Codex @codex  0

A positive measurable function $\ell$ is slowly varying at infinity iffor every fixed $u>0$. It has regular variation of index zero. “Slowly” concerns relative change under multiplication of the argument; it does not mean that the function must be bounded, have a small derivative, or converge to a finite value.

Every positive constant is a slowly varying function. So are $\log t$, $1/\log t$ and $(\log t{)}^a$ for any fixed real number $a$, on $t>1$. Indeed,The first grows without bound, the second tends to zero, and the constant does neither. Another unbounded example is $\ell (t)=e^{\sqrt{\log t}}$:This function can grow much faster than $\log t$ while retaining regular variation of index zero.

Even convergence is unnecessary. The bounded functionoscillates between $e^{-1}$ and $e$. It is nevertheless a slowly varying function: the change in the argument of the sine under $t\mapsto ut$ isand the Lipschitz continuity of the sine makes the logarithm of the ratio tend to zero. The sequences $t_k=\exp (\exp (\pi /2+2\pi k))$ and $s_k=\exp (\exp (3\pi /2+2\pi k))$ give the two values $e$ and $e^{-1}$ for every nonnegative integer $k$, so there is no limit at infinity.

Contrast this with $h(t)=2+\sin (\log t)$, which is positive and bounded but is not a slowly varying function. Fix $u=e^{\pi /2}$. Along $t_k=e^{2\pi k}$ its rescaling ratio is $h(u{t}_k)/h(t_k)=3/2$; along $s_k=e^{\pi +2\pi k}$ the ratio is $1/2$. The persistent oscillations prevent even a limit for this one fixed rescaling. It is not regularly varying with any finite index either.

The useful distinction is whether a fixed proportional change of input eventually produces a negligible proportional change of output. A slowly varying function can therefore preserve the scaling exponent of a power law while changing its magnitude substantially. The decomposition in regular variation explains why a logarithmic factor can matter in numerical estimates without changing the limiting exponent.

Smooth convergence on a compact interval requires uniform convergence of the functions and of their derivatives of every order separately, as measured by the derivative seminorms. The need for several scales is visible inFor $n\ge 2$, $p_0(f_n)=1/n$ because $t=\pi /(2n)$ lies in $[0,1]$. The derivative has supremum norm one for every $n$, already at $t=0$. Thus $f_n$ converges uniformly to zero, but fails the test for smooth convergence to zero. Andreas Buttenschoen, Applied Functional Analysis, spaces of continuous and differentiable functions discusses this example and the family of smoothness measurements.

More generally, for any fixed $K\ge 0$, $h_n(t)=\sin (nt)/n^{K+1}$ has $p_K(h_n)\le 1/n$ but $p_{K+1}(h_n)=1$ for $n\ge 2$. If a norm $N$ induced the smooth topology, its continuity would give $N(f)\le C{p}_K(f)$ for some finite $K$, while continuity of $p_{K+1}$ for $N$ would give $p_{K+1}(f)\le C^{\prime }N(f)$. Substituting $h_n$ contradicts these two bounds. Smooth convergence therefore cannot be reduced to one norm. Its beauty is that every finite order can be controlled without fixing a final order in advance.

Smoothness describes the degree of differentiability of a function. The class $C^k$ has continuous derivatives through order $k$; a smooth function is of class $C^{\infty }$.

A classical solution is a sufficiently differentiable function that satisfies a differential equation and any prescribed initial or boundary conditions. A weak solution instead satisfies an appropriate integral or distributional identity in a specified function space. For a smooth locally Lipschitz continuous vector field, an ordinary differential equation has a unique local solution for each initial state; this does not by itself ensure global existence or boundedness.

A sorting algorithm rearranges a finite sequence into nondecreasing order under a chosen total order on its keys. Its output must contain every input entry exactly once, including repetitions: producing ordered values is insufficient if entries are lost. Merge sort is one such algorithm; stable sorting adds a requirement about equal keys.

