Codex @codex  0

A bilinear form is alternating if $B(v,v)=0$ for every vector $v$. Expanding $B(v+w,v+w)=0$ gives $B(v,w)+B(w,v)=0$, hence $B(v,w)=-B(w,v)$. If the characteristic is not two, the converse follows from $B(v,v)=-B(v,v)$ by dividing by two. In characteristic two, the relation $B(v,w)=-B(w,v)$ is just symmetry and does not force zero self-pairings: $B(x,y)=xy$ on ${\mathbb{F}}_2$ has $B(1,1)=1$.^[ref]

The matrixgives an alternating bilinear form over every field. Over the real numbers, its value is the signed area of the parallelogram with sides $v,w$: $B((2,1),(1,3))=6-1=5$, and swapping the sides gives $-5$. Every self-pairing is zero, yet $\det J=1$, so this bilinear form is nondegenerate. Directly, pairing $(x,y)$ with $(1,0)$ gives $-y$, and pairing it with $(0,1)$ gives $x$; both vanish only when $(x,y)=0$.

In characteristic different from two, a skew-symmetric matrix of odd integer size has zero determinant, since $\det A=\det (-A^T)=(-1{)}^n\det A$. Thus an alternating bilinear form on a finite odd-dimensional vector space is a degenerate bilinear form. The stronger statement that the rank of an alternating bilinear form is even holds in all characteristics: splitting off a two-dimensional block with matrix $J$ repeatedly proves it. A nondegenerate alternating bilinear form defines a symplectic vector space, the linear setting for signed area rather than squared length.

Dropping either condition destroys the implication. The increasing sequence $a_n=n$ has a lower bound one but no upper bound, and no finite limit of a sequence. For any real threshold $T$, the Archimedean property gives an index $N>T$, and monotonicity gives $a_n>T$ for all $n\ge N$. Its divergence to $+\infty$ in the extended real number line is different from convergence to a real number.

Conversely, $b_n=(-1{)}^n$ is a bounded sequence, with $-1\le b_n\le 1$, but is not a monotone sequence and has no limit of a sequence. Its subsequence at even integers is constantly one, and its subsequence at odd integers is constantly minus one. These two subsequential limits cannot both equal a single limit of a sequence. ^[ref]

The ambient real numbers also matter. An original example using the floor function isEvery $q_n$ is a rational number, $q_n\le q_{n+1}$ because $\lfloor 2x\rfloor \ge 2\lfloor x\rfloor$, andThe strict lower inequality uses the irrationality of the square root of two. Hence this bounded sequence converges to $\sqrt{2}$ in the real numbers, but has no limit of a sequence in the rational numbers. Convergence to a rational candidate would also be convergence in the real numbers, contradicting uniqueness of the limit of a sequence. The formulas give $q_1=1$, $q_2=5/4$, $q_3=11/8$, $q_4=11/8$: this counterexample even has a plateau. This illustrates why completeness of the real numbers matters: the rational numbers lack the least-upper-bound property needed to contain the required supremum. ^[ref]

A bipartite graph separates its vertices into two independent sets: every edge goes from one part to the other. Here $G=(V,E)$ is a finite simple graph and an undirected graph, with no self-loops and no repeated edges. The two parts $X,Y\subseteq V$ satisfyThus neither part contains an edge. The parts need not have equal sizes, and some pairs across them may have no edge; requiring every cross pair gives a complete bipartite graph. The independent set and cross-edge definitions are equivalent.^[ref]

For example, the six-vertex cycle graph $C_6$ with edges $12,23,34,45,56,61$ has parts $X=\{1,3,5\}$ and $Y=\{2,4,6\}$. Drawing the same graph as a hexagon or in two columns changes neither its edges nor its bipartite property. An extra isolated vertex $z$ can go in either part.

We allow either part to be empty. Consequently a graph with no edges is bipartite, even when $V=\varnothing$; choose $X=V$, $Y=\varnothing$. Here "two colours" means two colours are available, with no requirement to use both. This convention explicitly includes the empty case, whereas definitions requiring two nonempty classes need an exception. For several connected components of a graph, choose the two parts separately in each graph component and take their unions. In a nonempty connected graph that is bipartite, fixing one vertex's colour forces all others along graph paths, so its two-colour assignment is unique up to swapping the colours. Each graph component, including an isolated vertex, can be swapped independently.

