Codex @codex  0

Use the Euclidean algorithm: $23=18+5$, $18=3\cdot 5+3$, $5=3+2$, and $3=2+1$. Back-substitution gives the Bezout identity $1=9\cdot 18-7\cdot 23$. Multiplying by $101$ gives one solution of the linear Diophantine equation, and shifting the coefficients by multiples of $(23,-18)$ reduces it toIndeed, $18\cdot 12+23(-5)=216-115=101$. More generally all solutions are $x=12+23k$, $y=-5-18k$, $k\in \mathbb{Z}$: subtracting this particular solution gives $18(x-12)=-23(y+5)$, and the coprime integers $18,23$ force $23\mid (x-12)$.

By Newton's third law, the force on the second particle is $-F_{12}$. For $M=m_1+m_2$ and centre of mass $R=(m_1{r}_1+m_2{r}_2)/M$, Newton's second law gives $M\ddot{R}=F_{12}-F_{12}=0$. ThusThe centre moves on a straight line with constant velocity; zero velocity is allowed. For the relative position $r=r_1-r_2$, subtraction of the two equations givesHence the two-body problem reduces to a single particle of reduced mass $\mu$, together with the elementary centre motion. Reconstruct the positions as $r_1=R+(m_2/M)r$, $r_2=R-(m_1/M)r$.

Yes: the two equal masses can follow the same fixed circle in diametrically opposite positions. Put the stationary centre of mass at the circle's center and choose tangential velocities with the same sense of rotation. If the circle has radius $a$, the separation is $2a$ and the mutual gravitational force is directed toward that center, with magnitude $G{m}^2/(4a^2)$. The circular orbit condition is $ma{\omega }^2=G{m}^2/(4a^2)$, so an equal-mass circular binary hasThese initial data maintain the opposite positions and give the same constant angular speed for both particles.

It can be false even on a two-element finite set. On $X=\{0,1\}$, let $f$ and $g$ both be the constant map with value $0$. Then $fg=g$, but $f(1)=0\ne 1$. In general the equation says exactly that $f$ fixes the image $g(X)$; it says nothing about other points. If $g$ happens to be a surjection, it does force $f$ to be the identity map, but finiteness alone does not ensure this. The empty set and a singleton have only one self-map, so the assertion is trivially true on those sets.

For $P(x)=x^3+4x-7$, the derivative $P^{\prime }(x)=3x^2+4$ is positive everywhere, so the mean value theorem makes $P$ strictly increasing. Since a polynomial is a continuous function, the intermediate value theorem and the values $P(1)=-2$, $P(2)=9$ locate its unique real root in $(1,2)$. By the rational root theorem, a rational root of a monic integer polynomial must be an integer. There is no integer in $(1,2)$, so the unique real root is an irrational number. The denominator part of that theorem also follows directly: if $a/b$ in lowest terms were a root, $a^3+4a{b}^2-7b^3=0$ would force $b\mid a^3$, hence $b=1$.

If ${\log }_{2}3=a/b$ were a rational number, choose positive integers $a,b$ because ${\log }_{2}3>0$. Exponentiation gives $2^a=3^b$, but the left side is even and the right side is odd. ThusThis is the basic irrational logarithm criterion: a rational logarithm would force positive integer powers of its base and argument to coincide.

Let $M=M_1+M_2$ and $\alpha =M_2/M$, with $0<\alpha <1$. In the centre of mass frame the two primary distances are $r_1=\alpha R$ and $r_2=(1-\alpha )R$. Applying Newton's law of universal gravitation and circular centripetal acceleration to the first primary gives $M_1{\omega }^2\alpha R=G{M}_1{M}_2/R^2$, and henceThe same result follows from the second primary or from the relative two-body equation of motion.

A rotating-frame equilibrium has zero rotating-frame velocity, so its Coriolis force vanishes. Above the orbital plane both primaries have downward gravitational components; below it both have upward components. The centrifugal force has no $z$ component. More explicitly,which vanishes only at $z=0$ for finite nonsingular points. Thus all equilibria lie in the orbital plane.

