First apply the Cantor theorem by diagonalization. If an injection existed, it would define a surjection by the unique inverse value on 's image, and by elsewhere. The set cannot equal for any , since would be equivalent to . This contradicts surjectivity. There is no injection from the power set of the real line into the real line.
For the opposite type of encoding, let , an injective map from to . Give its canonical binary expansion, choosing the terminating expansion with trailing zeros whenever two expansions exist. If the binary digits of are , define a real-number pairing by separated digits:
This uses ternary digits only , alternating the two input digit sequences. If two outputs first differ at ternary position , that difference has magnitude , while every later digit together contributes at most . Their outputs therefore differ. The digits recover both binary sequences, hence both inputs. Neither output endpoint nor occurs because the input numbers lie strictly between zero and one. Thus is an injection from into . The ternary construction avoids an unjustified decimal-interleaving argument at ambiguous expansions.
For a finite modification of the identity on the real line, let have size , and sort it uniquely as . Its finite record is . It determines completely, with the identity used outside the recorded points. Repeatedly applying the pairing gives an injection for every positive finite : take and . Encode by
Different lengths occupy disjoint intervals , and within a fixed length the record is recoverable. Hence
Indeed the cardinality is exactly that of : the functions that alter only , assigning it an arbitrary real value, give an injection in the other direction, and the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem applies.
Fermat's little theorem says that for a prime and , ; equivalently for every integer . The Wilson theorem says for a prime (and, conversely, this congruence characterizes primes among integers greater than one).
For , is a square root of minus one modulo a prime. If is odd and , Fermat's little theorem gives
so is even and . Conversely, put . Pairing with in the factorial gives . For , is even, so the Wilson theorem yields . Thus
and in the latter case supplies a solution.
For the multiplicative order assertion, divide by : , . Since and , it follows that . Minimality of the positive order excludes , hence and
In particular by Fermat's little theorem. Negative , if included, are handled by the same division using the modular inverse of .
A Fermat number in the paper has . If a prime divides , it is odd and . Squaring gives , so the order divides . It does not divide , since modulo an odd prime. Every divisor of is a power of two, so the only possibility is
If two different Fermat numbers shared a prime factor, the same element modulo that prime would have two different orders. This is impossible, proving pairwise coprimality. Also , so for every such prime is modulo . No prime modulo can occur.
A prime modulo need not occur: take . It is prime, , and . Since the order divides , the first congruence excludes every divisor of and the second excludes ; hence the order is . This is not a power of two, so is not a prime divisor of a Fermat number. The index restriction matters: the conventional extra number is outside the paper's positive- family.
For , the Lorentz transformation with coincident origins is
For two simultaneous events in , , so . Distinct spatial positions therefore generally give different times in the boosted frame: this is relativity of simultaneity.
Choose the emission events at and . After emission, the photon world lines are and . Applying the Lorentz transformation to either gives
Thus the two photons move at speed in on parallel lines whose intercepts differ by . Measuring their positions at the same after both emissions gives the photon separation under a collinear Lorentz boost:
This separation is constant. It is not the contracted distance between the stationary sources: the two emission events are not simultaneous in , and one photon has already moved when the other is emitted.
By Newton's third law, the force on the second particle is . For and centre of mass , Newton's second law gives . Thus
The centre moves on a straight line with constant velocity; zero velocity is allowed. For the relative position , subtraction of the two equations gives
Hence the two-body problem reduces to a single particle of reduced mass , together with the elementary centre motion. Reconstruct the positions as , .
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 , the separation is and the mutual gravitational force is directed toward that center, with magnitude . The circular orbit condition is , so an equal-mass circular binary has
These initial data maintain the opposite positions and give the same constant angular speed for both particles.

Pinned article: Introduction to the OurBigBook Project

Welcome to the OurBigBook Project! Our goal is to create the perfect publishing platform for STEM subjects, and get university-level students to write the best free STEM tutorials ever.
Everyone is welcome to create an account and play with the site: ourbigbook.com/go/register. We belive that students themselves can write amazing tutorials, but teachers are welcome too. You can write about anything you want, it doesn't have to be STEM or even educational. Silly test content is very welcome and you won't be penalized in any way. Just keep it legal!
We have two killer features:
  1. topics: topics group articles by different users with the same title, e.g. here is the topic for the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" ourbigbook.com/go/topic/fundamental-theorem-of-calculus
    Articles of different users are sorted by upvote within each article page. This feature is a bit like:
    • a Wikipedia where each user can have their own version of each article
    • a Q&A website like Stack Overflow, where multiple people can give their views on a given topic, and the best ones are sorted by upvote. Except you don't need to wait for someone to ask first, and any topic goes, no matter how narrow or broad
    This feature makes it possible for readers to find better explanations of any topic created by other writers. And it allows writers to create an explanation in a place that readers might actually find it.
    Figure 1.
    Screenshot of the "Derivative" topic page
    . View it live at: ourbigbook.com/go/topic/derivative
  2. local editing: you can store all your personal knowledge base content locally in a plaintext markup format that can be edited locally and published either:
    This way you can be sure that even if OurBigBook.com were to go down one day (which we have no plans to do as it is quite cheap to host!), your content will still be perfectly readable as a static site.
    Figure 5. . You can also edit articles on the Web editor without installing anything locally.
    Video 3.
    Edit locally and publish demo
    . Source. This shows editing OurBigBook Markup and publishing it using the Visual Studio Code extension.
  3. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook-media/master/feature/x/hilbert-space-arrow.png
  4. Infinitely deep tables of contents:
    Figure 6.
    Dynamic article tree with infinitely deep table of contents
    .
    Descendant pages can also show up as toplevel e.g.: ourbigbook.com/cirosantilli/chordate-subclade
All our software is open source and hosted at: github.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook
Further documentation can be found at: docs.ourbigbook.com
Feel free to reach our to us for any help or suggestions: docs.ourbigbook.com/#contact