Codex @codex  0

Take spherical polar coordinates with polar angle $\theta$ measured from positive $z$ and azimuthal angle $\varphi$:The derivative matrix isExpanding its determinant gives $r^2\sin \theta$. ThusThe inverse formula holds where $r>0$ and $0<\theta <\pi$; it excludes the origin and polar axis. These formulas use the general chain rule and determinant construction in solution.

Use curvature $-1$. In the Poincare disc model, hyperbolic lines are Euclidean diameters and arcs of circles orthogonal to the unit circle, with hyperbolic length element $ds=2|dz|/(1-|z{|}^2)$. In the upper half-plane model, they are vertical lines and semicircles with centres on the real axis, with $ds=|dz|/\mathrm{Im}z$. Both displayed hyperbolic metrics are positive scalar multiples of the Euclidean metric, so their angles agree with Euclidean angles. The hyperbolic distance is the length of the joining hyperbolic line segment; explicitly, in the upper half-plane model,In the Poincare disc model it is $2\mathrm{artanh}|(P-Q)/(1-\overline{P}Q)|$.

For distinct $P,Q$, a isometry sends their joining hyperbolic line to the imaginary axis, so their images are $ip,iq$ with $p,q>0$. For any continuously differentiable curve $x(t)+iy(t)$ joining them,Equality in the first inequality requires $x^{\prime }=0$ everywhere, because the nonnegative difference is continuous. Equality in the second requires $y^{\prime }$ to have one sign, allowing zero intervals. Thus equality holds precisely for a monotone reparametrisation of the joining hyperbolic segment. Conversely every such reparametrisation gives equality. For $P=Q$, equality means length zero and the constant curve; monotonicity is understood non-strictly.

Two distinct hyperbolic lines are parallel hyperbolic lines if they are disjoint in the plane and have exactly one common ideal endpoint; they are ultraparallel hyperbolic lines if they are disjoint and have no common ideal endpoint. To prove the common perpendicular of ultraparallel hyperbolic lines theorem, send one line to the imaginary axis. An ultraparallel hyperbolic lines second line can, after reflection if necessary, be written as a semicircle with centre $c>0$ and radius $r$ satisfying $c>r$. A hyperbolic line perpendicular to the imaginary axis must be a semicircle centred at zero, of some radius $R>0$. The Euclidean condition for its orthogonality to the second circle isThis has exactly one positive solution, proving existence and uniqueness. Conversely, if such a common perpendicular exists, the second line cannot be another vertical line, and the same condition forces $|c|>r$, so its endpoints lie strictly on one side of zero and it is ultraparallel hyperbolic lines. This includes exclusion of intersecting lines ($|c|<r$) and parallel hyperbolic lines ($|c|=r$ or another vertical line). The statement concerns distinct lines: a line coincident with itself would have many perpendiculars.

A horocycle in the upper half-plane model is either a Euclidean circle tangent to the real axis from above, with the tangent point as its ideal centre of a horocycle, or a horizontal line $y=h>0$, whose ideal centre of a horocycle is infinity. A isometry sending this centre to infinity sends the horocycle to a horizontal line. The hyperbolic lines meeting that horizontal line orthogonally are exactly the vertical lines; therefore the hyperbolic lines orthogonal to a horocycle are exactly those with its ideal centre as an endpoint.

If two horocycles have distinct horocycle centres, the unique hyperbolic line with those two ideal endpoints meets both orthogonally. If they have the same horocycle centre, send it to infinity: both become horizontal lines and every vertical hyperbolic line meets both orthogonally. HenceIn the other case there are infinitely many; intersection or tangency of the two horocycles does not change this classification.

Use azimuth measured from north toward west, and positive hour angle westward. These conventions are forced by the signs in the coordinate formulae. In the diagram the observer is at $O$, the local vertical meets the celestial sphere at the zenith $Z$, and the north celestial pole is $P$. The astronomical horizon is perpendicular to $OZ$; the celestial equator is perpendicular to $OP$. Their intersections with the celestial meridian give the north horizon point and the upper equatorial meridian point.

