summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/source/know/concept
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'source/know/concept')
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/amplitude-rate-equations/index.md20
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/bernstein-vazirani-algorithm/index.md5
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/blochs-theorem/index.md46
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/boltzmann-relation/index.md16
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/bose-einstein-distribution/index.md41
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/fermi-dirac-distribution/index.md41
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/hagen-poiseuille-equation/index.md45
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/impulse-response/index.md61
-rw-r--r--source/know/concept/lagrange-multiplier/index.md42
9 files changed, 152 insertions, 165 deletions
diff --git a/source/know/concept/amplitude-rate-equations/index.md b/source/know/concept/amplitude-rate-equations/index.md
index 0ca3248..d5eeb0d 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/amplitude-rate-equations/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/amplitude-rate-equations/index.md
@@ -9,21 +9,17 @@ layout: "concept"
---
In quantum mechanics, the **amplitude rate equations** give
-the evolution of a quantum state's superposition coefficients through time.
-They are known as the precursors for
+the evolution of a quantum state in a time-varying potential.
+Although best known as the precursors of
[time-dependent perturbation theory](/know/concept/time-dependent-perturbation-theory/),
-but by themselves they are exact and widely applicable.
+by themselves they are exact and widely applicable.
-Let $$\hat{H}_0$$ be a "simple" time-independent part
-of the full Hamiltonian,
-and $$\hat{H}_1$$ a time-varying other part,
-whose contribution need not be small:
+Let $$\hat{H}_0$$ be the time-independent part of the total Hamiltonian,
+and $$\hat{H}_1$$ the time-varying part
+(whose contribution need not be small),
+so $$\hat{H}(t) = \hat{H}_0 + \hat{H}_1(t)$$.
-$$\begin{aligned}
- \hat{H}(t) = \hat{H}_0 + \hat{H}_1(t)
-\end{aligned}$$
-
-We assume that the time-independent problem
+Suppose that the time-independent problem
$$\hat{H}_0 \Ket{n} = E_n \Ket{n}$$ has already been solved,
such that its general solution is a superposition as follows:
diff --git a/source/know/concept/bernstein-vazirani-algorithm/index.md b/source/know/concept/bernstein-vazirani-algorithm/index.md
index 5f224dc..884cca3 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/bernstein-vazirani-algorithm/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/bernstein-vazirani-algorithm/index.md
@@ -76,8 +76,9 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^N}} \sum_{x = 0}^{2^N - 1} (-1)^{s \cdot x} \Ket{x}
\end{aligned}$$
-Then, thanks to the definition of the Hadamard transform,
-a final set of $$H$$-gates leads us to:
+Then, using the definition of the Hadamard transform
+and the fact that it is its own inverse,
+one final set of $$H$$-gates leads us to:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^N}} \sum_{x = 0}^{2^N - 1} (-1)^{s \cdot x} \Ket{x}
diff --git a/source/know/concept/blochs-theorem/index.md b/source/know/concept/blochs-theorem/index.md
index 6f445f1..d7fcf90 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/blochs-theorem/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/blochs-theorem/index.md
@@ -17,85 +17,72 @@ take the following form,
where the function $$u(\vb{r})$$ is periodic on the same lattice,
i.e. $$u(\vb{r}) = u(\vb{r} + \vb{a})$$:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\psi(\vb{r}) = u(\vb{r}) e^{i \vb{k} \cdot \vb{r}}
}
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+\end{aligned}$$
In other words, in a periodic potential,
the solutions are simply plane waves with a periodic modulation,
known as **Bloch functions** or **Bloch states**.
-This is suprisingly easy to prove:
+This is surprisingly easy to prove:
if the Hamiltonian $$\hat{H}$$ is lattice-periodic,
then both $$\psi(\vb{r})$$ and $$\psi(\vb{r} + \vb{a})$$
are eigenstates with the same energy:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} \psi(\vb{r}) = E \psi(\vb{r})
\qquad
\hat{H} \psi(\vb{r} + \vb{a}) = E \psi(\vb{r} + \vb{a})
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+\end{aligned}$$
Now define the unitary translation operator $$\hat{T}(\vb{a})$$ such that
$$\psi(\vb{r} + \vb{a}) = \hat{T}(\vb{a}) \psi(\vb{r})$$.
