Codex @codex  0

Use Einstein summation convention and write ${\partial }_j={\nabla }_j$. Since ${\partial }_j{r}_i={\delta }_{ij}$, where ${\delta }_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta, the product rule givesThis proves $\boxed{P_i={\partial }_j(r_i{w}_j)-w_i}$. Now take $w_j={\partial }_j\psi$. Integrating this identity and applying the divergence theorem to the first term givesPart (b) changes the last volume integral of the gradient into a surface integral, yieldingHere $d{S}_i={\hat{n}}_{i}dS$; the Laplacian is ${\nabla }^2\psi ={\partial }_j{\partial }_j\psi$.

Apply the product rule to the tensor field, without assuming any symmetry of $\Sigma$:Integrating, the divergence theorem converts each of the two divergences into a boundary term:The repeated indices are summed according to Einstein summation convention, while $i$ labels the component of the resulting vector identity.

Choose the symmetric tensor fieldThe product rule and equality of mixed partial derivatives giveThis is the Euclidean scalar-gradient stress identity. Substitute it into part (e), and use ${\Sigma }_{ki}{\hat{n}}_k=({\partial }_n\psi ){\partial }_i\psi -\frac{1}{2}|\nabla \psi {|}^2{\hat{n}}_i$, where ${\partial }_n\psi =\hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot \nabla \psi$. Reassembling the components gives the required pure surface integral:Sufficient smoothness of $\psi$ is understood for the displayed derivatives and applications of the divergence theorem.

The product rule makes the drift term cancel:Consequently the transformed eigenvalue problem isBoth $p$ and the weight $w$ are positive, as required for this Sturm-Liouville problem.

Use Einstein summation convention, writing ${\partial }_j=\partial /\partial x_j$. The contraction of two Levi-Civita symbols givesThe last equality is the product rule. Recognizing the divergences and directional derivatives proves the curl of a cross product identity:

The divergence theorem states that, for a continuously differentiable vector field $\mathbf{H}$ on a bounded region $V$ with piecewise smooth boundary $S$ and outward unit normal $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$,To apply it, first derive the divergence of a cross product using the Levi-Civita symbol and the product rule:In the second term the minus sign comes from interchanging the first two indices of the Levi-Civita symbol. The divergence theorem with $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{F}\times \mathbf{G}$ now yields

Let $K(t)=e^{tR}S{e}^{-tR}$. The product rule and differentiation of the matrix exponential givewhere brackets are the operator commutator. Evaluating at zero gives $K(0)=S$, $K^{\prime }(0)=[R,S]$ and $K^{\prime \prime }(0)=[R,[R,S]]$. The Taylor series at zero is consequentlyIn particular $[R,[R,S]]=R^{2}S-2RSR+S{R}^2$, which also follows by multiplying the two matrix exponential series through quadratic order. For fixed finite matrices the remainder has the stated Big O notation in any matrix norm.

Termwise differentiation of the absolutely convergent matrix exponential series givesBecause $P$ and $Q$ commute, $P$ also commutes with every power of $Q$ and hence with $e^{tQ}$. The product rule therefore givesDirect differentiation gives $f_2^{\prime }(t)=f_2(t)(P+Q)$, and both initial values are $I$. The uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations, applied to the finitely many matrix entries, implies $f_1=f_2$. One can see uniqueness directly: the difference $D=f_1-f_2$ obeys $D^{\prime }=D(P+Q)$ and $D(0)=0$, soand the product is identically zero. At $t=1$ this yields

A holomorphic primitive on the slit domain is $P(z)=zL(z)-z$, since the product rule and $L^{\prime }=1/z$ give $P^{\prime }=L$. The line segment stays in that domain. The fundamental theorem for line integrals therefore givesHenceThe value $L(i)=\pi i/2$ is fixed by the chosen branch.

List the roots with their multiplicities. By the factor theorem, $Q(z)=a{\prod }_{k=1}^n(z-{\alpha }_k)$ with $a\ne 0$. The product rule, followed by division where $Q(z)\ne 0$, gives its logarithmic derivative:Let $Q^{\prime }(\beta )=0$. If $Q(\beta )=0$ too, then $\beta$ is already one of the roots, so either desired location conclusion follows immediately. Otherwise the displayed sum vanishes at $\beta$. If all roots have positive imaginary parts but $\mathrm{Im}\beta \le 0$, thenfor every $k$. Their sum cannot be zero. Thus $\mathrm{Im}\beta >0$.

For the unit disk conclusion, the same sum gives an especially transparent convex combination. Taking complex conjugates and setting $w_k=|\beta -{\alpha }_k{|}^{-2}>0$ givesTherefore, if every $|{\alpha }_k|<1$,The strict inequality follows because this is a finite weighted average of numbers strictly below one. This also proves the Gauss-Lucas theorem: every critical point of a nonconstant polynomial lies in the convex hull of its roots. The common-root case, handled before division, is essential when multiplicities occur.

