R(e,0)のプロファイルはr_pにほとんど依存しない
- R(e,0)のプロファイルは、ほとんどの場合においてr_pに依存しません。
- 特定の条件では、R(e,0)のプロファイルにおいてr_pにわずかな違いが見られますが、これは特異点であり、狭い領域でのみ現れます。
- R(e,0)の微細構造を無視すると、R(e,0)はr_pに非常に弱く依存することがわかります。
- ベストアンサー
この英文の和訳をお願いします。
The second feature seen from Fig.11 is that the profile of R(e,0) does not depend significantly on r_p (for r_p=0.005 to 0.0002). Only an exception is found near e≒1, but this is, in some sense, a singular point in R(e,0), which appears in a narrow region around e≒1 ( in fact, for e=0.9 and 1.2, there is no appreciable difference between r_p=0.005 and 0.0002). Thus, neglecting such fine structures in R(e,0), we can conclude that R(e,0) does depend very weakly on r_p. In other words, the dependence on r_p of <P(e,0)> is well approximated by that of <P(e,0)>_2B given by Eq. (28). Now, we will phenomenalogically show what physical quantity is related to the peak at e≒1. We introduce the collisional flux F(e,E) for orbits with e and E, where E is the Jacobi energy given by (see Eq. (15)) E=e^2/2-(3b^2)/8+9/2. (31) The collisional flux F(e,E) is defined by F(e,E)=(2/π)∫【‐π→π】p_col(e,i=0, b(E), τ)dτ. (32) From Eqs. (11) and (31), we obtain <P(e,0)>=∫F(e,E)dE. (33) In Fig.12, F(e,E) is plotted as a function of E for the cases of e=0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. We can see from this figure that in the case of e=1 a large fraction of low energy planetesimals contributes to the collisional rate compared to other cases (even to the cases with e<1). In general, in the case of high energy a solution for the three-body problem can be well described by the two-body approximation: in other words, in the case of low energy a large difference would exist between a solution for the three-body problem and that in the two-body approximation. As shown before, this difference appears as an enhancement of the collisional rate. Thereby an enhancement factor peak is formed at e≒1 where a large fraction of low-energy planetesimals contributes to the collisional rate. よろしくお願いいたします。
- mamomo3
- お礼率68% (87/127)
- 英語
- 回答数2
- ありがとう数2
- みんなの回答 （2）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
図11からわかる二番目の特徴は、 R(e,0)のグラフは著しくr_pに依存していないということである（r_pが0.005から0.0002の場合）。唯一の例外がeが1とほぼ同形であった場合だが、これはある意味、eが１と同じがその近辺の狭い領域に現れる R(e,0)の特異なひとつの点である（事実、eが0.9と1.2の場合、r_p値0.005と0.0002の間には特筆すべき違いがない）。故にR(e,0)におけるこのような微細構造を無視すれば、R(e,0)の r_pへの依存度は非常にわずかと結論付けることができる。つまり<P(e,0)>の r_pへの依存度は、方程式(28)で与えられた <P(e,0)>_2Bのそれと概ね一致している。 さて、どういう物理量が eが1とほぼ同形でのピークに関連しているか現象学的に見てみよう。我々は e と Eをもつ軌道の為に衝突フラックス F(e,E)（※1）を導入する。Eはすでに与えられているヤコビエネルギーである（方程式15を参照）。 E=e^2/2-(3b^2)/8+9/2. (31) 衝突フラックスF(e,E)は次のように定義される。 F(e,E)=(2/π)∫【‐π→π】p_col(e,i=0, b(E), τ)dτ. (32) ※ご存知だとは思いますが、∫【‐π→π】は積分です。この場合でしたら関数 f(x) の区間 [‐π,π] における積分を意味します。 方程式(11)と(31)から次のような式が得られる。 <P(e,0)>=∫F(e,E)dE. (33) 図12でeが0, 0.5, 1.0,2.0の場合のEの関数としてF(e,E)をグラフにしている。この図から、eが1の時他の場合（eが1よりも小さい時でさえ）に比べて、低エネルギーの原始惑星の多くが衝突速度にかかわっていることが見て取れる。一般的に高エネルギーの場合、3体問題の解は概ね二体近似によって表すことが出来る。言い換えれば低エネルギーの場合、3体問題の解と二体近似の解の間には大きな開きが存在するということだ。前に示したとおり、この差は衝突速度の増大という形で現れる。これにより低エネルギーの原始惑星の多くが衝突速度にかかわることを表す増大因子のピークがeが1とほぼ同じ場所に形成されるのだ。 ※1：flux（フラックス）：単位時間に単位面積を通過していく移動量
その他の回答 (1)
- ddeana
- ベストアンサー率74% (2976/4019)
ddeanaです。訳に間違いがありました。 ×planetesimal:原始惑星→〇微惑星 お詫びして、訂正いたします。
お礼
補足していただき、大変ありがとうございます。
関連するQ&A
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
We evaluated <P(e, 0)> for 12 cases of e between 0 and 6: e=0.0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 4.0, and 6.0. As for r_p, we considered three cases: r_p=0.005, 0.001, and 0.0002. These are representative values of radii of protoplanets at the Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune orbits regions, respectively. The numbers of collision orbits found by our orbital calculation are shown in Table 3 for representative values of e. From Table 3 we can expect the statistical errors in the evaluated collisional rate to be within 5% for the cases of e≦1.5 and within 8% for e=4 and 6; they are smaller than that of the