From the previous equation, we then know that:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} \hat{T}(\vb{a}) \psi(\vb{r})
= E \hat{T}(\vb{a}) \psi(\vb{r})
= \hat{T}(\vb{a}) \big(E \psi(\vb{r})\big)
= \hat{T}(\vb{a}) \hat{H} \psi(\vb{r})
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+\end{aligned}$$
In other words, if $$\hat{H}$$ is lattice-periodic,
then it will commute with $$\hat{T}(\vb{a})$$,
i.e. $$[\hat{H}, \hat{T}(\vb{a})] = 0$$.
Consequently, $$\hat{H}$$ and $$\hat{T}(\vb{a})$$ must share eigenstates $$\psi(\vb{r})$$:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} \:\psi(\vb{r}) = E \:\psi(\vb{r})
\qquad \qquad
\hat{T}(\vb{a}) \:\psi(\vb{r}) = \tau \:\psi(\vb{r})
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+\end{aligned}$$
Since $$\hat{T}$$ is unitary,
its eigenvalues $$\tau$$ must have the form $$e^{i \theta}$$, with $$\theta$$ real.
Therefore a translation by $$\vb{a}$$ causes a phase shift,
for some vector $$\vb{k}$$:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\vb{r} + \vb{a})
= \hat{T}(\vb{a}) \:\psi(\vb{r})
= e^{i \theta} \:\psi(\vb{r})
= e^{i \vb{k} \cdot \vb{a}} \:\psi(\vb{r})
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+\end{aligned}$$
Let us now define the following function,
keeping our arbitrary choice of $$\vb{k}$$:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
u(\vb{r})
- = e^{- i \vb{k} \cdot \vb{r}} \:\psi(\vb{r})
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+ \equiv e^{- i \vb{k} \cdot \vb{r}} \:\psi(\vb{r})
+\end{aligned}$$
As it turns out, this function is guaranteed to be lattice-periodic for any $$\vb{k}$$:
-$$
-\begin{aligned}
+$$\begin{aligned}
u(\vb{r} + \vb{a})
&= e^{- i \vb{k} \cdot (\vb{r} + \vb{a})} \:\psi(\vb{r} + \vb{a})
\\
@@ -104,8 +91,7 @@ $$
&= e^{- i \vb{k} \cdot \vb{r}} \:\psi(\vb{r})
\\
&= u(\vb{r})
-\end{aligned}
-$$
+\end{aligned}$$
Then Bloch's theorem follows from
isolating the definition of $$u(\vb{r})$$ for $$\psi(\vb{r})$$.
diff --git a/source/know/concept/boltzmann-relation/index.md b/source/know/concept/boltzmann-relation/index.md
index b528adf..b3634f3 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/boltzmann-relation/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/boltzmann-relation/index.md
@@ -8,15 +8,16 @@ categories:
layout: "concept"
---
-In a plasma where the ions and electrons are both in thermal equilibrium,
-and in the absence of short-lived induced electromagnetic fields,
-their densities $$n_i$$ and $$n_e$$ can be predicted.
+In a plasma where the ions and electrons are in thermal equilibrium,
+in the absence of short-lived induced electromagnetic fields,
+the densities $$n_i$$ and $$n_e$$ can be predicted.
-By definition, a particle in an [electric field](/know/concept/electric-field/) $$\vb{E}$$
+By definition, a charged particle in
+an [electric field](/know/concept/electric-field/) $$\vb{E} = - \nabla \phi$$
experiences a [Lorentz force](/know/concept/lorentz-force/) $$\vb{F}_e$$.
This corresponds to a force density $$\vb{f}_e$$,
such that $$\vb{F}_e = \vb{f}_e \dd{V}$$.
-For the electrons, we thus have:
+For electrons:
$$\begin{aligned}
\vb{f}_e
@@ -74,10 +75,9 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
But due to their large mass,
ions respond much slower to fluctuations in the above equilibrium.
Consequently, after a perturbation,
-the ions spend more time in a transient non-equilibrium state
+the ions spend more time in a non-equilibrium state
than the electrons, so this formula for $$n_i$$ is only valid
-if the perturbation is sufficiently slow,
-such that the ions can keep up.
+if the perturbation is sufficiently slow, such that the ions can keep up.