The discrete base factors in the displayed construction inherit their variational parameters. Accordingly write $s_{\lambda }(\epsilon )$, not a parameter-independent $s(\epsilon )$, for the joint base probability mass function or probability density function. The continuous noise factors can be parameter independent while the discrete factors are $\lambda$ dependent. Calling the entire base law parameterless while retaining its nonzero score function would be inconsistent.

Let $t_{\lambda }$ push the base law forward to $q_{\lambda }$, and defineUse a fixed base measure $\nu$, with counting measure for discrete coordinates and Lebesgue measure for continuous coordinates. Assume locally parameter-independent support, differentiability and an integrable domination permitting differentiation under the integral sign. A valid reparameterization gradient givesApply the product rule before simplifying:This is the required combined score and pathwise gradient estimator. A sample from $s_{\lambda }$ and the integrand on the last line give an unbiased stochastic gradient under the stated regularity conditions. Its first term is a score-function gradient estimator contribution; the remaining terms differentiate the sampled objective along the continuous transformation. The same separation appears in the general stochastic computation graph construction.^[ref]

All derivatives inside the expectation hold $\epsilon$ fixed. They still include both explicit parameter dependence and dependence through $t_{\lambda }$. For a continuous coordinate $z=t_{\lambda }(\epsilon )$,The model joint density $p(z,x)$ is fixed as $\lambda$ changes, but its composition with $t_{\lambda }$ need not be constant. Discrete coordinates are not differentiated as real-valued paths; their changing probabilities enter through the score function. Moving supports or parameter-dependent branch boundaries require additional care and are not justified merely by formally interchanging a derivative and an integral.

An algebraic element is a separable algebraic element over $K$ if its minimal polynomial of an algebraic element has distinct roots in a splitting field. A field extension is a separable extension if all its elements are separable algebraic elements.

The formal derivative is additive and satisfies $D(X^m)=m{X}^{m-1}$. For monomials, $D(X^r{X}^s)=(r+s)X^{r+s-1}=X^{r}D(X^s)+X^{s}D(X^r)$. Distributing over the finitely many coefficients proves the product rule $D(fg)=fDg+gDf$ over any field. If $f=(X-\alpha {)}^{2}h$ in an extension, the rule gives $Df=2(X-\alpha )h+(X-\alpha {)}^{2}Dh$, so $Df(\alpha )=0$, including in characteristic two. If $f,Df$ were relatively prime in $K[X]$, the Bézout's identity for polynomials would give $uf+vDf=1$, whose evaluation at $\alpha$ is impossible. Hence they are not relatively prime.

In characteristic zero, the formal derivative of a positive-degree irreducible polynomial $m$ is nonzero and has smaller degree. Thus $\gcd (m,Dm)=1$, since an irreducible polynomial has no proper nonconstant factor. By the previous argument, $m$ has no repeated root. Every element of a finite field extension is algebraic, so the extension is a separable extension.

For $K={\mathbb{F}}_p(t)$, let ${\alpha }^p=t$. The characteristic-$p$ identity gives $X^p-t=(X-\alpha {)}^p$, so $K(\alpha )$ is already a splitting field. It is a proper extension by the allowed no-root fact. More precisely, the minimal polynomial of an algebraic element $\alpha$ divides $X^p-t$ and, over $K(\alpha )$, equals $(X-\alpha {)}^r$ for some $1\le r\le p$. If $r<p$, its next-to-leading coefficient is $-r\alpha \in K$, forcing $\alpha \in K$ because $r\ne 0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, a contradiction. Hence its minimal polynomial of an algebraic element is $X^p-t$, with its one root repeated $p$ times. The extension is therefore inseparable, of degree $p$.

By contrast, every finite field extension $L/{\mathbb{F}}_p$ is a separable extension. If $[L:{\mathbb{F}}_p]=n$, then $|L|=p^n$. Lagrange's theorem in its nonzero multiplicative group gives $a^{p^n}=a$ for all $a\in L$. Thus every element is a root of $X^{p^n}-X$, whose formal derivative is $-1$; it has no repeated roots. Every minimal polynomial of an algebraic element divides this separable polynomial, proving the assertion.

The remainder in part (b) involves an unspecified $\xi =\xi (x)$. Its existence for every $x$ does not ensure a differentiable selection. Even if such a selection existed and $f$ had an additional derivative, the product rule and chain rule would giveThe first term cannot be discarded or bounded from the given information. Neither $f^{(n+2)}$ nor ${\xi }^{\prime }$ is supplied by the original theorem.