previous studies by Nishida (1983) and by Wetherill and Cox (1985). The calculated collisional rate is summarized in terms of the enhancement factor defined by Eq. (27) and shown in Fig.11, as a function of e and r_p. From Fig.11 one can see that the collisional rate is always enhanced by the effect of solar gravity, compared with that of the two-body approximation <P(e,0)>_2B. In particular, in regions where e≦1, R(e,0) is almost independent of e, having a value as large as 3. At e≦1, R(e,0) has a notable peak beyond which the enhancement factor decreases gradually with increasing e. For large values of e, i.e., e≧4, <P(e,0)> tends rapidly to <P(e,0)>_2B. As seen in the next section, we will find a similar dependence on e even in the three-dimensional case (i≠0) as long as we are concerned with cases where i≦2. お手数ですが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
5. Normalization of collisional rate First, we introduce an enhancement factor defined as the ratio of the collisional rate <P(e, i)> to that in the two-body approximation <P(e, i)>_2B: R(e, i)= <P(e, i)>/ <P(e, i)>_2B (27) The factor R(e, i) gives a measure of the collisional rate enhancement due to the effect of solar gravity. In the two-dimensional case, <P(e,0)> is given by Eq. (11) while <P(e, 0)>_2B is defined by <P(e,0)>_2B=(2/π)E(√(3/4))ρ_(2D)v, (28) where E(k) is the second kind complete elliptic integral and ρ_(2D)v is given by Eq. (3) with <e(2/2)> replaced by e^2 (note that the units are changed, i.e., v=(e^2+i^2)^(1/2) and Gm_p=3). The numerical coefficient 2E(k)/π(=0.77) is introduced so that the collisional rate <P(e,0)>_2B coincides with <P(e,0)> in the high energy limit, v→∞ (see Paper I and Greenzweig and Lissauer, 1989). In the three-dimensional case, <P(e,i)> is given by Eq. (10) while <P(e, i)>_2B by Eq. (1) with <e(2/2) > and <i(2/2)> replaced, respectively, by e^2 and i^2. It should be noticed that <P(e,i)> has the dimension per unit surface number density n_s. Then, we define <P(e,i)>_2B by nσv/n_s; (n_s/n) corresponds to twice the scale height (in the z-direction) of a swarm of planetesimals. Usually, the scale height is taken to be i*a_0* (i.e., i, in the units here). As in the two-dimensional case, we require that <P(e,i)>_2B must coincide with <P(e,i)> in the high energy limit. Then, by introducing the numerical coefficient (2/π)^2E(k) (=0.49~0.64) (see Paper I), we have <P(e,i)>_2B=(2/π)^2E(k)πr_p^2{1+(6/(r_p(e^2+i^2)) }(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2i), (29) with k^2=3e^2/4(e^2+i^2). (30) 6. The collisional rate for the two-dimensional case In this section, we concentrate on the collisional rate for the two-dimensional case where i=0. In this case, the small degrees of freedom of relative motion allow us to investigate in detail behaviors of orbital motion: it is sufficient to find collision orbits only in the b-τ two-dimensional phase space for each e, as seen in Eq. (11). 長文ですが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
The numbers of collision orbits found in the present calculations are shown in Table 4 for the representative sets of (e,i). From these numbers we can expect the magnitude of statistical error in the evaluation of <P(e,i)> to be a few percent for small e, i and within 10% for large e, i for r_p=0.005 are shown in Table 5, together with those of the two-dimensional case. Interpolating these values, we have obtained the contour of <P(e,i)> and R(e,i) on the e-I plane. They are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. From Fig. 15 we can read out the general properties of the collisional rate in the three-dimensional case: (i) <P(e,i)> is enhanced over <P(e,i)>_2B except for small e and i, (ii) <P(e,i)> reduces to <P(e,i)>_2B for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4, and (iii) there are two peaks in R(e,i) near regions where e≒1 (i<1) and where i≒3 (e<0.1): the peak value is at most as large as 5. In the vicinity of small