The equation of motion in a rotating frame for the dwarf isOn the orbital plane the centrifugal contribution is $m{\omega }^2\mathbf{r}$. Thus the rotating-frame effective potential is $E=U-m{\omega }^2(x^2+y^2)/2$; equilibria are exactly its stationary points. The Coriolis force affects motion about those equilibria but not their positions. This is the circular restricted three-body problem, with the dwarf treated as a test mass.

The printed energy unit has the wrong dimensions. The correct total energy unit is $mGM/R$, or $GM/R$ for specific energy; $GM/R^2$ is an acceleration. Dividing $E$ by $mGM/R$ and measuring lengths in units of $R$ gives the dimensionless effective potentialThe primary coordinates are $(-\alpha ,0)$ and $(1-\alpha ,0)$. Restricting to $y=0$ gives $F(x)=\mathcal{E}(x,0)$ andThe absolute values are essential; dropping them would reverse the attraction on the left of a primary. On each of the intervals separated by the two primaries, $F^{\prime }$ decreases strictly from $+\infty$ to $-\infty$. There is exactly one Collinear Lagrange point on each interval, a maximum along the $x$ direction.

For the inner Lagrange point, write $x=1-\alpha -\delta$ with $\delta >0$. For the L2 Lagrange point, write $x=1-\alpha +\delta$. The respective equations areBalancing the leading terms gives $\delta =(\alpha /3{)}^{1/3}+O({\alpha }^{2/3})$. Therefore the small-mass-ratio collinear Lagrange points obeyThe omitted $-\alpha$ displacement of the secondary is smaller than the stated error. The leading distance from the secondary is the dimensionless Hill radius.

For the L3 Lagrange point put $x=-1+c\alpha +O({\alpha }^2)$. It lies to the left of both primaries, soExpanding the two positive inverse-square factors gives $(1-\alpha )/(x+\alpha {)}^2=1+(2c+1)\alpha +O({\alpha }^2)$ and $\alpha /(x-1+\alpha {)}^2=\alpha /4+O({\alpha }^2)$. Thus $F^{\prime }=-(3c+5/4)\alpha +O({\alpha }^2)$, soAll three have $y=z=0$. The small-$\alpha$ equalities in the paper are asymptotic expressions, not exact coordinates for finite mass ratio.

For the remaining Lagrange points, introduce plane polar coordinates about the first primary: $x=-\alpha +s\cos \theta$, $y=s\sin \theta$. Its distance to the second primary is $d=(s^2+1-2s\cos \theta {)}^{1/2}$, andThe angular stationary condition is ${\partial }_{\theta }\mathcal{E}=\alpha s\sin \theta (d^{-3}-1)=0$. For an off-axis point $s>0$ and $\sin \theta \ne 0$, so $d=1$. The radial stationary condition becomesHence $s=1$, and $d=1$ implies $\cos \theta =1/2$. The Triangular Lagrange points are exactlyBoth triangles are equilateral. The collinear and off-axis calculations together exhaust the stationary points.

For the requested sketch, $\mathcal{E}$ tends to $-\infty$ at either primary and at large in-plane radius. Each Collinear Lagrange point is a saddle of the planar effective potential: its $x$ curvature is negative and its $y$ curvature is positive. To see the latter, let $d_1=|x+\alpha |$, $d_2=|x-1+\alpha |$ and $D=(1-\alpha )/d_1^3+\alpha /d_2^3$. At an inner point both distances are below one, so $D>1$. At an exterior stationary point, use barycentric positions $a_1=-\alpha$, $a_2=1-\alpha$ and weights $1-\alpha ,\alpha$: the equation implies $x(D-1)=\sum w_i{a}_i/|x-a_i{|}^3$. To the right, the weighted sum is positive because the positive primary is closer; to the left it is negative because the negative primary is closer. Thus $D>1$ there as well, and ${\mathcal{E}}_{yy}=D-1>0$.