Usually, electrons do not suffer the same issue,
thanks to their small mass and hence fast response.
diff --git a/source/know/concept/bose-einstein-distribution/index.md b/source/know/concept/bose-einstein-distribution/index.md
index e420d7c..5640e69 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/bose-einstein-distribution/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/bose-einstein-distribution/index.md
@@ -11,21 +11,22 @@ layout: "concept"
**Bose-Einstein statistics** describe how bosons,
which do not obey the [Pauli exclusion principle](/know/concept/pauli-exclusion-principle/),
-will distribute themselves across the available states
+distribute themselves across the available states
in a system at equilibrium.
Consider a single-particle state $$s$$,
which can contain any number of bosons.
Since the occupation number $$N$$ is variable,
-we turn to the [grand canonical ensemble](/know/concept/grand-canonical-ensemble/),
-whose grand partition function $$\mathcal{Z}$$ is as follows,
+we use the [grand canonical ensemble](/know/concept/grand-canonical-ensemble/),
+whose grand partition function $$\mathcal{Z}$$ is as shown below,
where $$\varepsilon$$ is the energy per particle,
-and $$\mu$$ is the chemical potential:
+and $$\mu$$ is the chemical potential.
+We evaluate the sum in $$\mathcal{Z}$$ as a geometric series:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z}
- = \sum_{N = 0}^\infty \Big( \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu)) \Big)^{N}
- = \frac{1}{1 - \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu))}
+ = \sum_{N = 0}^\infty \Big( e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)} \Big)^{N}
+ = \frac{1}{1 - e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)}}
\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding [thermodynamic potential](/know/concept/thermodynamic-potential/)
@@ -34,41 +35,45 @@ is the Landau potential $$\Omega$$, given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega
= - k T \ln{\mathcal{Z}}
- = k T \ln\!\Big( 1 - \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu)) \Big)
+ = k T \ln\!\big( 1 - e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)} \big)
\end{aligned}$$
-The average number of particles $$\Expval{N}$$
-is found by taking a derivative of $$\Omega$$:
+The average number of particles $$\expval{N}$$ in $$s$$
+is then found by taking a derivative of $$\Omega$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
- \Expval{N}
+ \expval{N}
= - \pdv{\Omega}{\mu}
= k T \pdv{\ln{\mathcal{Z}}}{\mu}
- = \frac{\exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu))}{1 - \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu))}
+ = \frac{e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)}}{1 - e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)}}
\end{aligned}$$
-By multitplying both the numerator and the denominator by $$\exp(\beta(\varepsilon \!-\! \mu))$$,
+By multiplying both the numerator and the denominator by $$e^{\beta(\varepsilon \!-\! \mu)}$$,
we arrive at the standard form of the **Bose-Einstein distribution** $$f_B$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
- \Expval{N}
+ \expval{N}
= f_B(\varepsilon)
- = \frac{1}{\exp(\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)) - 1}
+ = \frac{1}{e^{\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)} - 1}
}
\end{aligned}$$
-This tells the expected occupation number $$\Expval{N}$$ of state $$s$$,
+This gives the expected occupation number $$\expval{N}$$
+of state $$s$$ with energy $$\varepsilon$$,
given a temperature $$T$$ and chemical potential $$\mu$$.
-The corresponding variance $$\sigma^2$$ of $$N$$ is found to be:
+
+{% comment %}
+The corresponding variance $$\sigma^2 \equiv \expval{N^2} - \expval{N}^2$$ is found to be:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\sigma^2
- = k T \pdv{\Expval{N}}{\mu}
- = \Expval{N} \big(1 + \Expval{N}\big)
+ = k T \pdv{\expval{N}}{\mu}
+ = \expval{N} \big(1 + \expval{N}\!\big)
}
\end{aligned}$$
+{% endcomment %}
diff --git a/source/know/concept/fermi-dirac-distribution/index.md b/source/know/concept/fermi-dirac-distribution/index.md
index 09a3e76..2a38eb3 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/fermi-dirac-distribution/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/fermi-dirac-distribution/index.md
@@ -11,67 +11,68 @@ layout: "concept"
**Fermi-Dirac statistics** describe how identical **fermions**,
which obey the [Pauli exclusion principle](/know/concept/pauli-exclusion-principle/),
-will distribute themselves across the available states in a system at equilibrium.
+distribute themselves across the available states in a system at equilibrium.