v(=(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)) and i, R(e,i) rapidly reduces to zero. This is due to a singularity of <P(e,i)>_2B at v=0 and i=0 in the ordinary expression given by Eq. (29) and hence unphysical; the behavior of collisional rate in the vicinity of small v and i will be discussed in detail later. Thus, we are able to assert, more strongly, the property (i) mentioned in the last paragraph: that is, solar gravity always enhances the collisional rate over that of the two-body approximation. One of the remarkable features of R(e,i) found in Fig. 15 is the property (ii). That is, the collisional rate between Keplerian particles is well described by the two-body approximation, for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4. This is corresponding to the two-dimensional result that R(e,0)≒1 for e≧4. よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
To avoid this difficulty, we consider the scale height to be (i+αr_G) rather than i, where α is a numerical factor; α must have a value of the order of 10 to be consistent with Eq. (35). For the requirements that in the limit of i=0, <P(e,i)>_2B has to naturally tend to <P(e,0)>_2B given by Eq. (28), we put the modified collisional rate in the two-body approximation to be <P(e,i)>_2B=Cπr_p^2{1+6/(r_p(e^2+i^2))}(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2(i+ατ_G)) (36) with C=((2/π)^2){E(k)(1-x)+2αE(√(3/4))x}, (37) where x is a variable which reduces to zero for i>>αr_G and to unity for i<<αr_G. The above equation reduces to Eq. (29) when i>>αr_G while it tends to the expression of the two-dimensional case (28) for i<<αr_G. Taking α to be 10 and x to be exp(-i/(αr_G)), <P(e,i)> scaled by Eq. (36) is shown in Fig. 17. Indeed, the modified <P(e,i)>_2B approximates <P(e,i)> within a factor of 5 in whole regions of the e-I plane, especially it is exact in the high energy limit (v→∞). However, two peaks remain at e≒1 and i≒3, which are closely related to the peculiar features of the three-body problem and hence cannot be reproduced by Eq. (36). Fig. 16a and b. Behaviors of r_min(i,b): a i=0, b i=2, 2.5, and 3.0. The level of the planetary radius (r_p=0.005) is denoted by a dashed line. Fig. 17. Contours of <P(e,i)> normalized by the modified <P(e,i)>_2B given by Eq. (36). Fig. 16a and b.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=4940423993.jpg Fig. 17.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=5825412982.jpg よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
In Fig.13, we compare our results with those of Nishiida (1983) and Wetherill and Cox (1985). Nishida studied the collision probability in the two-dimensional problem for the two cases: e=0 and 4. For the case of e=0, his result (renormalized so as to coincide with our present definition) agrees accurately with ours. But for e=4, his collisional rate is about 1.5 times as large as ours; it seems that the discrepancy comes from the fact that he did not try to compute a sufficient number of orbits for e=4, thus introducing a relatively large statistical error. The results of Wetherill and Cox are summarized in terms of v/v_e where v is the relative velocity at infinity and v_e the escape velocity from the protoplanet, while our results are in terms of e and i. Therefore we cannot compare our results exactly with theirs. If we adopt Eq. (2) as the relative velocity, we have (of course, i=0 in this case) (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≒34(ρ/3gcm^-3)^(1/6)(a_0*/1AU)^(1/2)(v/v_e). (34) According to Eq. (34), their results are rediscribed in Fig.13. From this figure it follows that their results almost coincide with ours within a statistical uncertainty of their evaluation. 