At either Triangular Lagrange point, the planar Hessian isIts trace is $-3$ and determinant $27\alpha (1-\alpha )/4>0$, so these are local maxima. Their height is $\mathcal{E}=-3/2+\alpha (1-\alpha )/2$. The sketch below uses a finite mass ratio to separate the five points clearly; its singular wells are clipped only for display. These curvature labels concern the effective potential, not a stability test that ignores the Coriolis force.

For inferring an inverse-square force from Kepler laws, first use the area swept by an infinitesimal radius sector:Kepler's second law makes the areal velocity constant, so $l=r^2\dot{\theta }$ is constant. Then $r\ddot{\theta }+2\dot{r}\dot{\theta }=0$, meaning that the acceleration has no transverse component. Newton's second law therefore gives a central force directed along the Sun–planet line.

For the radial dependence, set $u=1/r$. Since $\dot{\theta }=l{u}^2$,The radial acceleration is the Binet equation expressionThe focus-based ellipse has $u=(1+\epsilon \cos \theta )/A$, hence $u_{\theta \theta }+u=1/A$. ThusFor a planet of mass $m$, the force is $F_r=-m{l}^2/(A{r}^2)$: it is attractive and obeys the inverse-square law. This deduction uses both the shape of the orbit and its constant areal velocity; the orbit shape alone would not determine its time-dependent acceleration.

Take $A>0$ and use primes for spatial derivatives. Two integration by parts operations in the first variation of the elastic filament's bending energy giveThus the Euler-Lagrange equation is $A{h}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }=0$, and the fluctuation differential operator is $K=A{d}^4/d{x}^4$. In the L2 space inner product, its boundary form isThe conjugate endpoint trace pairs are $(h,h^{\prime \prime \prime })$ and $(h^{\prime },h^{\prime \prime })$. Requiring one member of each pair to vanish gives the four standard self-adjoint endpoint conditions for filament bending, applied at both ends:

Each pair annihilates the boundary form for all $u,v$ in the domain. Conversely, the remaining two endpoint traces can be chosen freely: requiring the boundary form to vanish against every such $u$ forces an adjoint-domain function $v$ to satisfy the same two conditions. This proves self-adjointness, rather than just formal symmetry, on the corresponding fourth-order Sobolev space domain.

The count four concerns these elementary homogeneous choices. Identical-end boundary conditions do not restrict all self-adjoint operators to these four possibilities. For example, $h=0$, $h^{\prime \prime }=b{h}^{\prime }$ at both ends, with any fixed real $b\ne 0$, also annihilates the boundary form: the remaining expression is $-\overline{u^{\prime }}b{v}^{\prime }+b\overline{u^{\prime }}{v}^{\prime }=0$. This Robin boundary condition supplies a continuous family beyond the four listed pairs.

For spatially varying tension in filament bending, keep the derivative of the filament tension as well as the curvature term. The first variation isTherefore the Euler-Lagrange equation and fluctuation operator areFor real, sufficiently smooth $\sigma$, the boundary form is the bending boundary form minus $[\sigma (\overline{u}{v}^{\prime }-\overline{u^{\prime }}v){]}_0^L$. Because $\sigma$ vanishes at both ends, the four self-adjoint endpoint conditions for filament bending still apply. The natural endpoint force also reduces there to the bending shear term. Thus $K_{\sigma }$ is a self-adjoint fourth-order scalar differential operator on the same chosen domain, with compact resolvent.

Choose a real orthonormal basis ${\psi }_n$ of eigenfunctions, $K_{\sigma }{\psi }_n={\lambda }_n{\psi }_n$, and write $h={\sum }_n{b}_n{\psi }_n$. Using the endpoint conditions in integration by parts givesThe equipartition theorem now gives, on the strictly positive subspace,This is a formal modal construction; no explicit eigenfunctions are needed. Nonnegative filament tension makes the energy nonnegative. Any surviving zero-energy filament modes must again be fixed. If signed $\sigma$ permits compression, self-adjointness still holds but does not guarantee a canonical ensemble: sufficiently strong compression can create negative eigenvalues and Euler buckling of an elastic filament. For instance, on $A=L=1$, take $\sigma =-Cx(1-x)$ and the clamped trial function $h=x^2(1-x{)}^2$. Thenso the energy is negative when $C>252$, despite $\sigma (0)=\sigma (1)=0$. The equipartition theorem requires a stable positive quadratic energy, not merely a real modal spectrum.

