ScalingStacks

Proof. [0403]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

Proof.

The μ1,μ2\mu_{1},\mu_{2} derivatives are clear. For the η¯\bar{\eta} derivative, we can apply the component form of the distributional equation (2.4) away from 𝔇\mathfrak{D}, to see

∂β1∂η¯=2​lim∫∂2v11∂η​∂η¯​d​μ1+∂2v12∂η​∂η¯​d​μ2=−12lim∫∂2w∂μ1​∂μ1dμ1+∂2w∂μ1​∂μ2dμ2=−12∂w∂μ1,\begin{split}\frac{\partial\beta_{1}}{\partial\bar{\eta}}&=2\lim\int\frac{\partial^{2}v^{11}}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}d\mu_{1}+\frac{\partial^{2}v^{12}}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}d\mu_{2}\\ &=-\frac{1}{2}\lim\int\frac{\partial^{2}w}{\partial\mu_{1}\partial\mu_{1}}d\mu_{1}+\frac{\partial^{2}w}{\partial\mu_{1}\partial\mu_{2}}d\mu_{2}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial w}{\partial\mu_{1}},\end{split}

where in the last equality we compare the asymptotic values at infinity to show there is no constant term depending on η\eta. Likewise with β2,β0\beta_{2},\beta_{0}. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.