7. The collisional rate for the three-dimensional case Now, we take up a general case where i≠0. In this case, we selected 67 sets of (e,i), covering regions of 0.01≦i≦4 and 0≦e≦4 in the e-i diagram, and calculated a number of orbits with various b, τ,and ω for each set of (e,i). We evaluated R(e,i) for r_p=0.001 and 0.005 (for r_p=0.0002 we have not obtained a sufficient number of collision orbits), and found again its weak dependence on r_p (except for singular points, e.g., (e,i)=(0,3.0)) for such values of r_p. Hence almost all results of calculations will be presented for r_p=0.005 (i.e., at the Earth orbit) here. Fig.13. Comparison of the two-dimensional enhancement factor R(e,0) with those of Nishida (1983) and those of Wetherill and Cox (1985).Their results are renormalized so as to coincide with our definition of R(e,0). 長文ですが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
Finally, we will add a comment on comparison of our result with those of Wetherill and Cox (1985). Wetherill and Cox examined three-dimensional calculation for a swarm of planetesimals with a special distribution, i.e., e_2 has one value and i_2 is distributed randomly between 0.3e_2 and 0.7e_2 (<i_2>=e_2/2) while e_1=i_1=0, which corresponds, in our notation of Eq. (9), to <n_2>={n_sδ(e_2-e)δ(i_2-i)/0.4π^2e(2/2) for 0.3e_2<i_2<0.7e_2, {0 otherwise. (38) Integrating <P(e,i)> with above <n_2> according to Eq. (9), we compare our results with theirs. Figure 18 shows that their results almost agree with ours (the slight quantitative difference may come from the difference in definition of the enhancement factor); but their results contain a large statistical uncertainty because they calculated only 10~35 collision orbits for each set of e and i while 100~6000 collision orbits were found in our calculation (see Table 4). Furthermore, our results are more general than theirs in the sense that their calculations are restricted to the special distribution of planetesimals as mentioned above, while the collisional rate for an arbitrary planetesimal distribution can be deduced from our results. 8. Concluding remarks Based on the efficient numerical procedures to find collision orbits developed in Sect. 2 to 4, we have evaluated numerically the collisional rate defined by Eq. (10). The results are summarized as follows: (i) the collisional rate <P(e,i)> is like that in the two-dimensional case for i≦0.1 (when e≦0.2) and i≦0.02/e (when e≧0.2), (ii) except for such two-dimensional region, <P(e,i)> is always enhanced by the solar gravity, (iii) <P(e,i)> reduces to <P(e,i)>_2B for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4, where <P(e,i)>_2B is the collisional rate in the two-body approximation, and (iv) there are two notable peaks in <P(e,i)>/<P(e,i)>_2B at e≒1 (i<1) and i≒3 (e<0.1); but the peak value is at most 4 to 5. From the present numerical evaluation of <P(e,i)>, we have also found an approximate formula for <P(e,i)>, which can reproduce <P(e,i)> within a factor 5 but cannot express the peaks found at e≒1 (i<1) and i≒3 (e<0.1). These peaks are characteristic to the three-body problem. They are very important for the study of planetary growth, since they are closely related to the runaway growth of the protoplanet, as discussed by Wetherill and Cox (1985). This will be considered in the next paper (Ohtsuki and Ida, 1989), based on the results obtained in the present paper. Acknowledgements. Numerical calculations were made by HITAC M-680 of the Computer Center of the University of Tokyo. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area (Nos. 62611006 and 63611006) of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan. Fig. 18. Comparison of the enhancement factors with those of Wetherill and Cox (1985). The error bars in their results arise from a small number (10~35) of collision orbits which they found for each e. Our results are averaged by the distribution function which they used (see text). Fig. 18.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0990654048.jpg かなりの長文になりますが、どうかよろしくお願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