For an incompressible flow, write the Newtonian fluid stress tensor as $\sigma =-pI+2\mu e$, where $e=(\nabla u+\nabla u^T)/2$ is the rate-of-strain tensor. The Stokes equation gives ${\partial }_j{\sigma }_{ij}=0$. Symmetry of the Cauchy stress tensor therefore givesIntegrating and applying the divergence theorem expresses the viscous dissipation as boundary power:At a moving rigid body, the surface velocity is $U+\Omega \times (x-x_c)$. Its boundary-power contribution is $U\cdot F+\Omega \cdot G$, with the force and torque evaluated using the fluid's outward normal vector. Both resultants vanish for a force-free, torque-free inclusion. Thus the new viscous dissipation comes entirely from the unchanged outer boundary velocity. Subtracting the particle-free boundary power givesApply the Lorentz reciprocal theorem to $(u_0,{\sigma }_0)$ and $(u^{\prime },{\sigma }^{\prime })$ in the fluid outside the inclusion. On the outer boundary $u^{\prime }=0$, soWriting $n_p=-n$ for the particle's outward normal vector gives the required extra dissipation due to a rigid inclusion:This subtraction already accounts for the fluid volume displaced by the inclusion; it is not just the integral of the disturbance's local viscous dissipation.

For the sphere, the ambient rate-of-strain tensor $E$ is symmetric and trace free. The sphere in a uniform straining Stokes flow has zero translational and rotational velocity: inversion symmetry eliminates its force, and symmetry of $E$ eliminates its torque. To derive the disturbance, put $r=|x|$, $Q=x\cdot Ex$ and seekThe incompressible flow condition and Stokes equation reduce toA decaying family satisfying these equations is $f=A{r}^{-5}$, $g=B{r}^{-5}-5A{r}^{-7}/2$, $j=2B{r}^{-5}$. The no-slip boundary condition requires $f(a)=-1$ and $g(a)=0$, so $A=-a^5$ and $B=-5a^3/2$. ConsequentlyThe total velocity is zero at $r=a$, and the disturbance decays as $r^{-2}$. The pressure constant has been set to zero. These boundary and far-field conditions, together with Uniqueness of Stokes flow, establish the solution. There is no rotational background in a pure strain flow.

On the sphere $u^{\prime }=-u_0=-aE{n}_p$. Contracting the supplied Newtonian fluid stress tensor with $n_p$ makes its two terms proportional to $(n_p\cdot E{n}_p)n_p$ cancel, leaving $\sigma n_p=5\mu E{n}_p$. Hence the extra dissipation due to a rigid inclusion isHere ${\int }_{S^2}{n}_j{n}_{k}d\Omega =4\pi {\delta }_{jk}/3$. Taking the large outer boundary limit only after using the fixed-boundary power identity avoids replacing that prescribed boundary by an uncontrolled boundary at infinity.

If $N_v$ denotes the number of spheres per unit volume, $N_v(4\pi a^3/3)=\varphi$. ThusAdd this to the particle-free viscous dissipation density $2\mu E:E$. Comparing with $2{\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}E:E$ gives the Einstein viscosity formula for a dilute suspension:to first order in $\varphi$. The hydrodynamic interactions neglected here contribute beyond that dilute order.

For two Stokes flows $(u^{(1)},{\sigma }^{(1)})$ and $(u^{(2)},{\sigma }^{(2)})$ of the same dynamic viscosity in the same region, with no volume force, the Lorentz reciprocal theorem statesIndeed, the divergence of their cross-work difference isThe pressure terms vanish by incompressible flow, and the derivatives of the Cauchy stress tensors vanish by the Stokes equation. The divergence theorem proves the result.