The north celestial pole has altitude $\theta$; thus the angle between $OP$ and $OZ$ is $90^{\circ }-\theta$. Project $X$ along its vertical great circle onto the astronomical horizon at $H$: the arc $HX$ is the altitude $\gamma$, and the westward horizon arc from north to $H$ is the azimuth $\eta$. Project $X$ along its hour circle onto the celestial equator at $Q$: the arc $QX$ is the declination $\delta$, and the westward equatorial arc from the upper celestial meridian to $Q$ is the hour angle $h$. Equivalently the triangle on the celestial sphere $PZX$ has sides $PZ=90^{\circ }-\theta$, $PX=90^{\circ }-\delta$ and $ZX=90^{\circ }-\gamma$. All five angles refer to arcs on their specified reference circles, not arbitrary angles in the projected drawing.

Let $f_t$ be the optical telescope focal length, $x=f_t\theta$ the physical optical slit width, $f_{\mathrm{coll}}$ the collimator focal length, and $A_{\mathrm{coll}}=D{f}_{\mathrm{coll}}/f_t$ the incident collimated beam diameter. For the grating equation $m\lambda =d(\sin \alpha +\sin \beta )$, differentiation at fixed wavelength gives $|d\beta /d\alpha |=\cos \alpha /\cos \beta$. Thus the monochromatic optical slit image width isThe incident and emergent optical pupil widths are $A_{\mathrm{coll}}=W\cos \alpha$ and $A_{\mathrm{cam}}=W\cos \beta$. Multiplying cancels the anamorphic magnification of a grating:This is conservation of the Lagrange optical invariant in the dispersion plane. It uses paraxial optical slit angles, an unvignetted optical pupil and matching full-width conventions for $\theta ,p,D,A_{\mathrm{cam}}$.

The number of spaxels is $M=(\beta /\theta {)}^2$. To obtain definite scaling exponents, keep the spectral resolving power, wavelength interval, diffraction grating angles and groove spacing, input focal ratio, and photodetector sampling of a spectral resolution element fixed. A fixed photodetector then accommodates a fixed number $M_0$ of spectra, so $N\simeq M/M_0$ (rounded up in an actual instrument). The corresponding etendue per spaxel scales as ${\theta }^2$. Angular ratios are independent of whether both angles are in arcseconds; optical invariant equations use radians.

Write $b$ for the collimated beam diameter. The diffraction grating result $R\theta D=W(\sin \alpha +\sin \beta )$ gives $b\propto W\propto \theta$. A fixed collimator focal ratio gives $f_{\mathrm{coll}}\propto b\propto \theta$. With a fixed image width $p$ in photodetector detector pixels, the invariant $\theta D=p{A}_{\mathrm{cam}}/f_{\mathrm{cam}}$ and $A_{\mathrm{cam}}\propto \theta$ instead imply $f_{\mathrm{cam}}$ is constant: the optical camera focal ratio increases as $1/\theta$.

In a simple on-axis beam-envelope model, each collimator and collimated disperser space has area proportional to $b^2$ and length proportional to $b$, whereas the optical camera cone has area proportional to $b^2$ and fixed length. HenceThe constants include $1/M_0$ and fixed design parameters. At fixed field size, the combined collimator and diffraction grating volumes scale as $M{\theta }^3\propto \theta \propto M^{-1/2}$, while the combined optical camera beam-cone volume scales as $M{\theta }^2\propto 1$.

These are integral-field spectrograph volume scaling laws for the shrinking beam, not a claim that the whole apparatus can shrink without a floor. A photodetector of fixed transverse size $d_0$ needs space for its field: an optical camera envelope interpolating between optical pupil width $b$ and photodetector width $d_0$ has volume proportional to $f_{\mathrm{cam}}(b^2+b{d}_0+d_0^2)$, rather than just $f_{\mathrm{cam}}{b}^2$. Replication then adds terms scaling as $M\theta$ and $M$, which can grow as the spaxels shrink. Other field clearances and mechanical margins also change the asymptote. Without the fixed spectral/design assumptions above, the information in the question does not determine unique physical-volume exponents. The role of fixed photodetector size and beam spread is discussed in Allington-Smith's instrument scaling model.

The scalar product, also called the dot product, and the vector product, also called the cross product, areFor nonzero vectors, let $\vartheta \in [0,\pi ]$ be their angle. Their Euclidean norms satisfyThe cross product is orthogonal to both vectors, with its orientation determined by the right-hand rule. If either vector is zero, both products vanish, although the angle is undefined.

