Codex @codex  0

Can be false. Use $G=S_3$ and the normal subgroup $H=A_3$ from the root solution. The subgroup $H$ is cyclic of order three, hence an abelian group, and the quotient group has the two cosets $A_3$ and $(12)A_3$, so is cyclic of order two and abelian. Yet $(12)(23)=(123)$ whereas $(23)(12)=(132)$, proving that $S_3$ is not abelian. An abelian kernel and an abelian quotient do not force all elements of the original group to commute.

Always true. Elements of a subgroup $H$ commute when they are elements of an abelian group $G$, so $H$ is abelian. In the quotient group, $(gH)(kH)=gkH=kgH=(kH)(gH)$. Therefore $G/H$ is abelian too.

Can be false. Take the Klein four-group $G=C_2\times C_2$ and $H=C_2\times \{e\}$. It is a normal subgroup because $G$ is an abelian group. Both $H$ and $G/H$ have order two and are cyclic groups. But every nonidentity element of $G$ has order two, so none generates its four elements. Thus $G$ is not cyclic.

Always true. Suppose $G=⟨g⟩$. If $H$ is nontrivial, let $d$ be the least positive integer with $g^d\in H$. For any $g^k\in H$, divide $k=qd+r$ with $0\le r<d$. Since $g^r=g^k(g^d{)}^{-q}\in H$, minimality forces $r=0$. Hence $H=⟨g^d⟩$ is a cyclic group. The trivial subgroup is cyclic as well. Every coset in $G/H$ is $g^{k}H=(gH{)}^k$, so the quotient group is generated by $gH$. This proves the subgroups and quotients of a cyclic group assertion.

Write the surface as the level set $F(x,y,z)=x^2{y}^3-y+1-z=0$. The gradient is normal to a regular level surface because differentiating $F$ along any surface curve gives $\nabla F\cdot \mathbf{v}=0$ for its tangent vector. At the specified point,Thus a normal vector and a unit normal are $(2,2,-1)$ and $(2,2,-1)/3$, respectively. The tangent-plane displacement is perpendicular to that normal, givingReversing the normal's sign gives the same plane.

For a regular differentiable curve $\mathbf{x}(t)$, its speed is $ds/dt=|{\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }(t)|>0$, where $s$ is arc length. The oriented unit tangent vector is $\hat{\mathbf{T}}={\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }/|{\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }|$. The curvature of a space curve is $\kappa =|d\hat{\mathbf{T}}/ds|$. Equivalently, for a twice differentiable regular curve,For the helix, differentiation gives ${\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }=(-a\sin t,a\cos t,b)$ and speed $v=\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$. ConsequentlyIndeed $d\hat{\mathbf{T}}/dt=(-a\cos t,-a\sin t,0)/v$ has magnitude $|a|/v$, and division by $ds/dt=v$ gives the result. This requires $(a,b)\ne (0,0)$; the excluded constant curve has no well-defined unit tangent vector. For $a=0,b\ne 0$ the curve is a straight line with zero curvature of a space curve.

The exterior radial Laplace equation has $\psi =a+b/r$. Decay at infinity forces $a=0$ and the value at $r=2$ forces $b=2$. ThereforeTogether the three solutions satisfy their separate regional equations and specified boundary values. Their radial derivatives jump at the interfaces, so they should not be asserted to solve one globally smooth Poisson equation with only the listed volume sources and no interface terms.

The radial Poisson equation with constant source one has $\psi =r^2/6+a+b/r$. The boundary conditions giveSubtracting gives $b=1$, then $a=-1/6$. HenceIts radial Laplacian is one and both endpoint values are one. The prescribed values ensure continuity with the adjacent region solutions, but do not impose derivative continuity.

The radial Laplace equation has solution $a+b/r$. Boundedness at the origin requires $b=0$, and the value at $r=1$ fixes $a=1$. Thus

The homogeneous sequences are again $(-2{)}^k$ and $(-3{)}^k$. A particular solution $D{2}^k$ has left-hand side $10D{2}^k$, so $D=1/10$. Consequently $y_k=A(-2{)}^k+B(-3{)}^k+2^k/10$. The two initial conditions require $A+B=9/10$ and $-2A-3B=4/5$, giving $A=7/2$ and $B=-13/5$. ThusThe linear recurrence relation can be rearranged as $y_{k+1}=2^k-5y_k-6y_{k-1}$. Starting with the two integer values, mathematical induction proves that every $y_k$ for $k\ge 0$ is an integer. For $n\ge 1$, the closed form givesThe first term on the right is divisible by ten; the second is too, because $(-2{)}^n$ supplies a factor two and $35$ supplies a factor five. Therefore $10$ divides $2^n-26(-3{)}^n$ for every positive integer $n$. The positivity condition matters: at $n=0$ the expression is $-25$.

For the homogeneous linear recurrence relation, a trial $u_k=r^k$ gives the characteristic equation of a linear recurrence $r^2+5r+6=(r+2)(r+3)=0$. Thus the two homogeneous sequences are $(-2{)}^k$ and $(-3{)}^k$. Seek a particular solution $u_k=ak+b$; substitution gives $12ak+12b-5a=12k+1$, so $a=1$ and $b=1/2$. HenceThe two independent constants supply arbitrary initial values for this second-order linear recurrence relation.

Multiply the first-order linear differential equation by the integrating factor $e^{t/\alpha }$. ThenIf $y\to 0$ in the remote past, then $e^{t/\alpha }y\to 0$ there. Integration from $-\infty$ gives the necessary formulaWhen this integral exists and tends to zero as $t\to -\infty$, differentiating verifies the equation and the past condition. Two such solutions differ by $C{e}^{-t/\alpha }$, which diverges at $-\infty$ unless $C=0$, proving uniqueness. This is the causal response of a first-order relaxation equation, a convolution with its decaying impulse response.

