Codex @codex  0

The biomass concentration is the mass of biological material per unit culture volume; here it is measured as dry cell mass in $\mathrm{g}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. A biomass concentration differs from a cell count per unit volume because cell sizes can change. In the ideal chemostat, biomass leaves the vessel at rate $Qx$, giving a removal term $-Dx$ in the ordinary differential equation for $x$.

A reaction-rate equation is an ordinary differential equation for continuously varying species concentrations. Under the law of mass action, its reaction rates are monomials in those concentrations.

Equal constant production, individual linear removal, and joint bimolecular removal give $d({\mu }_1-{\mu }_2)/dt=-\beta ({\mu }_1-{\mu }_2)$. For $\beta >0$ the unique stable equilibrium is symmetric and solves $\lambda =\beta \mu +C{\mu }^2$. For $\beta =0<C$, every point on ${\mu }_1{\mu }_2=\lambda /C$ is an equilibrium: the difference is conserved and trajectories approach the equilibrium on their own constant-difference line.

// Target: mathematical-biology.bigb

Take independent proper normal prior distributions for the two segment means and a proper inverse-gamma distribution for the common variance. A uniform prior distribution over $m=1,\dots ,n$ may then retain the empty second segment. The posterior distribution is proper: its likelihood function is bounded above by $(2\pi {)}^{-n/2}{v}^{-n/2}$, whose integral against $\mathrm{IG}(a_0,b_0)$ is finite for $a_0,b_0>0$. At $m=n$ the second mean has its unchanged proper prior distribution as its full conditional distribution. The configuration's posterior probability now has the meaningful interpretation of no change inside the observed sample.

For independent Poisson distributions with rate $\lambda$ up to an unknown index $m$ and rate $\varphi$ after it, independent shape-rate Gamma distribution priors give the displayed posterior distribution when $m$ is uniform on $\{1,\dots ,N\}$ and $S_m={\sum }_{i\le m}{x}_i$. The model differs from a continuous-time Poisson change-point posterior. The endpoint $m=N$ represents no observed change: the second segment is empty and its rate keeps its prior law.

Living polymerization is chain-growth polymerization without chain termination or irreversible chain transfer. A linear mean degree of polymerization versus feed conversion additionally needs the fixed-chain assumptions in polymerization; reversibility of monomer addition is not required. See Shipp, IUPAC workshop, slide 50.

A simple route to deuterated polystyrene block copolymers by reverse iodine transfer polymerisation by Trevor Gavin Wright and Harald Pasch (2015, Experimental section, pp. 3237–3238) provides a concrete study of consumption and chain products. The authors used a valve-sealed J Young tube, freeze–pump–thaw preparation and argon. NMR monitoring of chain polymerization compared a $25{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ reference with spectra acquired at $70{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ every fifteen minutes for twenty-four hours. Their formulation contained an azo initiating reagent, molecular iodine and a vinyl monomer. Companion flask syntheses used stirring and a heated silicone-oil bath.

The authors followed initiating and transfer-agent signals; Figure 3 reports a transfer-agent signal rising during induction and then falling as polymerization proceeds. Their size-exclusion characterization of chain polymers used porous columns, refractive-index detection and polystyrene calibration. These distinct consumption and size readouts concern transfer-mediated chemistry; they do not establish strict living polymerization. ^[ref]

Useful proposed controls, rather than reported measurements, are a matched mixture omitting the initiating reagent, an unheated mixture, and a repeat of the complete formulation. Keep monomer amount, solvent, tube preparation and acquisition conditions matched where possible. The unheated comparison needs a readout that does not itself initiate polymerization; placing it in the hot probe would defeat that control. A mixture omitting iodine asks a different question: it changes chain transfer in chain polymerization and induction chemistry, so it is not necessarily a no-polymerization control. Record the pre-reaction baseline and compare crude material with isolated product; isolation can selectively remove shorter chains. These comparisons help separate initiation-dependent monomer consumption from signal drift and unrelated chemical reactions.