As mentioned above, there are two peaks in R(e,i) in the e-i diagram: one is at e≒1 (i<1) and the other at i≒3 (e<0.1). The former corresponds directly to the peak in R(e,0) at e≒1 found in the two-dimensional case. The latter is due to the peculiar nature to the three-dimensional case, as understood in the following way. Let us introduce r_min (i, b,ω) in the case of e=0, which is the minimum distance during encounter between the protoplanet and a planetesimal with orbital elements i, b, and ω. In Fig. 16, r_min(i,b)=min_ω{r_min(i,b,ω)} is plotted as a function of b for various i, where r_min<r_p (=0.005) means “collision”; there are two main collision bands at b≒2.1 and 2.4 for i=0. For i≦2, these bands still exist, shifting slightly to small b. This shift is because a planetesimal feels less gravitational attracting force of the protoplanet as i increases. As i increases further, the bands approach each other, and finally coalesce into one large collision band at i≒3.0; this large band vanish when i≧4. In this way, the peculiar orbital behavior of three-body problem makes the peak at i≒3 (e<0.1). Though there are the peaks in R(e,i), the peak values are not so large: at most it is as large as 5. This shows that the collisional rate is well described by that of the two-body approximation <P(e,i)>_2B except for in the vicinity of v, i→0 if we neglect a difference of a factor of 5. Now we propose a modified form of <P(e,i)>_2B which well approximates the calculated collisional rate even in the limit of v, i→0. We find in Fig.14 that <P(e,i)> is almost independent of i, i.e., it behaves two-dimensionally for i≦{0.1 (when e≦0.2), {0.02/e (when e≧0.2). (35) This transition from three-dimensional behavior to two-dimensional behavior comes from the fact that the isotropy of direction of incident particles breaks down for the case of very small i (the expression <P(e,i)>_2B given by Eq. (29) assumes the isotropy). In other words, as an order of magnitude, the scale height of planetesimals becomes smaller than the gravitational radius r_G=σ_2D/2 (σ_2D given by Eq. (3)) and the number density of planetesimals cannot be uniform within a slab with a thickness σ_2D for small i. Table 4. Numbers of three-dimensional collision events found by orbital calculations for the representative sets of e and i. In the table r_p is the radius of the protoplanet. Table 5. The three-dimensional collision rate <P(e,i)> for the case of r_p=0.005 (r_p being the protoplanetary radius), together with two-dimensional <P(e,i=0)> Fig. 14. Contours of the evaluated <P(e,i)>, drawn in terms of log_10<P(e,i)> Fig. 15. Contours of the enhancement factor R(e,i) Table 4.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=1484661557.jpg Table 5.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=6760884829.jpg Fig. 14. ＆Fig. 15.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=8798441290.jpg 長文になりますが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この文章の和訳をお願いします。
1. Introduction This is the third of a series of papers in which we have investigated the collisional probability between a protoplanet and a planetesimal, taking fully into account the effect of solar gravity. Until now, the collisional probability between Keplerian particles has not been well understood, despite of its importance, in the study of planetary formation and, as an expedient manner, the two-body (i.e., free space) approximation has been adopted. In the two-body approximation, the collisional rate is given by (e.g., Safronov,1969) σv=πr_p^2(1+(2Gm_p/r_pv^2))v, (1) where r_p and m_p are the sum of radii and the masses of the protoplanet and a colliding planetesimal, respectively. Furthermore, v is the relative velocity at infinity and usually taken to be equal to a mean random velocity of planetesimals, i.e., v=(<e_2*^2>+<i_2*^2>)^(1/2)v_K, (2) where <e_2*^2> and <i_2*^2> are the mean squares of heliocentric eccentricity and inclination of a swarm of planetesimals and v_K is the Keplerian velocity; in the planer problem (i.e., <i_2*^2>=0), the collisional rate is given, instead of Eq.(1), by (σ_2D)v=2r_p(1+(2Gm_p/r_pv^2))^(1/2)v. (3) Equations (1) and (3) will be referred to in later sections, to clarify the effect of solar gravity on the collisional rate. よろしくお願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