Consider one single-particle state $$s$$,
which can contain $$0$$ or $$1$$ fermions.
Because the occupation number $$N$$ is variable,
we turn to the [grand canonical ensemble](/know/concept/grand-canonical-ensemble/),
whose grand partition function $$\mathcal{Z}$$ is as follows,
-where we sum over all microstates of $$s$$:
+where $$\varepsilon$$ is the energy of $$s$$
+and $$\mu$$ is the chemical potential:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z}
- = \sum_{N = 0}^1 \exp(- \beta N (\varepsilon - \mu))
- = 1 + \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu))
+ = \sum_{N = 0}^1 \Big( e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)} \Big)^N
+ = 1 + e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)}
\end{aligned}$$
-Where $$\mu$$ is the chemical potential,
-and $$\varepsilon$$ is the energy contribution per particle in $$s$$,
-i.e. the total energy of all particles $$E = \varepsilon N$$.
-
The corresponding [thermodynamic potential](/know/concept/thermodynamic-potential/)
is the Landau potential $$\Omega$$, given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega
= - k T \ln{\mathcal{Z}}
- = - k T \ln\!\Big( 1 + \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu)) \Big)
+ = - k T \ln\!\Big( 1 + e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)} \Big)
\end{aligned}$$
-The average number of particles $$\Expval{N}$$
-in state $$s$$ is then found to be as follows:
+The average number of particles $$\expval{N}$$
+in $$s$$ is then found by taking a derivative of $$\Omega$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
- \Expval{N}
+ \expval{N}
= - \pdv{\Omega}{\mu}
= k T \pdv{\ln{\mathcal{Z}}}{\mu}
- = \frac{\exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu))}{1 + \exp(- \beta (\varepsilon - \mu))}
+ = \frac{e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)}}{1 + e^{-\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)}}
\end{aligned}$$
-By multiplying both the numerator and the denominator by $$\exp(\beta (\varepsilon \!-\! \mu))$$,
+By multiplying both the numerator and the denominator by $$e^{\beta (\varepsilon \!-\! \mu)}$$,
we arrive at the standard form of
the **Fermi-Dirac distribution** or **Fermi function** $$f_F$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
- \Expval{N}
+ \expval{N}
= f_F(\varepsilon)
- = \frac{1}{\exp(\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)) + 1}
+ = \frac{1}{e^{\beta (\varepsilon - \mu)} + 1}
}
\end{aligned}$$
-This tells the expected occupation number $$\Expval{N}$$ of state $$s$$,
+This gives the expected occupation number $$\expval{N}$$
+of state $$s$$ with energy $$\varepsilon$$,
given a temperature $$T$$ and chemical potential $$\mu$$.
-The corresponding variance $$\sigma^2$$ of $$N$$ is found to be:
+
+{% comment %}
+The corresponding variance $$\sigma^2 \equiv \expval{N^2} - \expval{N}^2$$ is found to be:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
\sigma^2
- = k T \pdv{\Expval{N}}{\mu}
- = \Expval{N} \big(1 - \Expval{N}\big)
+ = k T \pdv{\expval{N}}{\mu}
+ = \expval{N} \big(1 - \expval{N}\big)
}
\end{aligned}$$
+{% endcomment %}
diff --git a/source/know/concept/hagen-poiseuille-equation/index.md b/source/know/concept/hagen-poiseuille-equation/index.md
index 6484631..52d3ce8 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/hagen-poiseuille-equation/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/hagen-poiseuille-equation/index.md
@@ -11,9 +11,8 @@ layout: "concept"
The **Hagen-Poiseuille equation**, or simply the **Poiseuille equation**,
describes the flow of a fluid with nonzero [viscosity](/know/concept/viscosity/)
-through a cylindrical pipe.
-Due to its viscosity, the fluid clings to the sides,
-limiting the amount that can pass through, for a pipe with radius $$R$$.
+through a cylindrical pipe: the fluid clings to the sides,
+limiting the amount that can pass through per unit time.
Consider the [Navier-Stokes equations](/know/concept/navier-stokes-equations/)
of an incompressible fluid with spatially uniform density $$\rho$$.
@@ -27,13 +26,12 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \cdot \va{v} = 0
\end{aligned}$$
-Into this, we insert the ansatz $$\va{v} = \vu{e}_z \: v_z(r)$$,
-where $$\vu{e}_z$$ is the $$z$$-axis' unit vector.