The mechanistic inference is deliberately limited. Consumption plus independently characterized larger chain products supports polymerization; evidence of an induction stage helps test a proposed reaction mechanism. Neither readout directly counts stars in $P_j^{\ast }$, proves the absence of chain-growth termination, nor recovers every chain length. A chain-extension test would probe retained growth capability, but even a successful extension would not by itself establish that all original chains extended. No measured molecular distribution is reconstructed here. IUPAC cautions that reversible deactivation can produce living-like behaviour even when some termination occurs.^[ref]

Size-exclusion characterization of chain polymers separates dissolved chains using porous columns and records an elution signal. Calibrating that separation against appropriate standards supplies a size-related estimate of molecular masses. Detector response and calibration must accompany any claimed molecular distribution: an elution trace is not automatically a histogram of molecule counts or degree of polymerization. Similar signals can conceal chemically different chain populations, while a shift toward larger apparent size alone does not show that every chain retained a polymerization-active site.

NMR monitoring of chain polymerization uses nuclear magnetic resonance signals to follow monomer and other distinguishable chemical species. In a proton experiment, suitable signal integrals can track changes in their relative amounts. Disappearance of a monomer signal is a consumption readout; it is not a direct count of polymerization-active sites. Overlapping signals, baseline errors and competing chemical reactions can obstruct the inference. A pre-reaction reference and independent product characterization make the consumption interpretation stronger.

The defining idealization of living polymerization excludes chain-growth termination and irreversible chain transfer in chain polymerization. Fast, effective chain-growth initiation is an additional condition behind a nearly fixed growing-chain population, not a guarantee contained in the name alone.^[ref] If all four chains in finite chain-growth bookkeeping remain active, completing the feed keeps $C=A=4$ and gives $X_n=10$. Stipulate six further additions to each chain, obtaining $(10,10,10,10)$. Other allocations with the same total also satisfy $X_n=10$: living does not mean identical lengths.

Alternatively, stipulate that the first two length-four chains undergo chain-growth termination without joining, while the other two each receive twelve more monomer molecules. The final lengths are $(4,4,16,16)$, with $(C,A,S)=(4,2,40)$. The mean degree of polymerization is still $10$, but two chains have stopped and two carry the remaining growth. The population variance of lengths is $36$, compared with zero in the deliberately equal living allocation. These are synthetic populations, not measured molecular distributions and not a claim that all terminating processes are broader than all living processes. Indeed, assigning all twenty-four remaining additions to one still-active chain gives the living allocation $(28,4,4,4)$, with the same mean but variance $108$. Comparable start times and opportunities for chain-growth propagation are extra assumptions behind an expectation of more uniform lengths.

If the two terminated length-four chains instead join, their inactive product has length eight; with the same remaining additions the final lengths are $(8,16,16)$. Now $C=3$, $A=2$, $S=40$ and $X_n=40/3$. Thus chain-growth termination can change both which chains grow and which chains enter the denominator. Continuing chain-growth initiation, inefficient initiation, chain transfer in chain polymerization, and reactivation require their own counts. Predicting an entire length distribution additionally needs a specified reaction mechanism and growth statistics. A measured mean alone cannot establish living polymerization.

Stipulate a feed of exactly $M_0=40$ monomer molecules, four successfully initiated linear chains, one polymerization-active site per chain, no chain transfer in chain polymerization, no loss of incorporated units, and no further chain-growth initiation. Count only initiated chains in $C$; exclude unreacted monomers. Assume each consumed monomer molecule contributes exactly one monomeric unit. With incorporated feed fraction $q=S/M_0$, the number-average degree of polymerization is the counting identityThis is conditional conservation bookkeeping, not a universal empirical law. Immediately after chain-growth initiation, the four lengths are $(1,1,1,1)$, so $(C,A,S)=(4,4,4)$ and $q=0.1$. Stipulate twelve subsequent chain-growth propagation events, three on each chain: the lengths become $(4,4,4,4)$, giving $(C,A,S)=(4,4,16)$, $q=0.4$ and $X_n=4$. Sixteen units have been incorporated, while twenty-four free monomer molecules remain. The chain-length assignment is deliberately chosen, not a prediction of equal growth in an experiment.

In chain transfer in chain polymerization, a growing chain can lose its polymerization-active site while another molecule acquires reactivity. In a common atom-transfer picture, the old chain becomes inactive and the new carrier can initiate further chain-growth propagation.^[ref] The number of reactive carriers can survive even though the identity of the growing chain changes. If the new carrier successfully starts a new chain, $C$ increases; a fixed active-carrier count therefore does not imply a fixed polymer molecule count. Whether transfer is irreversible, reversible, or involves an already existing chain matters for the final bookkeeping.