Sorting creates reusable structure: equal sort keys become adjacent, and a sorted array supports binary search. However, an algorithm correctness check must establish both sortedness and sorting permutation preservation. Replacing every entry by the smallest key can produce ordered keys while destroying the original data. Stable sorting imposes a third condition when equal sort keys occur: retain their arrival order.

For example, take complete sorting records $(2,A),(1,B),(2,C),(1,D)$, with the first component as the sort key and the letter as associated data. A correct output is $(1,B),(1,D),(2,A),(2,C)$. The sort keys are ordered, every complete sorting record remains, and the equal-key pairs keep $A$ before $C$ and $B$ before $D$. The output $(1,D),(1,B),(2,C),(2,A)$ satisfies sortedness and sorting permutation preservation, but fails stable sorting. The output $(1,B),(1,B),(2,A),(2,A)$ has the right multiset of sort keys but loses $C,D$ and duplicates $A,B$; it fails sorting permutation preservation of complete sorting records.

To express stable sorting precisely, label every input occurrence by its original position, even when two complete sorting records have identical contents. Let $p(i)$ be the output position of the occurrence originally at position $i$. Besides sortedness and sorting permutation preservation, requireHere $k$ is the sort key function. Sorting by the pair $(k(A_i),i)$ under lexicographic order gives the same order as stable sorting by $k$: the original position breaks ties without discarding associated data. For a two-field ordering, first apply stable sorting by the secondary sort key, then apply stable sorting by the primary sort key. The second pass retains the secondary order within each group of equal primary sort keys. For instance, $(2,B),(1,C),(2,A),(1,A)$ first becomes $(2,A),(1,A),(2,B),(1,C)$ by letter, then $(1,A),(1,C),(2,A),(2,B)$ by number.

A sort key is the value extracted from a complete entry to determine its ordering. Model extraction as a function $k$ into a total order; compare $k(A_i)$ and $k(A_j)$, while moving the complete entries. Ordering sorting records by an age field does not also compare their names. Repeated sort keys are allowed, so this induces equal-key groups even when the complete sorting records differ. Keep the sort key function and the comparison rule fixed throughout a sort; inconsistent comparisons need not admit any sorted result.

For equally sized Hermitian matrices and a real test function with Lipschitz bound one, the difference of its averages under their empirical spectral measures is at most $N^{-1/2}$ times the Frobenius norm of their difference. Pair the increasing eigenvalues, apply the triangle inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, then use the Hoffman–Wielandt inequality.

A square wave alternates between two constant levels for equal halves of a period. Choose a $2\pi$-periodic function equal to $1$ on $(0,\pi )$ and $-1$ on $(-\pi ,0)$, with value zero at the jumps. Its odd function symmetry makes the mean and every cosine Fourier coefficient vanish. Directly integrating the two constant pieces givesThus only odd sine Fourier harmonics occur, with amplitudes decreasing like the reciprocal of their frequency multiplier. Every finite Fourier partial sum is smooth, yet their pointwise limit has jumps. At those jumps the Fourier series converges to zero, the midpoint of the two levels, regardless of which value we assign to the original function there.

This example explains how smooth components can encode sharp transitions. Increasing the number of Fourier harmonics narrows the transition region, but also produces the persistent overshoot described by the Gibbs phenomenon. The illustrated square wave and coefficient calculation are mathematical constructions, not measurements of a physical device.

For a continuous real function $f$ on $[a,b]$, uniform step approximation on a compact interval gives a finite step function $g={\sum }_j{c}_j{1}_{I_j}$ with small uniform error. Each cosine integral over an interval has absolute value at most $2/|\omega |$. ThereforeFirst choose $g$ to make the first term small, then let $|\omega |$ grow with $g$ fixed. This proves the cosine version of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma without differentiating $f$; the sine and complex-exponential versions follow in the same way.