-In other words, we assume that the flow velocity depends only on $$r$$;
-not on $$\phi$$ or $$z$$.
-Plugging this into the Navier-Stokes equations,
-$$\nabla \cdot \va{v}$$ is trivially zero,
-and in the other equation we multiply out $$\rho$$, yielding this,
+Let the pipe have radius $$R$$, and be infinitely long and parallel to the $$z$$-axis.
+We insert the ansatz $$\va{v} = \vu{e}_z \: v_z(r)$$,
+where $$\vu{e}_z$$ is the $$z$$-axis' unit vector,
+and we are assuming that the flow depends only on $$r$$, not on $$\phi$$ or $$z$$.
+With this, $$\nabla \cdot \va{v}$$ trivially vanishes,
+and in the main equation multiplying out $$\rho$$ yields this,
where $$\eta = \rho \nu$$ is the dynamic viscosity:
$$\begin{aligned}
@@ -56,7 +54,7 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
= - G
\end{aligned}$$
-The former equation, for $$p(z)$$, is easy to solve.
+The former equation for $$p(z)$$ is easy to solve.
We get an integration constant $$p(0)$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
@@ -64,13 +62,12 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
= p(0) - G z
\end{aligned}$$
-This gives meaning to the **pressure gradient** $$G$$:
-for a pipe of length $$L$$,
-it describes the pressure difference $$\Delta p = p(0) - p(L)$$
-that is driving the fluid,
-i.e. $$G = \Delta p / L$$
+This gives meaning to $$G$$: it is the **pressure gradient**,
+which for a pipe of length $$L$$
+describes the pressure difference $$\Delta p = p(0) - p(L)$$
+that is driving the fluid, i.e. $$G = \Delta p / L$$.
-As for the latter equation, for $$v_z(r)$$,
+As for the latter equation for $$v_z(r)$$,
we start by integrating it once, introducing a constant $$A$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
@@ -148,8 +145,8 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
= \pi R^2 L G
\end{aligned}$$
-We would like to get rid of $$G$$ for being impractical,
-so we substitute $$R^2 G = 8 \eta \Expval{v_z}$$, yielding:
+$$G$$ is an inconvenient quantity here, so we remove it
+by substituting $$R^2 G = 8 \eta \Expval{v_z}$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
@@ -159,8 +156,8 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$
Due to this drag, the pressure difference $$\Delta p = p(0) - p(L)$$
-does work on the fluid, at a rate $$P$$,
-since power equals force (i.e. pressure times area) times velocity:
+does work on the fluid at a rate $$P$$.
+Since power equals force (i.e. pressure times area) times velocity:
$$\begin{aligned}
P
@@ -179,14 +176,14 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
= D \Expval{v_z}
\end{aligned}$$
-In conclusion, the power $$P$$,
-needed to drive a fluid through the pipe at a rate $$Q$$,
-is given by:
+In conclusion, the power $$P$$ needed to drive a fluid
+through the pipe at a rate $$Q$$ is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
P
= 8 \pi \eta L \Expval{v_z}^2
+ = \frac{8 \eta L}{\pi R^4} Q^2
}
\end{aligned}$$
diff --git a/source/know/concept/impulse-response/index.md b/source/know/concept/impulse-response/index.md
index 661ed3f..8210f5c 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/impulse-response/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/impulse-response/index.md
@@ -8,68 +8,75 @@ categories:
layout: "concept"
---
-The **impulse response** $$u_p(t)$$ of a system whose behaviour is described
-by a linear operator $$\hat{L}$$, is defined as the reponse of the system
+Given a system whose behaviour is described by a linear operator $$\hat{L}$$,
+its **impulse response** $$u_\delta(t)$$ is defined as the system's response