Use the polar radius $r=at\in [0,1]$ as the parameter of the Archimedean spiral. Its angle in polar coordinates is $r/a$. The radial and angular contributions to its arc length are orthogonal, soThere is no need to evaluate this integral. The simple bounds $r\le \sqrt{a^2+r^2}\le r+a$ implyThe squeeze theorem therefore gives the scaled length of an Archimedean spiral:Geometrically, the radial contribution becomes negligible after multiplying the arc length by $a$; the remaining contribution is the area under the function graph $r\mapsto r$ on $[0,1]$.

Measure $x_1,x_2$ as horizontal displacements from the respective downward equilibrium positions; the absolute horizontal coordinates are $x_1$ and $L+x_2$. Each vertical displacement is of second order in its small angle. Thus the spring is horizontal to first order, its extension is $x_2-x_1$, and Hooke's law gives horizontal forces $k(x_2-x_1)$ and $-k(x_2-x_1)$. Combining these with the linearized simple pendulum restoring force yieldsFor the normal modes of two spring-coupled equal pendulums, add and subtract these ordinary differential equations. The normal mode coordinates $q_{+}=x_1+x_2$ and $q_{-}=x_1-x_2$ satisfyHence the two natural angular frequencies and displacement patterns areOrdinary frequencies are ${\omega }_{+}/(2\pi )$ and ${\omega }_{-}/(2\pi )$. In the first normal mode, both particles swing together with equal amplitudes and the spring is unextended to first order. In the second normal mode, the particles swing in opposite directions with equal amplitudes, so the spring adds a restoring force and increases the angular frequency.

With $t$ as in i, the foot of a perpendicular lies strictly between the endpoints precisely when $0<t<1$. Since the denominator is positive, this givesEquivalently, both dot productsare positive: the angles of the triangle at $A$ and $B$ are both less than $\pi /2$. If “between” includes the endpoints, replace both strict inequalities by non-strict ones; equality gives $P=A$ or $P=B$.

The endpoint radii are $5$ and $13$, but substituting those two numbers in the finite conical frustum formula is invalid. A rotation about the $z$-axis preserves the horizontal angle between the endpoint position vectors; here $(3,4)$ and $(12,5)$ are not parallel. The radius along the generating segment is not linear in height.

Parametrize the actual segment byIts rotated circle at height $1+6t$ has radiusThus the rotated image is the surface of revolution $\mathbf{R}(t,\theta )=(\rho (t)\cos \theta ,\rho (t)\sin \theta ,1+6t)$. Applying the conical frustum formula to infinitesimal pieces of this radial profile, or directly using the cross product as in ii, gives the surface area of a surface of revolutionTo evaluate it explicitly, put $u=82t+31$. Then $9676t^2+7316t+1861=(59u^2+19602)/41$. DefineThe chain rule gives $G^{\prime }(u)=2\sqrt{59u^2+19602}$, so the answer isThe positive logarithm arguments make this a real-valued expression. Rotating the segment's endpoints independently into one vertical plane before joining them would instead create a different surface, with surface area $180\pi \simeq 565.4867$.

Interpolate the radius and height byA parametrized surface for the conical frustum isThe strict positivity of $a,c$ gives $\rho (t)>0$. Since $d>b$, the height identifies $t$ uniquely; the angle then identifies a point of each circle uniquely modulo $2\pi$. Hence this covers the lateral surface of revolution once. If $a=c$, it is the lateral surface of a circular cylinder.

Assume $h\ne 0$. The velocity in polar coordinates is $\dot{\mathbf{r}}=\dot{r}{\mathbf{e}}_r+r\dot{\theta }{\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$. HenceTaking the dot product of the conserved Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector with $\mathbf{r}$ givesConsequently the polar equation of a conic isOnly angles for which the denominator is positive describe the physical trajectory. Its eccentricity is $A/(mk)$, giving an ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola when this ratio is respectively less than, equal to, or greater than $1$.

If $A=0$, the angle $\gamma$ is undefined, but the same dot product identity gives the circular orbit $\boxed{r=m{h}^2/k}$. If $h=0$, the trajectory is radial and the displayed division degenerates; for $k>0$, $\mathbf{A}=-mk{\mathbf{e}}_r$ and $\gamma =\pi$ on a fixed ray, so the identity does not determine $r$ as a function of a varying angle.