Before a detailed description of our numerical procedures, we comment on above simplifications. As seen in an example of e=1.0 and i=0.5, n-recurrent (n≧3) collision orbits contribute by only 1% or less to the collision rate. On the one hand, from calculations with other e and i, the degree of contribution by n-recurrent (n≧3) collision orbits is found to be largest in the case e≒1. Hence, the error in <P(e, i)> introduced by simplification (i) is of the order of 1% or less. As for the applicability of the two-body approximation, we have confirmed in PaperII that the orbit are well described by the two-body formula inside the two-body sphere, whose radius is given by Eq. (13). No appreciable error in <P(e, i)> comes from simplification (ii). Simplification (iii) follows the discussion in the last section. Using above simplifications, we have developed numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)> efficiently; their flow chart is illustrated in Fig. 10. Choosing initial values of orbital elements (e, i, b, τ_s, ω_s), we start to compute numerically Hill’s equations (6) by an ordinary fourth-order Runge-Kutta method from a starting point given by Eqs. (21) and (22). The distance r is checked at every time step of the numerical integration. If the particle flies off to a sufficient distance from the protoplanet after approaching it, i.e., if |y|>y_0+2e, (26) then, the orbital computation is stopped. If a particle approaches the protoplanet and crosses the two-body sphere surface, i.e., if r≦r_cr, the two-body formula is employed to predict whether or not a collision occurs. When no collision occurs at the first encounter, the numerical integration of Hill’s equations is continued. Since a particle which enters the two-body sphere inevitably escapes from the sphere (see Paper II), the particle follows alternatives: one is that it departs to such a distance that Eq. (26) is satisfied, and the other is that it crosses the two-body sphere surface again. In the former case, we stop the computation, considering that the orbit is non-collisional. In the latter case, the occurrence of collision is checked in the same way as earlier by means of the two-body formula, and the orbital calculation is terminated. Using the numerical procedures developed in this way, we obtain <P(e, i)> in many sets of (e, i); the results are presented in the preceeding sections. Fig. 10. Flow chart of orbital calculation for finding collision orbits. Fig. 10. 拡大画像↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=2113240192.jpg 長文になりますが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この文章の和訳を教えてください。
It should be noticed that Λ_f is independent of both ei~ and R. In order to compare Λ_K with Λ_f clearly, we consider the ratio of these, that is, γ=Λ_K/Λ_f=3.0C_K(R/1AU)^1/2, (4・9) which is independent of the mass of the planet. The values of γare listed in Table I as well as those of C_K. As the parameter C_K is approximately proportional to R^-1/2 (see Fig.11), γ is almost independent of R and is 2.3 for ei~=0 and 1.4 for ei~=4. This indicates that, though the result is obtained in the limited framework of the two-dimensional particle motion, the collisional rate of Keplerian particles is enhanced by a factor of about 2.3 or 1.4 compared to that estimated in a free space formula, as long as we are concerned with the two cases of eccentricity. Furthermore, as seen from Table I, γ for the case ei~=4 is significantly smaller than that of the case ei~=0. This seems to confirm the conjecture that γ tends to unity in the high energy limit (i.e., ei~→∞), or in other words, the free space formula is right only in the high energy limit. お手数ではございますが、どうかよろしくお願いいたします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
どうもありがとうございました！