By complex exponentiation, a value of has the form
For this to equal one, its exponent must be for some . Hence a logarithm of must equal , so is positive real and
With the principal branch this is the same list; in the multivalued convention these are precisely the for which one value of equals one.
The circle is
The direction from its center to is
so the corresponding unit direction is . Moving a distance five from the center in the two directions gives
Thus the intersections are
Let have the corresponding basis vectors as columns in standard coordinates. From the PDF,
The matrix representation of a linear map in standard coordinates is . The change of basis formula therefore gives
Multiplication yields
The alternating series test says that if , , and , then converges.
To prove it, let be the partial sums. The even sums satisfy
so is increasing. The odd sums satisfy
so is decreasing. Also , so both are bounded and converge. Their difference is , hence their limits agree and the whole sequence converges.
Taking proves convergence of the alternating harmonic series. Its even partial sums lie below its limit , while its odd partial sums lie above it. Since
and
we obtain
For a proof, place all terms in a closed bounded interval . Bisect it and choose a closed half containing infinitely many terms. Continue inductively, choosing nested closed intervals
with infinitely many sequence terms and with lengths tending to zero. Choose such that . The nested interval theorem gives a unique point in every . Because both and lie in ,
Thus is a convergent subsequence.
Now suppose every convergent subsequence of the bounded sequence converges to . If did not converge to , there would be an and a subsequence satisfying
for every . This subsequence is bounded, so Bolzano--Weierstrass gives a convergent subsubsequence. By hypothesis its limit is , contradicting the displayed inequality. Hence the unique subsequential limit of a bounded sequence principle gives
Using Einstein notation and
we obtain
Thus
The scalar triple product is
Put . When , the three vectors
form the reciprocal basis to , so . Their scalar triple product is . Therefore
since the cyclic permutation preserves orientation. The identity also holds when , either by continuity or directly because the cross products are then linearly dependent.
For the given basis , the same identities give
If , dotting with gives , so the are linearly independent and hence form a basis. Moreover, , so the original basis is reciprocal to the primed basis. Uniqueness of a reciprocal basis gives
Every vector has a unique expansion , and then
This is an integer for every integer triple exactly when every is an integer. Hence all such points are
They form the reciprocal lattice in the convention without a factor of .
Using the convention of the question, the characteristic polynomial and characteristic equation are
For
one has
Direct multiplication gives
entry by entry. Thus , verifying the Cayley-Hamilton theorem for matrices.
If denotes the matrix obtained by deleting row and column , then the adjugate matrix is
For nonsingular ,
Therefore, when and are nonsingular,
The determinant is a polynomial in with leading term , so it is not the zero polynomial and has only finitely many roots. Hence one may choose smaller than every positive root, if any. Then
Each entry of is, up to sign, the determinant of an minor whose entries are affine polynomials in . The Leibniz formula for determinants therefore makes each adjugate entry a polynomial in of degree at most .
For arbitrary , choose positive sequences for which and are nonsingular. The nonsingular identity from part (b) applies to their product:
Every entry is a polynomial, hence continuous, in the matrix entries. Letting proves
for all square matrices.
Define
The Cayley-Hamilton theorem for
gives
If is nonsingular, multiplication by shows .
For arbitrary , apply the nonsingular result to for a sequence of nonzero avoiding the finitely many singular values. Both the characteristic coefficients and the adjugate entries depend polynomially on the matrix entries, so the limit gives
By the real spectral theorem, a real symmetric matrix has an orthogonal diagonalization
Writing gives
This is nonnegative for every exactly when every . Thus the quadratic-form and eigenvalue definitions of a positive semidefinite matrix agree.
When is positive semidefinite, define
This matrix is symmetric and positive semidefinite, and its square is , so it is the principal square root of a positive semidefinite matrix.
For nonsingular , the matrix is symmetric and
for every nonzero . Thus is positive definite, and
exists and is nonsingular. Let . Since is symmetric,
Hence is an orthogonal matrix and
the polar decomposition of an invertible real matrix.