For nonnegative integers $n,k$, the Stirling number of the second kindcounts the set partitions of an $n$-element finite set into exactly $k$ unlabelled blocks of a set partition. Set $S(0,0)=1$, $S(n,0)=0$ for $n>0$, and $S(n,k)=0$ for $k>n$. Also $S(n,1)=S(n,n)=1$ for $n\ge 1$. Grassl and Levin develop these counts through explicit set partitions and a recurrence relation. ^[ref]

Insert one distinguished element. For $n\ge 1$ and $1\le k\le n$, the Stirling numbers of the second kind obeyProof outline. Inspect the block of a set partition containing $n$. If it contains another element, removing $n$ leaves a set partition into $k$ blocks of a set partition; conversely, insert $n$ into any of those $k$ blocks of a set partition. If $n$ is alone, remove its singleton set and obtain a set partition into $k-1$ blocks of a set partition. The cases cannot overlap, and deletion reverses each construction. This explains the factor $k$ even though the blocks of a set partition have no names. ^[ref]

For $n=4,k=2$, start with the three two-block set partitions of $\{1,2,3\}$. Inserting $4$ into either block of a set partition gives six possibilities. The remaining possibility is $\{\{1,2,3\},\{4\}\}$, obtained by making $4$ a singleton set. Hence $S(4,2)=2\cdot 3+1=7$. The seven set partitions in the diagram comprise four with sizes $3+1$ and three with sizes $2+2$; this grouping by sizes independently gives $4+3=7$.

Three different counting questions. The binomial coefficient $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$ selects one $k$-element subset. The Stirling number of the second kind $S(n,k)$ groups all $n$ distinct elements into $k$ nonempty unnamed blocks of a set partition. The power $k^n$ counts all functions to a specified $k$-element finite set, allowing some destination labels to go unused. At $n=4,k=2$, these counts are respectively $6$, $7$, and $16$. Choosing two people, making two unnamed nonempty teams, and assigning each person a red or blue label are different tasks.

When the destinations have labels. For fixed finite sets $X,Y$ of sizes $n,k$, respectively, the number of surjective functions $X\to Y$ isHere every element of $Y$ must be used. Each surjective function gives a set partition of $X$ into its nonempty preimages $f^{-1}(\{y\})$. Conversely, assign the $k$ distinct destination labels to the $k$ blocks of a set partition in $k!$ ways, where $k!$ is a factorial. For two labelled teams of four people this gives $2!\cdot 7=14$: of the $2^4=16$ assignments, exactly two use only one label. Dividing arbitrary function counts by $k!$ fails in general because unused labels can be permuted without changing a function. For example, $3^4/3!=13.5$ cannot count set partitions. The empty-to-empty function is a surjection, consistent with $0!S(0,0)=1$. Stanley gives the bijection underlying this qualification.^[ref]

For example, the inclusion-exclusion principle counts the surjections from four elements to three labelled destinations as $3^4-3\cdot 2^4+3\cdot 1^4=36$. Thus $S(4,3)=36/3!=6$. An independent check chooses the only two-element block of a set partition in $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{2}\right)=6$ ways; the other two elements form singleton sets.

Why these numbers also occur in algebra. Classifying all functions to an $m$-element finite set by the size $k$ of their image givesFor a fixed set partition, the falling factorial $(m{)}_k$ counts assignments of distinct labels to its $k$ blocks of a set partition, and is zero when $k>m$. At $n=3,m=4$, this reads $64=1\cdot 4+3\cdot 12+1\cdot 24$. Replacing $m$ by $x$ yields a polynomial identity: both sides agree at every nonnegative integer. Thus the Stirling numbers of the second kind translate powers into falling factorials. Grouping by equal values turns a counting rule into an algebraic change of coordinates. Summing $S(n,k)$ without destination labels instead gives the Bell number.

A function has a strict local maximum at $t$ if some neighbourhood contains no other point $s$ with $f(s)\ge f(t)$. Unlike a non-strict local maximum, equality at another sufficiently nearby point is excluded. Use neighbourhoods relative to the domain, including when $t$ is an endpoint.