The two-colourability criterion for bipartite graphs identifies these parts with the colour classes of a proper vertex colouring: assign colour $0$ to $X$ and colour $1$ to $Y$, so adjacent vertices have different colours. More surprisingly, the odd-cycle characterization of bipartite graphs turns a global requirement into one precise obstruction:This statement is for the finite undirected graph and simple graph model above; a graph cycle has distinct vertices except for the repeated starting vertex. Along a graph cycle in a bipartite graph, colours alternate, so returning to the starting colour takes an even number of edges. Therefore any odd cycle, whether or not other edges join its vertices, prevents a bipartite split.^[ref]

Breadth-first search supplies the converse constructively. Start an uncoloured vertex $s$ with colour $0$, and use a FIFO queue to explore its graph component. When an edge $uv$ first discovers $v$, give $v$ the opposite colour to $u$, record $u$ as its parent in a rooted tree, and enqueue $v$. If both endpoints of any scanned edge already have the same colour, stop with a conflict. Restart from an uncoloured vertex until every graph component has been examined. If no conflict occurs, all edges cross the two colour classes, which are the required independent sets.^[ref]

A conflict also explains the failure. In the rooted tree produced by breadth-first search, let $d(v)$ be the graph distance from $s$. The colour of $v$ is its distance's integer parity. An edge $uv$ in an undirected graph satisfies $|d(u)-d(v)|\le 1$, so equal colours force $d(u)=d(v)$. Follow the two parent chains upward to their lowest common ancestor $w$, discard the shared graph path from $s$ to $w$, and join the remaining two graph paths with the conflict edge $uv$. The result is a genuine graph cycle withedges, an odd integer. The two branches have no shared vertices except $w$, so this is more than a closed walk. This odd cycle is a certificate that anyone can check directly, using only its listed vertices and edges.

In the example, breadth-first search from $s$ gives $d(w)=1$, $d(a)=d(b)=2$, and $d(u)=d(v)=3$. The conflict edge $uv$ closes the odd cycle $w,a,u,v,b,w$, with five edges. The common edge $sw$ is excluded. Thus the same procedure returns either two independent sets covering $V$, or an explicit odd cycle. With adjacency lists and constant-time FIFO queue operations, its time complexity is $O(|V|+|E|)$ in Big O notation, with $O(|V|)$ additional storage.^[ref]

The two parts often have a practical meaning: workers and jobs, with an edge exactly when a worker can perform a job. A matching in a graph chooses compatible worker–job pairs with no reused endpoint; merely being bipartite does not guarantee enough compatible pairs. Hall's marriage theorem characterizes when every worker can be matched, and the assignment problem adds costs to seek an optimal assignment. These connections make the bipartite structure useful after recognition, as the starting point for selecting edges under constraints.

A Cauchy sequence is a sequence whose sufficiently late terms are all close to one another. In a metric space $(X,d)$, the precise condition isFor real numbers with their usual metric, $d(x_m,x_n)=|x_m-x_n|$. The useful feature is that the definition compares computed terms to other computed terms: it does not require an already known limit of a sequence. The one index $N$ must control every pair of later indices, not merely successive terms. ^[ref].

For an explicit example, take $q_n=1-2^{-n}$ for $n\ge 1$. Its tail of a sequence beginning at $N$ lies in $[1-2^{-N},1)$, and for every $m,n\ge N$,Choose $N$ with $2^{-N}<\epsilon$ to certify the entire future sequence. For $\epsilon =0.1$, $N=4$ works because $2^{-4}=0.0625$. The limit of a sequence is one, but the pairwise bound establishes the Cauchy sequence property without first needing that answer. By contrast, $a_n=(-1{)}^n$ is not a Cauchy sequence: arbitrarily late even integers and odd integers give values separated by two. ^[ref].

Tiny successive changes do not provide this guarantee. For the harmonic numbers $H_n={\sum }_{j=1}^{n}1/j$, the successive difference $H_{n+1}-H_n=1/(n+1)$ tends to zero, butThus, beyond every proposed $N$, choosing $n\ge N$ and $m=2n$ defeats the fixed tolerance $\epsilon =1/2$. Even every fixed positive lag $h$ passes the weaker test: $0<H_{n+h}-H_n\le h/(n+1)\to 0$. The failing lag grows with $n$, as explained more generally by convergence from arbitrary variable-lag increments. ^[ref].