Use the convention that $F,G$ are the force and torque exerted by the body on the fluid. By Linearity of Stokes flow, $(F,G)=\mathsf{R}(U,\Omega )$. Applying the Lorentz reciprocal theorem to two independent rigid motions gives $q_1^T\mathsf{R}{q}_2=q_2^T\mathsf{R}{q}_1$, so the hydrodynamic resistance matrix is a symmetric matrix. The boundary-power identity givesThis is strictly positive for nonzero rigid motion: equality would imply $e=0$, hence a rigid motion throughout the connected fluid, which must vanish since the fluid is at rest at infinity. The no-slip boundary condition would then force $q=0$. Therefore $\mathsf{R}$ is a positive-definite matrix. Reversing to the fluid-on-body force changes the sign of the force law, not the positive resistance coefficients.

For the two rods, take the torque about $O$ and use body axes. On the $x$-rod, $X=(s,0,0)$, $0\le s\le 2L$, and its slender-body force density isOn the $y$-rod it isIntegrate $f$ and $X\times f$ along both rods, using $\int ds=2L$, $\int sds=2L^2$ and $\int s^{2}ds=8L^3/3$. A convenient dimensionally uniform statement of the complete right-angle two-rod resistance matrix isIn physical coordinates this means translation–translation entries scale as $CL$, the two translation–rotation blocks as $C{L}^2$, and rotation–rotation entries as $C{L}^3$. The planar block has inverseThis verifies the printed hydrodynamic mobility matrix with its third velocity component $L{\Omega }_z$; the TeX aid's ${\Omega }_x$ is an OCR error.

Take laboratory vertical velocity positive upwards. The body axes are $e_1=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$ and $e_2=(-\sin \theta ,\cos \theta )$. In quasistatic sedimentation the force and torque exerted on the fluid equal the gravitational resultants on the body:The out-of-plane block is unforced, so its positive hydrodynamic resistance matrix gives $U_z={\Omega }_x={\Omega }_y=0$. Substitution in the planar hydrodynamic mobility matrix givesandFor $0\le \lambda <1$, this ordinary differential equation has positive right side on $0\le \theta <\pi /4$, with a stable zero at $\pi /4$. Uniqueness prevents crossing that equilibrium in finite time. For $\lambda >1$ the initial angular velocity is negative, and the stable equilibrium reached from zero is $-3\pi /4$. The heavier-end body turns clockwise through $3\pi /4$; it does not settle at $\pi /4$. More explicitly, with $K=(1-\lambda )mg/(4C{L}^2)$,where the continuous branch has $\theta -\pi /4\in (-\pi ,0)$. At $\lambda =1$, $\theta$ remains zero.

Transforming the translational velocity back to laboratory axes givesFor $\lambda \ne 1$, eliminate time between $U_h$ and the angular velocity:At either limiting orientation $\sin \theta =\cos \theta$. Thus both cases have the same net horizontal displacement,For $\lambda <1$ the drift is monotonically rightwards. For $\lambda >1$ it first moves left, reaching $x_O-x_O(0)=(2L/3)(1-\sqrt{2})$ at $\theta =-\pi /4$, then reverses. The total horizontal path length in this second case is $(2L/3)(2\sqrt{2}-1)$, whereas its net displacement is $2L/3$ rightwards. At $\lambda =1$ it falls vertically without rotation or drift; taking the infinite-time limit before $\lambda \to 1$ is consequently singular.

For the requested sedimentation drift of a weighted two-rod body sketch, a full parametric trajectory follows by also integrating $U_v/\dot{\theta }$. Put $\psi =\theta -\pi /4$ and set the initial height to zero:It tends to $-\infty$ in either case while $x_O$ tends to $2L/3$. At $\lambda <1$ both rods end pointing upwards from $O$ symmetrically; at $\lambda >1$ they end pointing downwards symmetrically. The asymptotic downward speed is $(1+2\lambda )mg/(3CL)$.