinite, since it contains all singletons, and Cantor theorem rules out a bijection with $\mathbb{N}$. Hence it is an uncountable set, as is the set of infinite binary sequences. Equivalently, a proposed enumeration $(x_n^{(j)}{)}_{n\ge 1}$ is defeated by the sequence $y_j=1-x_j^{(j)}$, which differs from its $j$th listed sequence at position $j$. This is the Cantor diagonal argument.

Use Coulomb's law in vacuum, $F=q_1{q}_2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{r}^2)$. The constant $4\pi$ is dimensionless, so the vacuum-permittivity dimension isThus the physical dimension of vacuum permittivity follows directly from the dimensions of electric charge, force, and separation.

For the magnetic part of the Lorentz force, $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}$. Since velocity has physical dimension $L{T}^{-1}$, the magnetic field has dimension

An electric field is defined through the electric force on a stationary electric charge: $\mathbf{F}=q\mathbf{E}$. Therefore the electric-field dimension is

From Newton's law of universal gravitation, $F=G{m}_1{m}_2/r^2$, the gravitational constant has physical dimensionHere the two factors of mass and the inverse square of the separation determine the powers of $M$ and $L$.

The work done by a force is $W=\int \mathbf{F}\cdot d\mathbf{r}$. By the work-energy theorem, this has the same physical dimension as energy. ThusAlthough torque and energy have the same physical dimension, they represent different physical quantities.

The torque about an origin is $\mathbf{\tau }=\mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{F}$. A cross product multiplies the dimensions of its factors, so torque has the physical dimension of length times force:

Use Newton's second law, $F=ma$. Acceleration has physical dimension $L{T}^{-2}$, so multiplying by mass gives the dimension of forceThe bracket notation records a physical dimension, rather than the numerical value or the choice of units.

The meetings occur where Bob's constant position $x=\alpha c{t}_0$ intersects Alice's positive-$x$ branch of the hyperbolic motion:Bob is at rest in this inertial frame, so his elapsed proper time is

Parametrize Alice's world line bySince $t$ increases with $\eta$, the proper time element isAt the meetings, $\cosh \eta =\alpha$, giving endpoints $\eta =\pm \mathrm{arcosh}\alpha$. Thus Alice's elapsed proper time isHere $\mathrm{arcosh}$ is the nonnegative real inverse hyperbolic cosine. As a check, if $\alpha =\cosh {\eta }_{\ast }$ with ${\eta }_{\ast }>0$, then Bob ages by $2t_0\sinh {\eta }_{\ast }$ and Alice by $2t_0{\eta }_{\ast }$; $\sinh {\eta }_{\ast }>{\eta }_{\ast }$ confirms that Bob again ages more.

In the Earth inertial frame, the return journey takes $2d/v$. Bob is at rest in this frame, while Alice's proper time is reduced by the Lorentz factor $\gamma =(1-v^2/c^2{)}^{-1/2}$. Neglecting the short turnaround interval, their increases in age are

The twin paradox is the apparent contradiction from applying reciprocal time dilation to claim that each twin must be younger than the other. Alice changes inertial frames at the turnaround, so a single comoving inertial frame cannot describe her whole journey; Bob uses one inertial frame throughout. The twins follow different world lines, and integrating proper time along those world lines gives the displayed, consistent ages. The change in Alice's notion of simultaneity at turnaround removes the apparent contradiction. Acceleration distinguishes the paths; its magnitude is not an additional local rule for aging.

Integrating the oscillatory term together with the constant components gives a potential of a conservative vector fieldDirect partial derivatives recover both components of $\mathbf{V}$, proving it is a conservative vector field. Its line integral is therefore path independent. At an integer endpoint $(m,n)$, the sine term vanishes, so for any of the specified pathsAny other potential has the same gradient, so differs from $F$ by a constant on the connected plane. In particular every potential changes by $1$ under $x\mapsto x+1$ and by $2$ under $y\mapsto y+1$. Equivalently the integral from $(0,0)$ to $(1,0)$ is $1$, whereas a unit-periodic potential would make that difference zero. There is no potential periodic with period one in both coordinate directions. This is an example of how periods obstruct a periodic potential: a periodic vector field need not have a periodic potential.

A conservative vector field on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a vector field $\mathbf{V}=\nabla F$ for a globally defined smooth potential of a conservative vector field $F$. The chain rule givesso its line integral is path independent.

Green theorem states that, for a bounded planar region $D$ with piecewise smooth boundary and continuously differentiable $P,Q$ on a neighbourhood of its closure,The boundary is positively oriented: the region lies on the left while it is traversed, so outer components run counterclockwise and hole boundaries clockwise.

For the proposed potential of a conservative vector field, the fundamental theorem of calculus and differentiation under the integral sign giveSince $Q_x=P_y$, the last integral equals $P(x,y)-P(x,0)$, including negative $y$ with the usual signed-integral convention. Hence the proposed potential is global andThe fact that the vector field is defined on all of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ ensures both straight integration segments stay inside its domain; a hole in the domain could obstruct a global potential.

No such finite group exists. Cayley theorem embeds every finite group $G$ of order $n$ into $S_n$: the left-regular group action sends $g$ to the permutation $x\mapsto gx$, and this is faithful because the image of the identity element is $g$.

To make every image permutation even, let $t=(n+1n+2)$, with support disjoint from the first $n$ letters. For $\sigma \in S_n$, let $e(\sigma )=0$ for an even permutation and $e(\sigma )=1$ for an odd permutation, and setThe sign homomorphism gives $e(\sigma \tau )\equiv e(\sigma )+e(\tau )(\mathrm{mod}2)$, and $t$ commutes with all permutations of the first $n$ letters. Thus $\iota$ is a group homomorphism. It is injective by restriction to those letters, and its sign is $(-1{)}^{e(\sigma )}(-1{)}^{e(\sigma )}=1$. ConsequentlyThis is the alternating-group embedding of a finite group.

Take two disjoint permutation cycles of lengths five and four:Disjoint permutation cycles commute, and their powers act independently on their supports. Thus ${\sigma }^k=1$ exactly when both $5$ and $4$ divide $k$, so its order of a group element is $\mathrm{lcm}(5,4)=20$.

The order of a group element represented by a permutation is the least common multiple of its disjoint cycle lengths. An order divisible by nine therefore requires a permutation cycle whose length is divisible by nine. In $S_9$ that must be a nine-cycle, which uses every letter and has order nine, not eighteen. There is no element of $S_9$ of order eighteen.