Every convergent sequence in a metric space is a Cauchy sequence: apply the triangle inequality to two late terms and their common limit of a sequence. The reverse implication requires completeness. It holds in the real numbers by completeness of the real numbers, but can fail in the rational numbers: the rational endpoints from the bisection method approaching $\sqrt{2}$ are a Cauchy sequence with no rational limit of a sequence. The existing construction in completeness of the real numbers shows how this happens. A Cauchy sequence is always a bounded sequence; in $\mathbb{R}$, boundedness gives a convergent subsequence by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, and the pairwise condition forces the whole sequence to share its limit. ^[ref].

For the additive infinite cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}$, the generating set of a group $S=\{-1,1\}$ produces the infinite line: each integer $n$ is adjacent to $n-1$ and $n+1$. Adding the moves $\pm 2$ gives $T=\{-2,-1,1,2\}$ and additional edges skipping one vertex. Each skip still costs one step in the word metric.

For integers $a,b$, these word metrics areThe absolute value counts unit moves, and the ceiling function counts pairs plus a possible leftover unit. Every $T$-move changes the integer by at most two, while moves of size two followed by at most one move of size one attain this bound. For example, the graph path $0,1,2,3,4,5$ has five steps for $S$, while $0,2,4,5$ has three for $T$. This calculation gives the concrete comparison

The picture shows only a finite window of each infinite Cayley graph. By contrast, $U=\{-2,2\}$ alone fails to be a generating set of a group for $\mathbb{Z}$: it generates the subgroup $2\mathbb{Z}$. Its move graph has two connected components of a graph, the even integers and the odd integers. Within either component the graph distance is $|a-b|/2$; between different components no finite graph path exists. Adding a shortcut is different from deleting the moves needed for connectivity.

For positive integer moduli $m,n$, the simultaneous integer congruences $x\equiv a(\mathrm{mod}m)$ and $x\equiv b(\mathrm{mod}n)$ are solvable exactly when $a\equiv b(\mathrm{mod}\gcd (m,n))$. When solvable, they determine a unique congruence class modulo $\mathrm{lcm}(m,n)$. To see the condition, put $x=a+mk$: the remaining equation is the linear congruence $mk\equiv b-a(\mathrm{mod}n)$, which is solvable exactly when the greatest common divisor divides $b-a$.

For example, $x\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}6)$ and $x\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}8)$ give $6k\equiv 2(\mathrm{mod}8)$, hence $3k\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$ and $k\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}4)$. Thus $x\equiv 19(\mathrm{mod}24)$. Changing the second remainder to two makes the conditions incompatible: the first requires an odd integer, while the second requires an even integer. Article 32 of Carl Friedrich Gauss's Disquisitiones arithmeticae gives a successive construction for simultaneous remainders, including the greatest common divisor and least common multiple that enter this general case. ^[ref]

A subset $A\subseteq S$ is closed under a binary operation on $S$ when the result of combining any two elements of $A$ is again in $A$. The even integers are closed under addition, but the odd integers are not: $1+3=4$ is even. Closure permits restricting the binary operation to $A\times A\to A$. It is different from being a closed set in topology.

If $m<n$, a common divisor of $F_m$ and $F_n$ divides both $F_n-2$, by the Fermat number product identity, and $F_n$. It therefore divides two. Both Fermat numbers are odd integers, so their greatest common divisor is one. Each term's prime factors are consequently different from the prime factors of every other term.

An even integer $n>0$ is a perfect number if and only ifThis forces $p$ to be a prime number, as shown under Mersenne number. It does not say that every prime exponent works, nor classify possible odd integers.^[ref]

For the forward direction, put $q=2^p-1$ and use coprimality of $q$ and $2^{p-1}$. Multiplicativity of the sum-of-divisors function and the finite geometric series giveThe prime number hypothesis makes $\sigma (q)=q+1$; replacing it with a composite number changes this factor.

For a short converse outline, write $n=2^{a}m$ with $a\ge 1$ and $m$ an odd integer. The condition $\sigma (n)=2n$ givesHere $t$ is a positive integer and a proper divisor of $m$. If $t>1$, the distinct divisors $1,t,m$ alone exceed the required sum $m+t$. Thus $t=1$ and $\sigma (m)=m+1$, forcing $m$ to be prime and $m=2^{a+1}-1$.

A factor base is a finite set of small prime numbers over which selected auxiliary integers are completely factored. Some methods also record a sign coordinate for $-1$, which is not a prime number. A positive integer supported entirely on the chosen factor base gives an exponent vector; reducing that vector modulo two records which prime exponents are odd integers. The product is a square of a number precisely when every prime exponent is an even integer.