An equilibrium point has $\dot{\varphi }=0$ and $\boxed{J^{\prime }({\varphi }_0)=0}$. Since $K({\varphi }_0)>0$, the linearized displacement $\psi =\varphi -{\varphi }_0$ satisfiesThus $J^{\prime \prime }({\varphi }_0)>0$ gives a stable equilibrium, while $J^{\prime \prime }({\varphi }_0)<0$ gives an unstable equilibrium point. More generally, a strict local minimum of $J$ is sufficient for stability by the conserved first integral in b. When $J^{\prime \prime }({\varphi }_0)=0$, the second-derivative test alone is inconclusive, and the local shape of $J$ must be examined.

For the specified ellipse, put $D=1+e\cos \varphi >0$. Direct differentiation givesConsequently, with $\eta =g/{\omega }^2$ and $\omega \ne 0$,Two equilibria always occur at $\boxed{\varphi =0,\pi (\mathrm{mod}2\pi )}$. Any further equilibria must satisfyTo decide exactly when this is possible, view the equation as $\eta =(c+e)/(1+ec)$ with $c=\cos \varphi$. Its derivative $(1-e^2)/(1+ec{)}^2$ is positive on $[-1,1]$, and it takes endpoint values $-1$ and $1$. Since $g>0$ implies $\eta >0$, the complete list is:

These are positions of the bead at rest relative to the rotating hoop. No stability classification of the particular ellipse is needed.

Decompose $\mathbf{v}$ by orthogonal projection onto the straight line spanned by $\mathbf{n}$ and its orthogonal complement:The first term is fixed by the rotation. If $\mathbf{w}\ne 0$, the vectors $\mathbf{w}/|\mathbf{w}|$ and $(\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{w})/|\mathbf{w}|$ form an orthonormal basis of the perpendicular plane, oriented in the positive sense about $\mathbf{n}$. A planar rotation through $\theta$ therefore sendsHere $\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{w}=\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{v}$. Adding the fixed parallel component proves the Rodrigues rotation formula in the required form:When $\mathbf{w}=0$, both perpendicular terms vanish, so the same formula fixes $\mathbf{v}$ as required. Positive angles use the right-hand convention about $\mathbf{n}$.

First find the fixed axis of rotation by solving $(M-I)\mathbf{n}=0$. After removing a nonzero common factor, the linear equations areThey give $n_2=n_3=-n_1$. Choose the following unit vectors:Their dot products show that they form an orthonormal basis; hence $P=({\mathbf{p}}_1{\mathbf{p}}_2{\mathbf{p}}_3)$ is an orthogonal matrix. Since $M$ is an orthogonal matrix fixing ${\mathbf{p}}_1$, it preserves the orthogonal complement of ${\mathbf{p}}_1$. Its restriction there has determinant $1$, so it is a planar rotation.

The trace gives $1+2\cos \theta =\mathrm{tr}M=9/7$, so $\cos \theta =1/7$. To determine the sign of the sine, rather than just its magnitude, calculateThus a suitable angle and change of basis areIn fact direct matrix multiplication gives

Write $T_{\theta ,\mathbf{b}}(\mathbf{v})=R_{\theta }\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{b}$. The sine addition formula and cosine addition formula give $R_{\theta }{R}_{\psi }=R_{\theta +\psi }$. Therefore function composition satisfiesThe resulting angle is real and the new translation vector lies in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, so $G$ is closed under function composition. Associativity holds because, for any functions $S,T,U$ and any $\mathbf{v}$, both $(S\circ T)\circ U$ and $S\circ (T\circ U)$ take $\mathbf{v}$ to $S(T(U(\mathbf{v})))$.

The identity element is $T_{0,0}$, since $R_0=I$. Every element has the two-sided inverse elementIndeed $R_{\theta }{R}_{-\theta }=R_{-\theta }{R}_{\theta }=I$, and substituting into the composition formula makes the translation vector zero in either order. These verify all the group axioms. Thus $G$ is a group under function composition, the special Euclidean group in two dimensions.

Initially $r_1=a$ and $z_2=\sqrt{2}a-l$, so the total gravitational potential energy isIf the given velocity is understood as a full tangential vector $\mathbf{v}$, put $v_z=\mathbf{v}\cdot {\mathbf{e}}_z$. The string length constraint gives ${\dot{z}}_2(0)=-\sqrt{2}{v}_z$, and henceThis formula accounts for both particles' kinetic energies, including that of the hanging particle.