In three dimensions, stretches or contracts along three mutually perpendicular eigenvector directions by its positive eigenvalues. The orthogonal map is then applied: it is a rotation when , and a rotation combined with a reflection when .
The determinant factors as
Thus for , the kernel is and the inhomogeneous system has exactly one solution.
At , row reduction gives
and the augmented matrix has the same rank two as , so there are infinitely many solutions. At ,
but the augmented matrix has rank three while has rank two, so there is no solution. Therefore the number of solutions is
Writing as a column vector, the reflection is
so its reflection matrix is
Choose the -axis along the line of intersection of the two planes. Their unit normals lie in the -plane; after choosing the -axis, take
where is the oriented angle between the planes. The two reflection matrices restrict to
on the -plane and both fix the -axis. Their product is
Thus the composition of two plane reflections is a rotation about the intersection line through angle .
A plane reflection has determinant , while a rotation matrix has determinant . The determinant of their product, in either order, is therefore . Since every rotation has determinant , such a product can never be another rotation.
The intermediate value theorem states that if is continuous and lies between and , then for some .
Let . If, for example, exceeded both and , choose strictly between and . Applying the theorem on both and would give two distinct preimages of , contradicting injectivity. The analogous argument excludes below both endpoint values. Since the three values are distinct,
Fix . If , applying the displayed betweenness property to triples containing forces the same increasing order for every pair ; an order reversal would create a triple whose middle value is not between the other two. Thus is strictly increasing. If , the same argument shows that it is strictly decreasing. This proves that every continuous bijection of the real line is monotone.
True. If , continuity of gives , and continuity of then gives
Equivalently, this is the composition of continuous functions theorem.
This can be false because a strictly increasing need not be surjective. Take
Then is strictly increasing and is continuous, while is discontinuous at zero.
True. Part (a) shows that is strictly monotone. Suppose it is increasing and let . Given ,
Choose smaller than both distances from to the two outer values. If , monotonicity forces
Thus is continuous at . The decreasing case is identical with inequalities reversed.
This can be false. The function
is a differentiable bijection of , but
has an unbounded difference quotient at zero and is not differentiable there. The inverse function theorem requires the additional local condition .
Pointwise on ,
because . To see the implication directly from the definition, every Riemann sum of the nonnegative continuous function is nonnegative, so its limit is nonnegative:
Applying the same argument to gives . By linearity, these are exactly the monotonicity of the Riemann integral bounds
Let
Continuity at zero gives . Part (a), with the positive weight , gives
The squeeze theorem therefore yields
Since is bounded on , say , the omitted tail satisfies
Adding the tail proves
The Taylor theorem with Lagrange remainder states that if is times differentiable between and , then some between and satisfies
Let denote the displayed polynomial and choose so that
satisfies . By construction,
Starting with the two zeros and applying Rolle theorem repeatedly, there is a between them with . Since
we have , proving the theorem.
Repeatedly differentiating and using , gives
Also,
so . Every derivative is one of , and hence has absolute value at most one.
Taylor's theorem at zero through degree gives
where
for each fixed . Therefore
Let . The Cauchy-Hadamard theorem, proved by applying the root test, gives a radius of convergence
with the usual conventions. For , choose eventually bounding , which gives absolute convergence by comparison with a geometric series. For , infinitely many terms have th root greater than one, so the terms fail to tend to zero and the series diverges.
Here and the assumed limit gives . Therefore
Thus
The series can be written as
The original power series converges when and diverges when . Hence its radius as a power series in is
Apply the root test to the terms :
This tends to zero when and to infinity when . On , the series converges absolutely because converges: the point lies strictly inside the original radius two. Thus the lacunary power series has radius
and in fact converges on its entire boundary circle.
Set . Then
The hypothesis that convergence and divergence both occur implies that this ordinary power series has a radius with . Since , the half-plane of convergence of an exponential power series is determined by
the series converges for and diverges for .