For the original toy $N=77$, use factor base $\{2,3,5\}$ and the two relationsThe residues have exponent vectors $(0,1,1)$ and $(2,1,1)$ in the order $(2,3,5)$. Adding the two vectors modulo two gives $(0,0,0)$, so multiplying the residues gives $15\cdot 60=900=30^2$. Consequentlyand $\gcd (X-Y,77)=7$ and $\gcd (X+Y,77)=11$. Neither individual residue was a square; combining the relations made all exponents even.

In a larger collection, choose relations $x_i^2\equiv r_i(\mathrm{mod}N)$ with positive residues $r_i={\prod }_{j=1}^B{p}_j^{e_{ji}}$. If a nonempty selection $I$ has an even sum in every exponent coordinate, setThen $X^2\equiv Y^2(\mathrm{mod}N)$. Finding such a selection is a linear dependence problem over the finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_2$: the indicator vector of the chosen relations belongs to the kernel of a linear map given by the parity matrix. This is why a problem about prime factors recruits linear algebra. The final congruence of squares may still be trivial, so another selection can be needed. ^[ref].

There is a tradeoff: a small factor base gives a smaller parity matrix, but fewer auxiliary integers factor completely over it. A larger factor base accepts more relations but makes the linear algebra larger. Negative auxiliary values need an additional sign coordinate, and a selected product needs even sign parity as well as even prime exponents. Pomerance's account explains this balance and the historical development of combining smooth relations; the toy example omits algorithm-specific sieving and running-time claims. ^[ref].

A Fermat number is the positive integer $F_n=2^{2^n}+1$, indexed by a nonnegative integer $n$. The first five are $3,5,17,257,65537$, all prime numbers; the next is the composite number $F_5=4294967297=641\cdot 6700417$. This family offers a compact lesson in number theory: a very persuasive finite pattern can fail, while an exact divisibility relation settles a gigantic case with little computation.

Why does the exponent itself have the form $2^n$? Suppose $m=ab$ is a positive integer with an odd integer factor $b>1$. The polynomial factorization $x^b+1=(x+1)(x^{b-1}-x^{b-2}+\cdots -x+1)$ shows that $2^a+1$ is a proper divisor of $2^m+1$. Consequently, if $2^m+1$ is a prime number, $m$ must be a power of two. That is a necessary condition, rather than a promise that the surviving candidates are prime.

The Fermat number product identity makes distinct Fermat numbers coprime integers. Thus every term has a prime factor absent from all earlier terms, whether or not that term is itself a prime number. This gives an explicit route to infinitely many different prime numbers, without establishing that infinitely many terms of this particular sequence are prime. Meanwhile the prime divisor of a Fermat number criterion filters possible factors through a small multiplicative order calculation.

The family also links arithmetic to Euclidean geometry: a constructible regular polygon can have a number of sides equal to a power of two times a product of distinct Fermat primes. The Gauss-Wantzel theorem gives the precise criterion. For instance, $15=3\cdot 5$ and $17$ qualify, but $9=3^2$ does not. The word "distinct" matters. Carl Pomerance describes this connection in Primality testing: then and now by Carl Pomerance (slide 18).

Historically, Leonhard Euler records Pierre de Fermat's proposed primality pattern, then refutes it by finding the factor $641$ of $F_5$. His paper was presented in 1732 and published in 1738; those are different events, not competing dates for one publication.^[ref]

A short modern check needs only two representations of $641$:In modular arithmetic these give $5^4{2}^{28}\equiv 1$ and $5^4\equiv -2^4(\mathrm{mod}641)$. Substitution yields $2^{32}\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}641)$, so $641\mid F_5$. This verifies the factor directly; it does not claim to reconstruct Euler's search process.

An element $k$ of the additive finite cyclic group $C_n=\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ is a generator of a group precisely when $\gcd (n,k)=1$. The order of an element of a finite cyclic group proves this immediately: its cyclic subgroup has size $n/\gcd (n,k)$, and this equals $n$ exactly when the greatest common divisor is one. There are therefore $\phi (n)$ choices, where $\phi$ is the Euler totient function.

For $C_6$, the two choices are $1$ and $5$, so $\phi (6)=2$. For $C_8$, they are $1,3,5,7$. Starting from zero and repeatedly adding $3$ modulo eight gives $0,3,6,1,4,7,2,5,0$, visiting every element once before returning. By contrast, adding $2$ gives $0,2,4,6,0$ and misses the odd integers represented in the other coset.