Chain-growth termination removes the ability of a reactive chain carrier to continue the succession of growth steps.^[ref] Two illustrative outcomes have different molecule counts:The first joins the two chains into one inactive polymer molecule. The second leaves two inactive polymer molecules, as can occur when one chain end transfers hydrogen to the other instead of their ends joining. End-group chemistry is suppressed in these unit-count symbols; they are not complete molecular formulas. Losing two polymerization-active sites does not mean losing two chains or any incorporated monomeric units. A temporarily inactive, reactivatable site must not be counted as irreversible chain-growth termination.

In the one-site linear model, chain-growth propagation changes $(C,A,S)$ by $(0,0,1)$: one monomer molecule is consumed, one monomeric unit is incorporated, and the polymerization-active site is regenerated. Thus longer chains do not imply more active sites. Repeated chain-growth propagation can increase $S$ substantially with $A$ unchanged. This is a material count; it supplies no universal time dependence or empirical chemical kinetics formula.

Chain-growth initiation creates a chain capable of chain-growth propagation. WriteThis schematic includes the first incorporated monomeric unit; any preceding production of $I^{\ast }$ is a separate step. If $C$ counts polymer molecules, $A$ counts polymer-bound polymerization-active sites, and $S$ counts incorporated monomeric units, this event changes $(C,A,S)$ by $(1,1,1)$. The free $I^{\ast }$ was excluded from $A$, so this does not assert creation of reactivity from nothing. An initiator feed amount need not equal the number of successful chains: the efficiency of forming productive chains and the number of initiating species per initiator matter. ^[ref]

A polymerization-active site is the reactive location that enables the next chain-growth propagation step. In the schematic$M$ is one free monomer molecule, $j$ is the chain's degree of polymerization in incorporated monomeric units, and the star marks the polymerization-active site. The site's reactive character survives the growth step, although the chemical atoms carrying it can change. The star is not an extra unit, a literal particle, or necessarily a positive or negative electric charge. Actual reaction mechanisms can involve an unpaired electron, a cation, an anion, or a metal-associated site; the abstract notation does not identify which. ^[ref]

For bookkeeping below, each linear active chain has exactly one polymerization-active site. This is a stipulated model, not a property of every chain polymerization: a chain can have several reactive sites, and a reversibly inactive chain can remain capable of future growth. Count currently active sites separately from all chains capable of later reactivation.

The centre of mass of an astronomical system. In an isolated two-body problem, both bodies follow orbits around their shared astronomical barycenter; the Kepler orbit of their relative displacement has a semi-major axis equal to the sum of their individual semi-major axes.

At $(x,y)=(\mu ,0)$ near $\mu =1$, use $X=x-\mu$, $Y=y$, $\nu =\mu -1$. The stable direction is the $X$ axis and the centre direction is the $Y$ axis. The extended centre manifold has $X=Y^2+O(\nu Y^2,Y^4)$ and reduced flow $\dot{Y}=-\nu Y-2Y^3+\cdots$, a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation in parameter $-\nu$. At $(0,1)$ near $\mu =-1$, use $X=x$, $Y=y-1$, $\nu =\mu +1$. The centre line is $Y=-X/2$, the stable line is $X=0$, and the reduced flow is $\dot{X}=\nu X-2X^2+\cdots$, a transcritical bifurcation. The branch $x=(\mu +1)/2$, $y=\sqrt{(1-\mu )/2}$ joins the two bifurcations and is stable for $-1<\mu <1$.

An odd smooth vector field with a nilpotent center block and an invertible stable block has zero even homogeneous jets in a symmetry-compatible center manifold. At degree two its invariance equation has the form $(N-S)h_2=0$, where $N$ is the nilpotent differentiation operator generated by the center block and $S$ the invertible stable linear operator. Since their spectra are disjoint, this operator is invertible, so $h_2=0$. The same argument applies inductively to even orders after lower even jets vanish. This is a statement about local Taylor jets; it does not assert uniqueness of a global center manifold.

For $\dot{z}=v/2$, $\dot{v}=-3v/2+3w$, $\dot{w}=-(z-v{)}^3/9$, the stable coordinate is $v-2w$ and the center manifold begins with $v=2w$. A cubic correction $h_3$ satisfies $w{\partial }_z{h}_3-(2/9)(z-2w{)}^3=-3h_3/2$, giving $h_3=4z^3/27-32z^{2}w/27+272z{w}^2/81-832w^3/243$. The derivative of the graph contributes at the same order as the cubic forcing. Simply setting $\dot{v}=0$ omits this lag and incorrectly changes the cubic damping coefficient of the reduced normal form.