when forced by the [Dirac delta function](/know/concept/dirac-delta-function/) $$\delta(t)$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boxed{
- \hat{L} \{ u_p(t) \} = \delta(t)
+ \hat{L} \{ u_\delta(t) \}
+ = \delta(t)
}
\end{aligned}$$
-This can be used to find the response $$u(t)$$ of $$\hat{L}$$ to
-*any* forcing function $$f(t)$$, i.e. not only $$\delta(t)$$,
-by simply taking the convolution with $$u_p(t)$$:
+This can be used to find the response $$u(t)$$ of $$\hat{L}$$
+to *any* forcing function $$f(t)$$,
+by simply taking the convolution with $$u_\delta(t)$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
- \hat{L} \{ u(t) \} = f(t)
+ \hat{L} \{ u(t) \}
+ = f(t)
\quad \implies \quad
\boxed{
- u(t) = (f * u_p)(t)
+ u(t)
+ = (f * u_\delta)(t)
}
\end{aligned}$$
{% include proof/start.html id="proof-theorem" -%}
-Starting from the definition of $$u_p(t)$$,
+Starting from the definition of $$u_\delta(t)$$,
we shift the argument by some constant $$\tau$$,
-and multiply both sides by the constant $$f(\tau)$$:
+and multiply both sides by $$f(\tau)$$:
$$\begin{aligned}
- \hat{L} \{ u_p(t - \tau) \} &= \delta(t - \tau)
+ \hat{L} \{ u_\delta(t - \tau) \}
+ &= \delta(t - \tau)
\\
- \hat{L} \{ f(\tau) \: u_p(t - \tau) \} &= f(\tau) \: \delta(t - \tau)
+ \hat{L} \{ f(\tau) \: u_\delta(t - \tau) \}
+ &= f(\tau) \: \delta(t - \tau)
\end{aligned}$$
-Where $$f(\tau)$$ can be moved inside using the
-linearity of $$\hat{L}$$. Integrating over $$\tau$$ then gives us:
+Where $$f(\tau)$$ was moved inside thanks to the linearity of $$\hat{L}$$.
+Integrating over $$\tau$$ gives us:
$$\begin{aligned}
- \int_0^\infty \hat{L} \{ f(\tau) \: u_p(t - \tau) \} \dd{\tau}
+ \int_0^\infty \hat{L} \{ f(\tau) \: u_\delta(t - \tau) \} \dd{\tau}
&= \int_0^\infty f(\tau) \: \delta(t - \tau) \dd{\tau}
= f(t)
\end{aligned}$$
-The integral and $$\hat{L}$$ are operators of different variables, so we reorder them:
+The integral and $$\hat{L}$$ are operators of different variables, so we reorder them,
+and recognize that the resulting integral is a convolution:
$$\begin{aligned}
- \hat{L} \int_0^\infty f(\tau) \: u_p(t - \tau) \dd{\tau}
- &= (f * u_p)(t) = \hat{L}\{ u(t) \} = f(t)
+ f(t)
+ &= \hat{L} \int_0^\infty f(\tau) \: u_\delta(t - \tau) \dd{\tau}
+ = \hat{L} \Big\{ (f * u_\delta)(t) \Big\}
\end{aligned}$$
+
+Because $$\hat{L} \{ u(t) \} = f(t)$$ by definition,
+we then see that $$(f * u_\delta)(t) = u(t)$$.
{% include proof/end.html id="proof-theorem" %}
This is useful for solving initial value problems,
-because any initial condition can be satisfied
-due to the linearity of $$\hat{L}$$,
-by choosing the initial values of the homogeneous solution $$\hat{L}\{ u_h(t) \} = 0$$
-such that the total solution $$(f * u_p)(t) + u_h(t)$$
-has the desired values.
-
-Meanwhile, for boundary value problems,
-the related [fundamental solution](/know/concept/fundamental-solution/)
-is preferable.
+because any initial condition can be satisfied thanks to linearity,
+by choosing the initial values of the homogeneous solution $$\hat{L}\{ u_0(t) \} = 0$$
+such that the total solution $$(f * u_\delta)(t) + u_0(t)$$ has the desired values.
+
+For boundary value problems, there is the related concept of
+a [fundamental solution](/know/concept/fundamental-solution/).
diff --git a/source/know/concept/lagrange-multiplier/index.md b/source/know/concept/lagrange-multiplier/index.md
index 9fb61a8..6b5e3fc 100644
--- a/source/know/concept/lagrange-multiplier/index.md
+++ b/source/know/concept/lagrange-multiplier/index.md
@@ -14,18 +14,18 @@ a function $$f$$ subject to **equality constraints**.
For example, in 2D, the goal is to maximize/minimize $$f(x, y)$$
while satisfying $$g(x, y) = 0$$.