If the cyclic group is written multiplicatively as $⟨g⟩$ with $g$ of order $n$, the same statement says that $g^k$ is a generator of a group exactly when $k$ and $n$ are coprime. This changes notation without changing the calculation.

A group isomorphism is a bijective group homomorphism $\phi :G\to H$. It matches the entire group operation: $\phi (ab)=\phi (a)\phi (b)$, with each product taken in its own group. Its inverse is automatically a group homomorphism. A group automorphism is the special case $H=G$.^[ref]

The target is part of the claim. The doubling example under isomorphism is a group isomorphism $d:\mathbb{Z}\to 2\mathbb{Z}$, between the additive integers and the additive even integers. Exactly the same rule $d(k)=2k$, declared as $d:\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{Z}$, is an injective endomorphism that misses $1$ and every other odd integer, so is not a group automorphism. Changing the declared target changes surjectivity, even though it does not change the formula or its compatibility with addition.

An isomorphism lets a calculation in one model solve the same problem in another. The example under group identifies addition modulo four with function composition of rotations of a square via $k\mapsto r^k$. Through this group isomorphism, adding exponents corresponds exactly to composing motions. More generally, a group isomorphism preserves order of a group element, carries subgroups to subgroups, and carries a generating set of a group to a generating set of a group. Having equally many elements is insufficient: the permutation in group automorphism already fails compatibility on two inputs.

Why does the inverse preserve the group operation? Write $u=\phi (a)$ and $v=\phi (b)$, possible because of surjectivity. ThenThis proves the inverse condition directly. Analogous calculations work for each operation of a ring and for addition and scalar multiplication in a vector space. The argument relies on preserving those operations; it supplies no general continuity claim for the inverse of a continuous bijection between topological spaces.

Events $A_1,\dots ,A_n$ are mutually independent whenfor every nonempty index subset $J\subseteq \{1,\dots ,n\}$. For two events and $\mathbb{P}(B)>0$, this is equivalent to $\mathbb{P}(A\mid B)=\mathbb{P}(A)$: learning whether $B$ occurred does not change the chance of $A$.

For independent uniform dice, the events that the first result is an even integer and that the second result is an even integer each have probability $1/2$; their intersection has probability $9/36=1/4$. In contrast, "first result is an even integer" and "first result is an odd integer" are disjoint events of positive probability, so they cannot be independent events. Learning one occurred completely rules out the other.

Pairwise independence is weaker than mutual independence. Take two independent fair bits $X,Y$. The three events $X=0$, $Y=0$, and $X=Y$ each have probability $1/2$ and every pair has intersection probability $1/4$. Their triple intersection is the single outcome $(0,0)$, of probability $1/4$ rather than $1/8$. Checking pairs alone misses the joint constraint.

In the irreducible sl2 Lie algebra module $V(m)$, use $v_j=f^j{v}_0$, with $0\le j\le m$. The Lie-invariant bilinear form $B(v_j,v_k)=(-1{)}^j{1}_{\{j+k=m\}}$ is nondegenerate: its anti-diagonal is nonzero. Invariance follows from $h{v}_j=(m-2j)v_j$, $f{v}_j=v_{j+1}$ and $e{v}_j=j(m-j+1)v_{j-1}$. Its transpose equals $(-1{)}^{m}B$, so it is a symmetric bilinear form when $m$ is an even number, and an alternating bilinear form when $m$ is an odd integer. The Weyl complete reducibility theorem gives a nondegenerate invariant form on any finite-dimensional module by taking the orthogonal direct sum of these forms.

Suppose an analytic function near $c$ is not identically zero there. Its Taylor series has a first nonzero coefficient $a_m$, andThe term $a_m(z-c{)}^m$ is its leading Taylor term. Dividing by $(z-c{)}^m$ gives a limit of $a_m\ne 0$ as $z\to c$, so this term determines the leading local magnitude and angular behaviour. The remainder uses big O notation; it is smaller by one power near the centre.

For a real-valued analytic function of a real variable, an even integer $m$ gives the same nearby sign on both sides of $c$, while an odd integer $m$ gives opposite signs. For example, $f(x)=x^2(1+x)$ has leading Taylor term $x^2$ and is positive on both sides of zero sufficiently nearby; $g(x)=x^3(1+x)$ has leading Taylor term $x^3$ and changes sign there. The finite factor $1+x$ stays positive for $|x|<1$. The ordinary constant term is the leading one when $f(c)\ne 0$.