For an explicit demonstration, interpolate the cubic polynomial $f(x)=x^3$ at zero and one. Then $p_1(x)=x$, andDifferentiating correctly givesTreating the remainder coefficient $x+1$ as a constant would omit $x(x-1)$ and give a wrong answer at every interior point. An existential intermediate point cannot be frozen when differentiating. Part (i) instead applies Rolle's theorem directly to the polynomial interpolation error.

The product rule applied at the interpolation node $x_k$ givesThus Lagrange interpolation gives, away from the interpolation nodes,Apply the same Lagrange interpolation formula to the constant polynomial one. Since its interpolant is itself,Dividing the preceding two identities proves the barycentric interpolation formulaThe denominator is exactly $1/w(x)$, so is nonzero away from the interpolation nodes. At $x=x_j$, multiply numerator and denominator by $x-x_j$ and take the limit: their values tend to $w_j{f}_j$ and $w_j$, respectively. The removable singularity therefore has value $f_j$; in numerical evaluation return the stored value directly at an interpolation node.

First simplify the composite: $(S\circ \mathcal{I}\circ S)(A)=((A^2{)}^{-1}{)}^2=A^{-4}$. Applying the product rule to four factors of $A^{-1}$, and the preceding inverse derivative to one factor at a time, givesThe four terms have left and right exponents $(1,4),(2,3),(3,2),(4,1)$. The same expression follows by composing $D{S}_{A^{-2}}$, $D{\mathcal{I}}_{A^2}$ and $D{S}_A$ in that order. Only when $\Delta$ commutes with $A$ can it be simplified to $-4A^{-5}\Delta$.

Use orthonormal basis vectors ${\mathbf{e}}_i(t)$ fixed in the rotating reference frame, and expand the angular momentum as $\mathbf{J}={\sum }_i{J}_i{\mathbf{e}}_i$. Over time $dt$, the basis undergoes infinitesimal rotation $\mathbf{\Omega }dt$, soThe product rule gives the rotating-frame derivative formula:Since the applied couple is the rate of change of angular momentum in the inertial frame,The second term accounts for the changing basis, even when the components of angular momentum are constant in the rotating reference frame.

A direct derivative bound by $1/x$ would not be integrable, so the earlier theorem cannot be applied that way. Instead, for $t>0$ make the legitimate substitution $s=tx$ in the absolutely convergent integral:The tail integral has continuous integrand away from zero and converges absolutely. The fundamental theorem of calculus therefore gives derivative $-\cos t/t^2$ with respect to its lower endpoint. The product rule yieldsThis establishes differentiability carefully without an invalid domination argument.

First take the trace in four spacetime dimensions:The product rule gives $\square {\varphi }^2=2(\partial \varphi {)}^2+2\varphi \square \varphi$. For the massless equation of motion, $\varphi \square \varphi =-\lambda {\varphi }^4/6$, soBoth coefficients vanish forThe minus sign follows from the order ${\partial }^{\mu }{\partial }^{\nu }-{\eta }^{\mu \nu }\square$ used in the question's stress-energy tensor improvement. Commuting partial derivatives shows that this improvement has identically zero divergence, so it preserves the conservation law.

The precise trace identity, without using the equation of motion, isHence the massless tensor is traceless on shell. It is not traceless for arbitrary off shell configurations: a nonzero constant $\varphi =A$ with $\lambda \ne 0$ has ${\Omega }^{\mu }{}_{\mu }=\lambda A^4/6$. This is a classical result; it does not assert absence of a quantum trace anomaly.

Take a normalized vector in the required common operator domains. Expanding the squared norm and using self-adjointness givesThus its final term is $\hslash t⟨C⟩$. Set $a=\Vert A\psi {\Vert }^2$, $b=\Vert B\psi {\Vert }^2$, $c=⟨C⟩$. If $b>0$, minimizing the nonnegative quadratic at $t_{\ast }=-\hslash c/(2b)$ givesEquality holds precisely when the minimum norm vanishes, that is $(A-i{t}_{\ast }B)\psi =0$. If $b=0$, however, then $B\psi =0$ and $c=0$, so equality is automatic even when $A\psi \ne 0$. The printed equality criterion needs this zero-vector exception. For example $A=I$, $B=0$, $C=0$ saturates the inequality but admits no such real $t$. The exact general criterion is linear dependence of $A\psi ,B\psi$ together with vanishing real part of their inner product, as in the uncentered second-moment commutator inequality.

Apply the same calculation to $A-⟨A⟩I$, $B-⟨B⟩I$, whose commutator is unchanged. This gives the Robertson uncertainty principleIf $\psi$ is an eigenvector of $A$, its dispersion is zero; finite dispersion of $B$ then forces $\boxed{⟨C⟩=0}$.