We assume that $$f$$ and $$g$$ are both continuous
-and have continuous first derivatives,
-and that their domain is all of $$\mathbb{R}$$.
+and have continuous first derivatives
+on all of $$\mathbb{R}^2$$.
-Side note: many authors write that Lagrange multipliers
+Note: many authors write that Lagrange multipliers
can be used for constraints of the form $$g(x, y) = c$$ for a constant $$c$$.
-However, this method technically requires $$c = 0$$.
-This issue is easy to solve: given $$g = c$$,
+Actually, the method requires $$c = 0$$,
+but this issue is easy to solve: given $$g = c$$,
simply define $$\tilde{g} \equiv g - c = 0$$
and use that as constraint instead.
-Before introducing $$g$$,
-optimizing $$f$$ comes down to finding its stationary points:
+So, we want to optimize $$f$$.
+If we ignore $$g$$, that just means finding its stationary points:
$$\begin{aligned}
0
@@ -36,20 +36,18 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
This problem is easy: the two dimensions can be handled independently,
so all we need to do is find the roots of the partial derivatives.
-However, adding $$g$$ makes the problem much more complicated:
+However, a constraint $$g = 0$$ makes the problem much more complicated:
points with $$\nabla f = 0$$ might not satisfy $$g = 0$$,
and points where $$g = 0$$ might not have $$\nabla f = 0$$.
The dimensions also cannot be handled independently anymore,
-since they are implicitly related by $$g$$.
+since they are implicitly related via $$g$$.
Imagine a contour plot of $$g(x, y)$$.
The trick is this: if we follow a contour of $$g = 0$$,
the highest and lowest values of $$f$$ along the way
are the desired local extrema.
-Recall our assumption that $$\nabla f$$ is continuous:
-hence *along our contour* $$f$$ is slowly-varying
-in the close vicinity of each such point,
-and stationary at the point itself.
+At each such extremum, $$f$$ must be stationary from the contour's point of view,
+and slowly-varying in its close vicinity since $$\nabla f$$ is continuous.
We thus have two categories of extrema:
1. $$\nabla f = 0$$ there,
@@ -57,7 +55,7 @@ We thus have two categories of extrema:
In other words, a stationary point of $$f$$
coincidentally lies on a contour of $$g = 0$$.
-2. The contours of $$f$$ and $$g$$ are parallel around the point.
+2. The contours of $$f$$ and $$g$$ are parallel at the point.
By definition, $$f$$ is stationary along each of its contours,
so when we find that $$f$$ is stationary at a point on our $$g = 0$$ path,
it means we touched a contour of $$f$$.
@@ -83,7 +81,7 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
Where $$\lambda$$ is the **Lagrange multiplier**
that quantifies the difference in magnitude between the gradients.
By setting $$\lambda = 0$$, this equation also handles the 1st category $$\nabla f = 0$$.
-Some authors define $$\lambda$$ with the opposite sign.
+Note that some authors define $$\lambda$$ with the opposite sign.
The method of Lagrange multipliers uses these facts
to rewrite a constrained $$N$$-dimensional optimization problem
@@ -97,8 +95,7 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
}
\end{aligned}$$
-Let us do an unconstrained optimization of $$\mathcal{L}$$ as usual,
-by demanding it is stationary:
+Look what happens when we do an unconstrained optimization of $$\mathcal{L}$$ in the usual way:
$$\begin{aligned}
0
@@ -110,14 +107,11 @@ $$\begin{aligned}
The last item in this vector represents $$g = 0$$,
and the others $$\nabla f = -\lambda \nabla g$$ as discussed earlier.
-To solve this equation,
-we assign $$\lambda$$ a value that agrees with it
-(such a value exists for each local extremum
-according to our above discussion of the two categories),
-and then find the locations $$(x, y)$$ that satisfy it.
-However, as usual for optimization problems,
+When this unconstrained problem is solved using standard methods,
+the resulting solutions also satisfy the constrained problem.
+However, as usual in the field of optimization,
this method only finds *local* extrema *and* saddle points;
-it is a necessary condition for optimality, but not sufficient.
+it represents a necessary condition for optimality, but not a sufficient one.
We often assign $$\lambda$$ an algebraic expression rather than a value,
usually without even bothering to calculate its final actual value.