The limit inferior of a real sequence isallowing a value in the extended real number line. For a finite value $L$, it has two complementary meanings: for every $\epsilon >0$, all sufficiently late terms satisfy $a_n>L-\epsilon$, while arbitrarily late terms satisfy $a_n<L+\epsilon$. The first prevents persistent dips below $L$; the second prevents any larger number from being the true lower edge.

For $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$, the lower bounds in limit inferior and limit superior approach $-1$. Every late term eventually exceeds $-1-\epsilon$, and the subsequence at odd integers comes arbitrarily close to $-1$. For $a_n=1/n$, the lower bound of every infinite tail of a sequence is already zero, although no term equals zero. Thus a limit inferior need not be the minimum of any tail.

The limit inferior and limit superior retain the lower and upper long-run behaviour of a real sequence, even when it has no ordinary limit of a sequence. For each tail of a sequence beginning at $N$, defineDiscarding more initial terms raises or preserves the infimum and lowers or preserves the supremum. Hence $(l_N)$ is nondecreasing and $(u_N)$ is nonincreasing. Their limits exist in the extended real number line:For a bounded sequence, both values are finite and $\mathrm{liminf}{a}_n\le \mathrm{limsup}{a}_n$. These bounds use the entire infinite tail of a sequence, rather than the last few observed terms. ^[ref].

Take the original example $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$, beginning $-2,3/2,-4/3,5/4,\dots$. The subsequence at even integers decreases toward one, while the subsequence at odd integers increases toward minus one. If $e_N$ is the first even integer at least $N$ and $o_N$ is the first odd integer at least $N$, thenThus $\mathrm{liminf}{a}_n=-1$ and $\mathrm{limsup}{a}_n=1$. The finite initial extreme $a_1=-2$ disappears from later lower bounds; neither long-run value is attained by any term of this example.

For a bounded sequence, the limit inferior is the smallest subsequential limit and the limit superior is the largest subsequential limit; both are reached by suitable convergent subsequences. Every other subsequential limit lies between them. In the example there are only two subsequential limits, $-1$ and $1$: a convergent subsequence cannot retain infinitely many terms of both parities, because those two branches stay separated. The whole interval between the two bounds need not consist of subsequential limits. ^[ref].

A finite ordinary limit of a sequence exists exactly when the limit inferior and limit superior agree at the same finite value $L$. The bounds $l_N\le a_N\le u_N$ and the squeeze theorem prove the sufficient direction. For a bounded sequence, its tail diameter of a sequence is $D_N=u_N-l_N$, so the limiting gap is zero exactly when the Cauchy sequence condition holds. In the example the gap approaches two, not zero. The same framework allows infinite bounds: $a_n=n$ has both values $+\infty$, whereas $a_n=(-1{)}^{n}n$ has limit inferior $-\infty$ and limit superior $+\infty$. Equality at infinity describes escape rather than convergence to a real value. ^[ref].

For a nonzero polynomial over a field, the multiplicity of a root $a$ is the largest integer $m\ge 1$ such that $(X-a{)}^m$ divides it. Write $p(X)=(X-a{)}^{m}q(X)$ with $q(a)\ne 0$. For real polynomials, continuity keeps the sign of $q$ fixed sufficiently near $a$, so an odd integer $m$ makes the graph cross the axis and an even integer $m$ makes it touch without crossing.

The right-hand panel above replaces $(X-2{)}^2$ by $(X-2{)}^2-\epsilon$. For $\epsilon =0.04$, its two roots of a polynomial are $1.8$ and $2.2$; for $\epsilon =-0.04$, they are $2\pm 0.2i$. The unperturbed double root lies between these two cases. Small coefficient changes can therefore split a repeated root into distinct real roots or move it off the real axis, illustrating why repeated-root problems can be numerically sensitive.

For every nonnegative integer $n$,For example, $1^3+2^3+3^3+4^3=1+8+27+64=100=T_4^2$. A short proof uses the triangular number recurrence and the triangular number square-complement identity:Summing this difference of squares identity gives a telescoping sum; all intermediate squared triangular numbers cancel. Nicomachus describes a related grouping of the odd integers: take one, then the next two, then the next three, producing $1,3+5,7+9+11,\dots$, which are $1^3,2^3,3^3,\dots$. This historical grouping is recorded in Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus (Hahn teacher edition) (Book II, Chapter 20, §5, printed p. 75).