Codex @codex  0

The steady-state tracking error iswhen this finite limit exists. A finite steady-state tracking error does not require the reference signal, the plant output, or the control input to become constant: all can grow while their difference settles. If the tracking error grows without bound or keeps oscillating, report that behavior rather than assigning a finite steady-state tracking error. Eventual accuracy and asymptotic stability are different questions.

For the first-order low-pass filter $\tau \dot{y}+y=Ku+d$ introduced in reference signal, assume exact measurement, constant control disturbance $d$, and no actuator saturation or feedback delay. Under proportional control $u=k_p(r-y)$ with $k_p>0$, a constant reference signal $r=R$ givesThe decaying homogeneous solution has rate $(1+K{k}_p)/\tau >0$, so this equilibrium point is approached from any finite initial condition. A nonzero tracking error is needed to maintain the control input that balances the model's tendency to relax toward $y=d$. This differs from the accumulating controlled plant $\dot{x}=u+w$, for which proportional control already tracks a constant reference signal exactly when $w=0$. The presence or absence of a step offset depends on both the controlled plant and the controller.

For a ramp reference signal $r=vt$, the same proportional control givesIts long-time particular solution grows with slope $v/(1+K{k}_p)$ when $v\ne 0$. Thus the controlled plant and homogeneous closed-loop response are stable, but the tracking error has no finite steady-state tracking error. A changing goal requires a different performance test from a fixed destination.

Now use proportional-integral control $u=k_{p}e+k_{i}z$, $\dot{z}=e$, with $k_i>0$. For the same controlled plant, differentiate the error equation on intervals where the inputs are smooth:The characteristic polynomial $\tau {\lambda }^2+(1+K{k}_p)\lambda +K{k}_i$ has both roots of a polynomial in the open left half-plane: real roots have negative sum and positive product, and a nonreal complex conjugate pair has negative real part. This proves decay of the homogeneous error for this model. It does not prove stability of an arbitrary controlled plant controlled by positive gains. At a reference jump, use the original ordinary differential equations to set the new initial conditions, rather than treating the reference as smooth at that jump.

With a constant reference signal and constant control disturbance, proportional-integral control therefore gives $e_{\mathrm{ss}}=0$. At its equilibrium point, $y_{\ast }=R$, $u_{\ast }=(R-d)/K$, and $z_{\ast }=(R-d)/(K{k}_i)$. The stored integral maintains the required command while the current tracking error vanishes. For a ramp reference signal, however, the forcing above is $v$, andThe tracking error settles even though the accumulated integral and the required control input grow. This finite offset is the error needed to keep increasing that command. For $r=a{t}^2/2$ with $a\ne 0$, the forcing is $\tau a+at$ and even this proportional-integral control leaves a tracking error growing with slope $a/(K{k}_i)$. Integral action is therefore a precise mechanism for selected input classes, not a promise of perfect tracking for every reference signal. ^[ref]

Here are completely explicit synthetic examples with $y(0)=z(0)=0$, $d=0$, and no sensor bias. Choose $\tau =2\mathrm{s}$, $K=1{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ per percentage point, $k_p=1$ percentage point per degree, and $k_i=0.5$ percentage points per degree-second. Thus $K{k}_p=1$ is dimensionless, and $K{k}_i=0.5{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. In the following formulas, $t$ denotes the numerical time in seconds and $y,e,r$ denote numerical temperature rises in degrees. For the unit-step reference signal $r=1$, proportional control and proportional-integral control respectively giveFor the ramp reference signal $r=0.2t$, the corresponding solutions areThe control inputs here are numerical heater-command percentage points. Substitution into $2\dot{y}+y=u$ and into the controller equations checks these solutions without invoking an unverified limiting rule. The proportional control step offset is $0.5$ degrees; the proportional-integral control step offset is zero. The proportional control ramp error grows; the proportional-integral control ramp offset is $0.4$ degrees, exactly $v/(K{k}_i)$.

The conclusions have specific limits. With constant sensor bias $b$, stable proportional-integral control for a feasible constant reference signal drives the measured tracking error to zero but leaves the physical discrepancy ${\epsilon }_{\mathrm{ss}}=b$. Under proportional control, the measured offset instead becomes $(R-b-d)/(1+K{k}_p)$. If actuator saturation prevents the required control input, zero step offset is not achievable by these formulas. A changing control disturbance contributes $-\dot{d}$ to the error equation, while feedback delay can change stability; neither is covered by the constant-disturbance result. These restrictions are what make steady-state tracking error useful: it identifies the input, measurement convention, and model for which an accuracy claim is actually justified.

For a condensate $\psi =\sqrt{n}{e}^{iS}$ with kinetic operator $-{\hslash }^2{\nabla }^2/(2m)$, its particle current is $n\mathbf{u}$ with the displayed velocity. This follows by subtracting the Gross–Pitaevskii equation from its complex conjugate. More generally, in units where the kinetic operator is $-D{\nabla }^2$, the current velocity is $2D\nabla S$. The complex argument gradient and current velocity coincide only when $D=1/2$.

A topological group is a group $G$ equipped with a topology for which both the group operation and taking an inverse element are continuous functions:Here $G\times G$ has the product topology: continuity of multiplication concerns both inputs together. Thus nearby motions compose to nearby motions, and undoing a motion also varies continuously. The definition alone does not impose compactness; we state the Hausdorff space assumption explicitly when it is needed.

The additive group $(\mathbb{R},+)$ of real numbers, with its usual topology, is a topological group: $(x,y)\mapsto x+y$ and $x\mapsto -x$ are continuous functions. Its identity element is $0$. The circle group instead uses multiplication of complex numbers on the unit circle, with the subspace topology from the complex plane:Its identity element is $1$, and its inverse element is the complex conjugate. Multiplication on the complex plane and complex conjugation are continuous functions, so their restrictions verify the required continuity. Angles add, but points multiply: a quarter-turn followed by another quarter-turn gives $i\cdot i=-1$, and the next two quarter-turns return to $1$. Ordinary addition would fail to stay on the unit circle, since $1+1=2$.

For any fixed $a\in G$, the translations $x\mapsto ax$ and $x\mapsto xa$ are homeomorphisms, with inverses given by translation by $a^{-1}$. Consequently the neighbourhoods of the identity element determine the entire topology. This is why local information near one motion can control a whole family of symmetries. See Tornier, Haar Measures, section 1.1 for these basic properties of topological groups.

For a uniform on-axis plane wave reference, choose its constant wave phase to be zero, so $R=A_R>0$. The reconstructed cross terms are then proportional to $O$ and its complex conjugate $O^{\ast }$. This pair creates the twin image in holography. An outgoing curved wavefront and its conjugate have opposite curvature: under forward propagation, one can appear to diverge from a virtual image while the other converges to a real image. In in-line holography their depths differ, but a defocused member still overlaps the other. This is the same conjugation of spatial wave phase used in phase conjugation, although a transmission hologram here launches both components forward rather than automatically creating a returning phase-conjugate mirror.

For a complex random wave amplitude, this two-point expectation retains the coherent field and uses a complex conjugate on the second amplitude. It is not a normalized wave-field correlation coefficient. Subtracting $\mathbb{E}[E(\mathbf{r})]\mathbb{E}[E({\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }){]}^{\ast }$ gives the centered covariance function. At coincident points the uncentered wave-field correlation equals the mean wave intensity. Under second-order stationarity it depends only on the separation and has a spectral measure of a stationary random field. A deterministic field is included by taking a degenerate ensemble.