For the specified series,
Writing gives . The series converges absolutely when and diverges by the term test when . On , its absolute values are , so it still converges absolutely. Therefore the exact convergence set is
The homogeneous linear recurrence relation
has characteristic polynomial , so
For a particular solution, substitute . The left-hand side becomes
so matching gives and . Hence
The conditions and give and . Therefore
Differentiating the Wronskian gives
Thus , the Abel identity.
Also,
If , integration gives the reduction of order formula
For the specified equation, division by gives , so . With , an independent solution is
which is a nonzero multiple of . Hence
The conditions at give and , so
After tosses, the next total is even if either the current total is even and a tail occurs, or the current total is odd and a head occurs. Therefore
Since , subtracting the fixed point gives
Thus
The formula also covers the endpoint cases and .
Normalization of the probability density function gives
so
The expected value is
The second moment is
Therefore the variance is
For the median ,
so
For
is an ordinary point when and are analytic there, and a singular point otherwise. A singular point is regular singular when and are analytic there. These are the ordinary-point and regular-singular criteria.
For Kummer's equation, substitute
Equating the coefficient of gives
Taking ,
where is the rising factorial. Thus
Putting and simplifying gives
Therefore
For nonintegral , the powers and at zero are distinct, so these solutions are linearly independent.
When , both solutions tend to . Differentiate their difference with respect to . Writing for derivatives with respect to the second and third arguments,
Hence at one may take
as two linearly independent solutions. Their independence follows from the logarithmic term in the second solution.
With and , the chain rule gives
Hence
so the wave equation is equivalent to . Integrating in each variable gives
The initial conditions imply
Solving and integrating yields the D'Alembert formula with initial velocity
If , then both and lie outside the support interval , and every point between them does as well. All three terms therefore vanish. Thus
which is finite propagation speed.
For the finite string, differentiate its energy and use :
The fixed-end conditions hold for every , so differentiation gives . The boundary term vanishes and
Put . The first-order system is
Write
On , is strictly increasing. Moreover,
when . Thus there is one with , in addition to the fixed points at . Explicitly,
Let . Linearization at has eigenvalues satisfying
At zero, , and at , , so both endpoints are saddles. At the interior point,
so is a center. On the full angular interval there is a second center at .
The system has the conserved energy of a conservative planar phase portrait,
For , ,
The phase portrait on the cylinder consists of centers at surrounded by closed periodic-energy curves, with saddles at and the identified point . The saddle-energy contours form the separatrices between librations in the potential wells and trajectories crossing the lower barrier.
If , then and monotonicity gives no interior zero on . The point becomes a center, while remains a saddle. At , the two off-axis centers coalesce with the origin and the linearization there is degenerate.
Termwise differentiation of the matrix exponential gives
Thus satisfies and . If two solutions existed, multiplying their difference by would give a vector with zero derivative and zero initial value, proving uniqueness.
For the inhomogeneous equation, multiply by the integrating factor :
Integration and multiplication by give the variation-of-constants formula
For the stated matrix,
so
Writing with , one finds
Therefore
or explicitly
For , the conditional probability is
Hence
Because the form a partition, the law of total probability gives
Substitution proves Bayes theorem in the required form:
Urn has blue balls among balls. Averaging over the uniformly chosen urn,
The probability that both removed balls are blue is
Therefore
The first blue draw makes urns with more blue balls more likely, which explains why the conditional probability exceeds one half.
Events and are independent when
For a possible sum , let be the number of ordered die pairs with sum . Then
If , then ; otherwise it is zero. Independence for a possible sum therefore requires
so . This occurs only for , and then is valid for every . Thus
If impossible sums are admitted as events of probability zero, they are trivially independent as well.
Call the coins in the order given. Coin 1 beats the constant score of coin 2 exactly when it shows a head, so coin 1 wins with probability . Coin 2 beats coin 3 exactly when coin 3 shows a head and scores three, again with probability .
Coin 3 beats coin 1 whenever coin 3 shows a tail, or when coin 3 shows a head and coin 1 shows a tail. Its winning probability is therefore
Thus the preferences form a nontransitive cycle:
The second chooser can always select a coin that has winning probability greater than one half against the first choice. Therefore
Articles were limited to the first 100 out of 284 total.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.