Codex @codex  0

For two differentiable functions $f,g$ on an interval $I$, their Wronskian is the functionThe order matters: exchanging $f$ and $g$ reverses the sign. For $n$ sufficiently differentiable functions, the Wronskian is the determinant $\det (f_j^{(i-1)}(x){)}_{i,j=1}^n$.^[ref]

The Wronskian measures whether the vectors $(f(x),f^{\prime }(x))$ and $(g(x),g^{\prime }(x))$ supply independent value-and-derivative data at that point. For real-valued functions, its absolute value is the area of the parallelogram they span. If a constant linear combination $af+bg$ is zero throughout $I$, then $a{f}^{\prime }+b{g}^{\prime }=0$ too. A nonzero Wronskian at even one point makes this pair of linear equations invertible and forces $a=b=0$. Thus a nonzero Wronskian somewhere always proves linear independence of the functions on $I$.

For an explicit example, the exponential functionssolve the same homogeneous linear differential equation $y^{\prime \prime }-y^{\prime }-2y=0$ on the whole real line: substitution gives $1+1-2=0$ and $4-2-2=0$, respectively. Their Wronskian isFor the initial value problem $y(0)=2$, $y^{\prime }(0)=-1$, the linear combination $y=c_1{y}_1+c_2{y}_2$ requires $c_1+c_2=2$ and $-c_1+2c_2=-1$. Hence $c_1=5/3$, $c_2=1/3$, and $y=\frac{5}{3}{e}^{-x}+\frac{1}{3}{e}^{2x}$. The nonzero Wronskian makes the two initial conditions independently adjustable.

The stronger converse requires a common equation. Suppose $y_1,y_2$ solve $y^{\prime \prime }+p(x)y^{\prime }+q(x)y=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ on one interval $I$. Then the functions are linearly independent if and only if their Wronskian is nonzero at one point, equivalently at every point. If $W(x_0)=0$, choose constants $a,b$, not both zero, making $z=a{y}_1+b{y}_2$ satisfy $z(x_0)=z^{\prime }(x_0)=0$. The superposition principle makes $z$ a solution of a differential equation for the same equation, and the uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations forces $z$ to be identically zero. This proves linear dependence.^[ref]

For arbitrary differentiable functions, an identically zero Wronskian need not imply linear dependence. Consider, on $I=(-2,2)$,Both functions have three continuous derivatives. On each side of zero, $g$ is a constant multiple of $f$, so $W(f,g)=0$; at zero their values and first derivatives are all zero, so the Wronskian is zero there too. Nevertheless $af+bg=0$ evaluated at $x=-1$ gives $a-b=0$, while evaluation at $x=1$ gives $a+b=0$. Hence $a=b=0$: these functions are linearly independent on the whole interval. There is no single constant multiplier valid on both sides of the common zero.

These functions cannot both solve any equation $y^{\prime \prime }+p{y}^{\prime }+qy=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ throughout $(-2,2)$: even $f$ alone would contradict uniqueness because $f(0)=f^{\prime }(0)=0$ but $f$ is not identically zero. They do solve the singular equation $x^2{y}^{\prime \prime }-3x{y}^{\prime }=0$, whose leading coefficient vanishes at zero. Dividing by $x^2$ gives $p=-3/x$ only away from zero; Abel's identity cannot be applied across that point. The example pinpoints why checking the equation and its interval is essential before using a zero Wronskian to infer linear dependence.

Young's modulus is the ratio of axial stress to axial strain in uniaxial linear elasticity. For an isotropic plate, the bending rigidity is $E{t}^3/[12(1-{\nu }^2)]$, with thickness $t$ and Poisson's ratio $\nu$.

A tensile modulus experiment asks how much a specimen stretches under an axial force, while allowing its sides to contract freely. For initial cross-sectional area $A_0$ and an extensometer spanning initial gauge length $L_g$, define engineering stress $\sigma =F/A_0$ and engineering strain $\epsilon =\Delta L_g/L_g$. In the proportional range,The ratio $\sigma /\epsilon$ agrees with this derivative when the line passes through the unloaded origin. A fitted offset should not be mistaken for a material property. Young's modulus has units of pressure: $1\mathrm{Pa}=1\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. By contrast, the spring constant of a uniform tensile specimen of length $L$ is $k_s=E{A}_0/L$, with units $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Two rods made of the same material can therefore have very different spring constants while sharing Young's modulus.

The normalization removes a useful geometrical ambiguity: doubling $L$ doubles the extension at a given force, whereas doubling $A_0$ halves it. For a round specimen $A_0=\pi d^2/4$; for a rectangular one $A_0=wt$, using initial diameter $d$, width $w$ and thickness $t$. Diameter error matters twice at first order: $\delta A_0/A_0\simeq 2\delta d/d$. Specify material direction, temperature and loading rate when comparing Young's modulus. Lateral restraint changes the stress state and can prevent this experiment from measuring the uniaxial modulus.

The name commemorates Thomas Young, whose formulation of a measure of elasticity is recorded by the Royal Society. This attribution alone does not establish priority for every modern definition or experimental method.^[ref]

A smooth map between smooth manifolds with zero differential is locally constant: each target coordinate function has zero derivatives on a sufficiently small source coordinate ball. Integration along straight segments proves constancy there. Its fibers are open and closed, so a connected source makes the map constant globally.

Consider an idealized planet that is a sphere of radius $R$, illuminated by parallel sunlight of irradiance $S$, measured on a plane perpendicular to the rays. Its intercepting projected area is $\pi R^2$, whereas its total surface area is $4\pi R^2$. Therefore the incoming power averaged per unit total surface area iswhere $\alpha$ is the broadband Bond albedo. The factor four is a sphere geometry result, not an atmospheric transmission factor. Local sunlight still varies over the illuminated hemisphere and vanishes on the dark side.

Now stipulate a single spatially uniform temperature $T$, no atmosphere, no internal heating, and emissivity one for outgoing thermal radiation. This is a thermal blackbody model using the Stefan–Boltzmann law; the prescribed solar-band reflection is treated separately, so the body is not a perfect absorber at all wavelengths. Let $C>0$ be the effective heat capacity per unit surface area, in $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Conservation of energy gives the ordinary differential equationHere $F$ is net heating per unit surface area, in $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, and $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Use $\sigma =5.670374419\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-4}$, rounded from the exact constant reported by NIST. ^[ref] The uniform temperature is a model assumption: generally the surface average of $T^4$ differs from the fourth power of the surface-average temperature.

For fixed Bond albedo $\alpha$, radiative equilibrium requires $F(T_{\ast })=0$, givingWith the illustrative solar constant $S=1360\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, the global incoming average is $340\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$:

Doubling albedo here lowers the equilibrium temperature by $33.231\mathrm{K}$, rather than halving it: the absorbed fraction changes from $0.7$ to $0.4$, and thermal radiation scales as $T^4$. These stipulated Bond albedos are whole-planet examples, not measurements of bare water and ice. The model predicts neither Earth's modern surface temperature nor its response to actual climate change; it omits the greenhouse effect, spatial heat transfer and seasons.

Each fixed-albedo equilibrium is a stable equilibrium: for $T_{\ast }>0$, the derivative is $F^{\prime }(T_{\ast })=-4\sigma T_{\ast }^3<0$. A small temperature increase produces net cooling, and a small decrease produces net heating. This is the simplest expression of the stabilizing Planck feedback. Allowing albedo to fall with temperature adds a competing term, as in ice-ocean albedo feedback.