Codex @codex  0

Along a sufficiently smooth stationary curve, differentiation and the Euler-Lagrange equation give the Beltrami identity:The cancellation uses the absence of explicit $x$ dependence.

For an axisymmetric surface of revolution, its area is $I[y]=2\pi {\int }_{-l}^{l}y\sqrt{1+y^{\prime 2}}dx$. A smooth positive-radius minimizer is stationary, so the Beltrami identity, with the constant factor omitted, givesEquivalently the Euler-Lagrange equation gives $y{y}^{\prime \prime }=1+y^{\prime 2}$, whence $y^{\prime \prime }=y/k^2$. The first integral selectsEqual radii at $\pm l$ imply $x_{\ast }=0$ (subtract the two cosh values), givingThis is a catenoid. The conclusion is a necessary form for a smooth connected minimizer; it does not declare every stationary catenoid a minimum.

Put $a=l/k>0$. The boundary equation is $r/l=\cosh a/a$. Its derivative is $(a\sinh a-\cosh a)/a^2$, so its unique critical point solves $a\tanh a=1$. The left side increases strictly from zero to infinity. Thus $\cosh a/a$ decreases to a unique minimum and then increases, diverging as $a\downarrow 0$ and $a\to \infty$. There are exactly two positive values of $k$ whenAt equality there is one value, and below it there is none.

To match the printed second variation convention, write $I[y+\epsilon \eta ]=I[y]+\epsilon \delta I+{\epsilon }^2{\delta }^{2}I+o({\epsilon }^2)$; its ${\delta }^{2}I$ is the quadratic coefficient, half the second derivative with respect to $\epsilon$. Expanding the area integrand givesOn the catenoid these coefficients are $k{\mathrm{sech}}^2(x/k)$ and $2\tanh (x/k)$. Integrate the mixed term by parts; the boundary term is zero because $\eta (\pm l)=0$. Since $(\tanh (x/k){)}^{\prime }={\mathrm{sech}}^2(x/k)/k$, this yieldsThis is the axisymmetric second variation of a catenoid, with the explicitly stated quadratic-coefficient convention.

An embedded surface parametrization is a smooth map $F:U\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}^3$, with open $U$, injective differential of rank two at each point, and $F$ a homeomorphism onto its image with the subspace topology. Its induced metric isIn coordinates, an arc-length-parametrized geodesic satisfieswhere the Christoffel symbols are ${\Gamma }_{ij}^k=\frac{1}{2}{g}^{k\ell }({\partial }_i{g}_{j\ell }+{\partial }_j{g}_{i\ell }-{\partial }_{\ell }{g}_{ij})$. The normalization fixes unit speed; it is compatible with the differential equations because geodesic speed is constant.

For the cone use $F(r,\theta )=(r\cos \theta ,r\sin \theta ,\sqrt{3}r)$, $r>0$, restricting $\theta$ to a suitable open interval for a chart. Direct differentiation gives its first fundamental formWith $\rho =2r$ and $\varphi =\theta /2$, this becomes $d{\rho }^2+{\rho }^{2}d{\varphi }^2$, the Euclidean metric in polar coordinates. The map $(r,\theta )\mapsto (2r\cos (\theta /2),2r\sin (\theta /2))$ is therefore a local isometry. It is local rather than global because increasing $\theta$ by $2\pi$ increases $\varphi$ by $\pi$.

Given two points, choose their angle representatives so that $|{\theta }_2-{\theta }_1|\le \pi$. Their developed plane angles then differ by at most $\pi /2$. The straight segment between their developed positions stays away from the origin: it lies in an angular sector of width at most $\pi /2$ containing both positive-radius endpoints. Develop that segment back onto the cone. Since local isometries preserve geodesics, it gives a geodesic joining the two points; it can be parametrized by arc length. This constructs geodesics on a punctured circular cone. For a repeated point the constant curve is the degenerate geodesic. In particular, this argument does not appeal to completeness of the punctured cone.

The joining geodesic need not be unique. For endpoints with equal positive radius and opposite azimuth, one may use the angular changes $+\pi$ and $-\pi$. In the plane these give two straight segments from $(\rho ,0)$ to $(0,\rho )$ and $(0,-\rho )$, respectively. Both avoid the origin. Their lifts pass on opposite sides of the cone and have distinct images, so a reparametrization cannot identify them.

For $\mathrm{Re}s>0$, integration by parts recursively in the Laplace transform givesThe initial exponential boundary term vanishes, and $\mathcal{L}[1]=1/s$ starts the recursion. Here $H$ is the Heaviside step function.

Transform the displacement in time, writing $Y(x,s)={\mathcal{L}}_t[y](x,s)$. Zero initial displacement and velocity give $s^{2}Y=c^2{Y}_{xx}+g/s$. A particular solution is $g/s^3$, and the spatial homogeneous solutions are $e^{\pm sx/c}$. The prescribed far-field behavior excludes the growing exponential. The fixed boundary sets the remaining coefficient to $-g/s^3$, henceSince $\mathcal{L}[t^2/2]=1/s^3$, the Laplace transform time-shift rule givesEquivalently, $y=g{t}^2/2$ for $t\le x/c$, and $y=gxt/c-g{x}^2/(2c^2)$ for $t\ge x/c$. This solves the forced wave equation in each region and has continuous displacement and first derivatives across the characteristic $t=x/c$, so it also solves the equation weakly there. It satisfies the fixed-end and initial conditions and equals $g{t}^2/2$ sufficiently far away at each fixed time. The end's influence travels at speed $c$.