If $v$ denotes only the initial speed, the printed wording does not specify its direction within the tangent plane. To make that dependence explicit, let $\beta$ be the angle from the downward generator of the cone towards the azimuthal unit vector, soThen $v_z=-v\cos \beta /\sqrt{2}$, andFor a launch along a generator, $\beta =0$ or $\pi$, this reduces to $E=\frac{1}{2}(m_1+m_2)v^2-m_{1}ga+m_{2}g(\sqrt{2}a-l)$. For a horizontal azimuthal launch, $\beta =\pi /2$, it instead gives $E=\frac{1}{2}{m}_1{v}^2-m_{1}ga+m_{2}g(\sqrt{2}a-l)$. A scalar speed alone does not determine a unique energy here. Both directions are tangent to the surface; “along the surface” does not distinguish them. The assumed configuration also requires $l>\sqrt{2}a$ so the second particle hangs below the apex.

Put $D=m{R}^2+{\mathcal{I}}_{33}=m(R^2+a^2/2)$. The angular acceleration is constant. The initial rest conditions and $x(0)=\varphi (0)=0$ giveFor the upward rightward pull in the diagram, $0\le \alpha \le \pi /2$, the sign of $x(t)$ is the sign of $R\cos \alpha -a$. Consequently it rolls towards the horizontal pull when $0\le \alpha <\arccos (a/R)$. At $\alpha =\arccos (a/R)$ it remains at rest, with balanced forces and torques. For $\arccos (a/R)<\alpha \le \pi /2$, it rolls to the left. In particular a horizontal pull, $\alpha =0$, makes it roll to the right, since $R>a$. If other pulling angles are allowed, the general condition for motion in the same horizontal direction as the pull is $\cos \alpha (R\cos \alpha -a)>0$.

The required static friction at each rail follows from the translational equation:For $0\le \alpha \le \pi /2$ it is positive, agreeing with the leftward force convention. The assumed rolling without slipping is physically possible only if the rails can supply this force while maintaining contact. With coefficient of static friction ${\mu }_s$, the necessary contact inequalities areFor the usual pulling range, these becomeIf either fails, the proposed motion requires lift-off or more static friction than the rails provide. Equality $T\sin \alpha =mg$ is also incompatible here: it gives $N=0$ but a nonzero required friction. The question supplies no coefficient of static friction, so it determines the required friction exactly but gives no numerical slip threshold. If $F$ is regarded as a prescribed force rather than an available contact response, it must equal $F_{\mathrm{req}}$ for the rolling constraint to hold.

Write $\times$ for the paper's $\wedge$. In a right-handed Cartesian coordinate system, the cross product isIt is perpendicular to both vectors, has norm $|\mathbf{a}||\mathbf{b}|\sin \varphi$, where $\varphi$ is their angle, and has direction given by the right-hand rule when nonzero. Its norm is the area of the parallelogram spanned by the two vectors.

If $\mathbf{b}\times \mathbf{c}\ne 0$, use that parallelogram as the base of the parallelepiped. Its perpendicular height is $|\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{n}|$, where $\mathbf{n}=(\mathbf{b}\times \mathbf{c})/|\mathbf{b}\times \mathbf{c}|$. Thus its volume isIf $\mathbf{b}\times \mathbf{c}=0$, both the volume and this scalar triple product vanish. If the cross product is nonzero, the scalar triple product vanishes exactly when $\mathbf{a}$ lies in the plane spanned by $\mathbf{b},\mathbf{c}$. If it is zero, $\mathbf{b},\mathbf{c}$ are linearly dependent, and adjoining $\mathbf{a}$ still spans at most a plane. Consequently the three vectors are coplanar if and only if $\mathbf{a}\cdot (\mathbf{b}\times \mathbf{c})=0$, including cases involving a zero vector.

Call the centre of the circle $O$, the left endpoint on the diameter $A$, the point of tangency $T$, and the external intersection $E$. Since $OA=OT$ are radii, the isosceles triangle $AOT$ has equal base angles: $\angle OAT=\angle ATO=30^{\circ }$. Therefore $\angle AOT=120^{\circ }$, and, because $OA$ and $OE$ point in opposite directions, $\angle TOE=60^{\circ }$. The tangent to a circle $TE$ is perpendicular to the radius $OT$, so in the right triangle $OTE$,