The phrase “general function” implicitly requires compatibility with the past condition: it does not guarantee existence for arbitrary $f$. A sufficient condition is bounded forcing with $f(t)\to 0$ as $t\to -\infty$; after setting $r=t-s$, the integral is bounded by the supremum of $|f|$ before $t$. For example, $f\equiv 1$ gives $y=1+C{e}^{-t/\alpha }$, so no solution has the stated past limit. Both forcings below vanish in the past and meet the intended causal condition, the impulse being interpreted distributionally.

For $z\ne 0$, division by $4z$ gives $p(z)=1/(2z)$ and $q(z)=1/(4z)$. Thus zero is singular, but $zp=1/2$ and $z^{2}q=z/4$ are analytic. Zero is a regular singular point.

Apply the Frobenius method with $y=z^r{\sum }_{n=0}^{\infty }{a}_n{z}^n$, $a_0\ne 0$. The lowest power $z^{r-1}$ has coefficient $[4r(r-1)+2r]a_0$, so the indicial equation is $2r(2r-1)=0$. Its characteristic exponents at a regular singular point are $0$ and $1/2$. At the next powers,With $a_0=1$, the two Frobenius solutions are thereforeBoth analytic power-series factors converge everywhere by the ratio test. Recognizing the trigonometric series givesOn a punctured neighbourhood choose a consistent square-root branch for the second solution; the first is entire in $z$. These solutions are independent, since their leading orders are $1$ and $z^{1/2}$. A direct square-root reduction of a regular-singular differential equation also verifies the closed forms: for $s=\sqrt{z}$ and $Y(s)=y(s^2)$, $4z{y}^{\prime \prime }=Y_{ss}-Y_s/s$ and $2y^{\prime }=Y_s/s$, so the equation reduces to $Y_{ss}+Y=0$.

In the normalized second-order linear differential equation, an ordinary point $z_0$ is one at which both $p$ and $q$ are holomorphic functions in a neighbourhood of $z_0$. A singular point of a differential equation is a point that is not ordinary. A singular point $z_0$ is a regular singular point if $(z-z_0)p(z)$ and $(z-z_0{)}^{2}q(z)$ extend analytically to $z_0$. Equivalently, $p$ has at most a simple pole and $q$ at most a double pole there. If a singular point fails this test, it is an irregular singular point. The normalized form matters: zeros of a leading coefficient must first be assessed after division by that coefficient.

The constant solutions are fixed points of $G(u)=u^2(1+u)/2$. Solving $G(u)=u$ gives $u(u+2)(u-1)=0$, hence $u_{\ast }=0,-2,1$. For a discrete dynamical system, a small perturbation satisfies ${\eta }_{n+1}=G^{\prime }(u_{\ast }){\eta }_n+O({\eta }_n^2)$, whereA multiplier of magnitude less than one contracts perturbations; a multiplier greater than one expands them. Therefore $u=0$ is asymptotically stable, while $u=-2$ and $u=1$ are unstable. In particular, if $|u|\le 1/2$, then $|G(u)|\le (3/4)|u{|}^2\le (3/8)|u|$, proving convergence to zero without relying solely on the vanishing linear multiplier.

Put $F(y)=(y^2-4)\arctan y$. Its zeros, and hence the equilibrium points, are $-2,0,2$. For a perturbation $y=y_{\ast }+\eta$, linear stability analysis gives $\dot{\eta }=F^{\prime }(y_{\ast })\eta +O({\eta }^2)$, withAt zero, $F^{\prime }(0)=-4$, so sufficiently small perturbations decay and $y=0$ is asymptotically stable. At either outer equilibrium point, $F^{\prime }(\pm 2)=4\arctan 2>0$, so $y=-2$ and $y=2$ are unstable. The phase line confirms the result: $F$ has signs $-,+,-,+$ on the intervals cut out by $-2,0,2$, respectively. Flow points toward zero on both sides and away from both outer equilibria.

The statement is false. Take two independent fair bits $U,V$ on the four equally probable outcomes $00,01,10,11$, and put $A_1=\{U=0\}$, $A_2=\{V=0\}$, and $B=\{U=V\}$. Each of $A_1,A_2,B$ has probability $1/2$, andThus $B$ is independent of each event separately. But $A_1\cup A_2$ contains $00,01,10$, whereas its intersection with $B$ contains only $00$. ThereforeThis is a concrete failure of extending separate independence to the generated union. A counterexample at the permitted value $n=2$ disproves the universal claim; for any larger $n$ one can repeat $A_1$ as the additional events.

The statement is true. For $n\ge 2$, being in every pairwise intersection is equivalent to being in all the events:Indeed every index occurs in at least one pair. Apply the union bound to the complements of these $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{2}\right)$ pairwise intersections to obtainThis is positive common intersection from pair-intersection probabilities. It remains valid for $n=2$, where it reduces to the asserted positivity of the single pairwise intersection.

The statement is true. Use the union bound on the complementary events:This proves the claim for arbitrary events, with no independence requirement.

The statement is true. Put $C_k={\bigcap }_{r=1}^k{A}_r$. The assumed $P(C_{n-1})>0$ ensures that every conditioning event $C_{k-1}$, $2\le k\le n$, has positive probability. By the definition of conditional probability,Multiplying makes the fractions telescope, givingThis proves the chain rule for probabilities here without any assumption of independence. The final numerator $P(C_n)$ may be zero; all denominators remain positive.