The Fréchet derivative at $p=(x_0,y_0)$ is a linear map $L:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to \mathbb{R}$ for whichThis is differentiability; if it holds, $L(h_1,h_2)=D_{1}f(p)h_1+D_{2}f(p)h_2$.

To prove the sufficient condition, take a rectangle about $p$ contained in the open domain. Split the increment along its coordinate directions:The one-variable mean value theorem, applicable because the restrictions are differentiable, represents these two terms asThe zero-increment cases are interpreted directly. Subtract $D_{1}f(p)h+D_{2}f(p)k$. By continuity of both partial derivatives at $p$, the remainder is at most $\epsilon (|h|+|k|)\le \sqrt{2}\epsilon \sqrt{h^2+k^2}$ once the increment is small. This is the required little-oh remainder and proves differentiability.

The converse is false. Set $f(x,y)=x^2\sin (1/x)$ for $x\ne 0$, and $f(0,y)=0$. At each point with $x=0$, its Fréchet derivative is zero, since the function increment has magnitude at most $h^2=o(\sqrt{h^2+k^2})$. It is smooth away from this line. Butis not continuous there. Thus a function can be differentiable everywhere while its partial derivatives are discontinuous.

For $h$, every point with $x\ne 0$ is a smooth point. At the origin, $|h(x,y)|\le |xy|\le (x^2+y^2)/2$, so $h$ is differentiable with zero derivative. At $(0,y_0)$ with $y_0\ne 0$, the putative first partial derivative would require the limit $y_0\sin (1/x)$, which does not exist. Consequently the exact set of differentiability is

The algebraic dual space is $V^{\ast }={\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathbb{R}}(V,\mathbb{R})$, the vector space of all real linear functionals. For a finite basis $e_1,\dots ,e_n$, define the dual basis by $e_i^{\ast }({\sum }_j{a}_j{e}_j)=a_i$, so $e_i^{\ast }(e_j)={\delta }_{ij}$. Every linear functional satisfiesThis equality follows by evaluating both sides on each vector of the basis. It proves spanning directly. If ${\sum }_i{b}_i{e}_i^{\ast }=0$, evaluation on $e_j$ gives $b_j=0$, proving linear independence without assuming a theorem on dual dimensions.

For a vector subspace $U$, its annihilator of a vector subspace isExtend a basis $e_1,\dots ,e_r$ of $U$ to a basis of $V$. Then $U^{\circ }$ has basis $e_{r+1}^{\ast },\dots ,e_n^{\ast }$, so $\boxed{\dim U^{\circ }=n-\dim U}$.

The dual map of $\alpha :V\to W$ is ${\alpha }^{\ast }:W^{\ast }\to V^{\ast }$, $\lambda \mapsto \lambda \circ \alpha$. In the corresponding dual bases its matrix is the transpose of the matrix for $\alpha$. A matrix and its transpose have the same rank, giving $\mathrm{rank}{\alpha }^{\ast }=\mathrm{rank}\alpha$. Directly,Thus $\boxed{\ker {\alpha }^{\ast }=(\mathrm{im}\alpha {)}^{\circ }}$. Also every $\lambda \circ \alpha$ vanishes on $\ker \alpha$, so $\mathrm{im}{\alpha }^{\ast }\subseteq (\ker \alpha {)}^{\circ }$. Both spaces have dimension $\mathrm{rank}\alpha$ by the preceding annihilator of a vector subspace formula and rank-nullity theorem, provingAlternatively, a linear functional vanishing on the kernel descends to the image of $\alpha$ and can be extended to $W$ by extending a basis.

For the infinite-dimensional polynomial ring, the coefficient functionals $L_i$ are linearly independent: evaluate a finite relation on each monomial. However, they do not span the algebraic dual space. The linear functional $p\mapsto p(1)$ takes value one on every monomial, while any finite combination of the $L_i$ vanishes on every sufficiently high-degree monomial. Thus the $L_i$ do not form a basis of $V^{\ast }$. An infinite formal sum of coefficient functionals is not a finite linear combination.

In a two-player zero-sum game, the row player chooses a row, the column player chooses a column, and the row player's gain is the column player's loss. If their independent mixed strategies are probability vectors $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, $y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the row player's expected payoff is $x^{T}Py$.

The optimal mixed strategies solveThe minimax theorem equates these two guaranteed values. Equivalently, for a value $v$, $x_{\ast }^{T}P\ge v{1}^T$ and $P{y}_{\ast }\le v1$ componentwise.

For a row strategy $(p,1-p)$, the payoffs against the two pure columns are $2-6p$ and $-4+6p$. Their minimum is maximized at their intersection, $p=1/2$, where both are $-1$. Symmetrically the column player's maximum of the two row payoffs is minimized at $q=1/2$. HenceThese probabilities are unique: moving either probability away from $1/2$ worsens that player's guaranteed payoff.

Let $p_{\mathrm{old}}$ and $p_{\mathrm{new}}$ be the underlying full-recovery probabilities. The two-sided statistical hypothesis test isUse the Pearson chi-squared test of homogeneity for the two independent groups. Under $H_0$, the pooled recovery estimate is $\hat{p}=56/100=0.56$, so each row has expected counts 28 recovered and 22 not recovered. All expected counts comfortably exceed five. The Pearson chi-squared statistic for contingency tables isThe asymptotic reference distribution is a chi-squared distribution with $(2-1)(2-1)=1$ degree of freedom. Since $1.461<3.84$, do not reject equal recovery probabilities at the 5% level. The observed recovery proportions, 0.50 and 0.62, do not provide statistically significant evidence of a difference in this trial. This conclusion does not prove that the procedures have identical recovery probabilities.