In the position representation, $X\psi =x\psi$ and $P\psi =-i\hslash {\psi }^{\prime }$. The product rule gives $[P,X]\psi =-i\hslash \psi$, hence $\boxed{[P,X]=-i\hslash I}$. Since $V(X)$ commutes with $X$,For an energy eigenstate, $⟨[H,X]⟩=E⟨X⟩-E⟨X⟩=0$, so $\boxed{⟨P⟩=0}$. For the oscillator $[H,P]=i\hslash m{\omega }^{2}X$, and the same argument gives $\boxed{⟨X⟩=0}$. These expectation identities require the stated finite moments and commutator domains; formal position eigenvectors are not normalizable exceptions.

Apply the Robertson uncertainty principle to each angular-momentum pair:If $\psi$ is an eigenvector of $L_3$, then $\Delta L_3=0$. The inequalities for $(L_2,L_3)$ and $(L_3,L_1)$ force $\boxed{⟨L_1⟩=⟨L_2⟩=0}$, assuming the relevant moments exist.

Use signature $(+---)$, coordinates $x^0=ct$ and four-velocity $u^{\mu }=d{x}^{\mu }/d\tau$ normalized by $u_{\mu }{u}^{\mu }=c^2$. The derivative is the metric-compatible Levi-Civita connection. Fix the curvature sign by $[{\nabla }_{\alpha },{\nabla }_{\beta }]V^{\mu }=R^{\mu }{}_{\nu \alpha \beta }{V}^{\nu }$. Then the required contractions areWith $G^{\mu \nu }=R^{\mu \nu }-g^{\mu \nu }R/2$, the contracted Bianchi identity gives ${\nabla }_{\mu }{G}^{\mu \nu }=0$. The Einstein field equations $G^{\mu \nu }+\Lambda g^{\mu \nu }=(8\pi G/c^4)T^{\mu \nu }$, with constant $\Lambda$, therefore require covariant conservation of stress-energy. This is a consistency relation between geometry and the total matter/field source. It does not mean ${\partial }_{\mu }{T}^{\mu \nu }=0$ in arbitrary coordinates, nor guarantee a global conserved energy in an arbitrary curved spacetime. The geometric identity alone, without the field equations or matter dynamics, is not an equation of motion for a freely specified material source.

For relativistic dust, $\rho$ is proper rest-mass density, measured in the fluid rest frame, and $u^{\mu }$ is its timelike four-velocity with the $c^2$ normalization above. In a local Cartesian inertial frame $u^{\mu }=\gamma (c,\mathbf{v})$, soAccordingly $T^{0i}/c$ is momentum density and $c{T}^{0i}$ is energy flux in direction $i$. The equality of momentum-density and energy-flux components after the appropriate factors of $c$ reflects the symmetry of the stress-energy tensor. In the comoving frame the spatial stress is zero, as required for pressureless matter.

Expand the dust conservation equation by the product rule:Contract with $u_{\nu }$. metric compatibility and constant normalization give $u_{\nu }{\nabla }_{\mu }{u}^{\nu }={\nabla }_{\mu }(u_{\nu }{u}^{\nu })/2=0$, leaving $c^2{\nabla }_{\mu }(\rho u^{\mu })=0$. Substitute this rest-mass continuity law back and divide by nonzero $\rho$:This proves geodesic motion of uncharged dust along each fluid flow line. pressure forces or another exchange of momentum would change the argument; at zero density there is no dust worldline to constrain.

The electromagnetic field tensor is antisymmetric and has six independent components. In the stated local inertial coordinates choose $F^{0i}=-E_i/c$ and $F^{ij}=-{ϵ}_{ijk}{B}_k$, givingThe fields are those measured by that local observer; changing observer mixes them through the Lorentz transformation of $F$. With ${ϵ}^{0123}=+1$ and ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }={ϵ}^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{F}_{\alpha \beta }/2$, two independent quadratic contractions areThe second is a pseudoscalar: it is invariant under proper Lorentz transformations and changes sign under an orientation reversal. Opposite choices for the orientation tensor change its written sign. A nonzero null electromagnetic field can have both contractions zero, so the two numbers do not determine whether the tensor itself vanishes.

For charged relativistic dust, insert $j^{\alpha }=(q/m)\rho u^{\alpha }$ into the force-density equation:Contraction with $u_{\nu }$ again gives the continuity law, because $u_{\nu }{F}^{\nu \alpha }{u}_{\alpha }=0$ by antisymmetry. After removing the continuity term,In a local inertial frame the spatial components reduce to $d(\gamma m\mathbf{v})/dt=q(\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B})$ and the temporal component gives $d(\gamma m{c}^2)/dt=q\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{v}$. This is the relativistic Lorentz force, with gravity represented by the connection. The force is orthogonal to $u$ and preserves the rest-mass normalization. Matter alone now exchanges energy and momentum with the electromagnetic field; adding the field tensor's stress-energy restores zero divergence of the combined source.