• ベストアンサー

この英文の和訳お願いします．

The radius of the sphere should not affect the solution except that the companion solution in the integral kernel would vary with the radius. Also, it should be noted that the companion solution is a function of source point y. integral kernel　という積分核っていったいなんなんでしょうか？ お手数かもしれませんが，よろしくお願いします．

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • mmky
  • ベストアンサー率28% (681/2420)
回答No.2

integral kernel　定義 ｇ(α)=(a～b)∫ｆ(t)K(α,t)dt The function K(α,t) is called the kernel of the transform.」 kernelは、積分方程式のK(α,t)のこと。 「companion solution in the integral kernel 」 は、K(α,t)の中のα,tのこと。 ということで、参考まで。

その他の回答 (4)

  • mmky
  • ベストアンサー率28% (681/2420)
回答No.5

前後関係がないので微妙な点がありますが数学的な例として、 やってみますか。参考程度ですよ。 The radius of the sphere should not affect the solution 球の半径は、その解に影響を与えない。 except that the companion solution in the integral kernel 但し、積分方程式における関連の解は、半径に依存して変化する。 （註integral kernel ：積分方程式と訳する。） Also, it should be noted that the companion solution is a function of source point y. また、注目すべきは、その関連解は、原点ｙの関数であることです。 参考程度まで、（前後関係がないので少しずれているかも）

回答No.4

こんにちは。ちょっと訳してみます。 ＞The radius of the sphere should not affect the solution 球の半径は、解に影響を受けない。 ＞except that the companion solution in the integral kernel would vary with the radius. ただし、半径によって異なる積分核によるもう一つの解を除く。 ＞Also, it should be noted that the companion solution is a function of source point y. また、そのことは、源である点ｙにおける関数が、もう一つの解になっていることに 注目されなければならないことを示す。 ではないでしょうか。 ご参考になれば幸いです。

  • mmky
  • ベストアンサー率28% (681/2420)
回答No.3

＃２の追伸です。 参考URL忘れていました。以下を見れば訳せます。 integral kernel http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntegralTransform.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntegralKernel.html companion solution http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalEquation.html 参考まで

noname#24477
noname#24477
回答No.1

積分を使った関数変換 Ｆ(ω)＝∫[a→b]Ｋ(ω，ｘ)f(x)dx のとき Ｋ(ω,x)を積分核というらしい。 フーリエ変換、ラプラス変換等。 積分核で検索するといくつか出てきます。

  1. カテゴリ
  2. 学問・教育
  3. 数学・算数

関連するQ&A

  • 次の英文を和訳してほしいです。

    The concept of atomic radius is useful experimentally, but we should not infer that atoms have well-defined boundaries or surfaces. We will learn later that the outer regions of atoms are relatively "fuzzy". この英文を和訳してほしいです。

  • 英文の和訳と文法解説をお願いします。

    It can be noted that setting a policy of periodical exchange must be prepared because concerning some networks,number of devices can be very important and represent a very large expense that should be shared on several years. この文章の和訳と文法解説お願いできませんか。 わかる範囲でかまいません。 宜しくお願いします。

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    In order to obtain the total collisional rate <Γ(e_1, i_1)>, we have to find <P(e,i)> numerically by computing orbits of relative motion between the protoplanet and the planetesimal. Since <P(e,i)> should be provided for wide ranges of e and i with a sufficient accuracy, we are obliged to compute a very large number of orbits. In practice, it is an important problem to find an efficient method for numerical computation. In the second paper (Nakazawa et al., 1989b, referred to as Paper II), we have studied the validity of the two-body approximation and found that within the sphere of the two-body approximation (hereafter referred to as the two-body sphere), the relative motion can be well described by a solution to the two-body problem: the sphere radius has been found to be r_cr=0.03(a_0*/1AU)^(-1/4)(ε/0.01)^(1/2). ・・・・・(13) Within the sphere, the nearest distance can be predicted with an accuracy εby the well-known formula of the two-body encounter. We can expect the above result to be useful to reduce computation time for obtaining <P(e,i)> numerically. よろしくお願いします。

  • 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。

  • 誰か教えてください。。

    誰か教えてください。。。 A student finds that it takes 38.78 mL of 0.1720 M NaOH to titrate 15.00 mL of sulfuric acid solution. Determine the molarity and percent mass of the sulfuric acid in the solution (you may assume that the density of the sulfuric acid solution is the same as pure water).

  • 訳が分かりません・・・

    To the solution is added dropwise a solution of 280 gm (1.9 moles) of 3,4-dimethylacetophenone in 150 ml of isopropanol at such a rate that the solution gently refluxes. 溶液に、イソプロパノールをゆっくりと還流するような速度で、150ml中の3,4-dimethylacetophenone（ジメチルラセトフェノール） 自分で訳していて良く分からなくなってしまいました。 また、化学実験書の To the solution is added って普通の訳みたいに、 溶液に加えられた。 と、このように受身形にして訳すほうが良いのでしょうか？ 以上、２点よろしくお願いいたします。

  • この文章の和訳をお願いします。

    These come from the fact that for small values of b~ and μ, as considered here, Eqs.(2・1) and (2.2) are approximately symmetric with respect to the y-axis. Now, we will see features of collision of a particle with the planet. It should be noticed that, as mentioned in §2, the radius of the planet changes with the distance between the Sun and the planet is assigned. Here we will concentrate on the collision near the orbit of the present Earth. よろしくお願いします。

  • この文章の和訳を教えてください。

    　　We will add some comments on the choice of the initial conditions. It should be noticed that we need not survey every set of phase parameters, ε_i and δ_i, when the semi-major axis and the eccentricity of the particle orbit are once fixed. This is due to the fact that there are numberless same orbits with different sets of ε_i and δ_i. Therefore, noticing that δ_i has a 2π-modulous, we can represent, practically, all of the possible phase of the Keplerian orbits by ε_i=constant and －π≦δ≦π. Secondly, we will transform a_i and e_i to b_i~ and e_i~, respectively, according to 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　a_i=1+b_i~h (2・9) and 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　e_i=e_i~h. (2・10) Here h is the radius of the sphere within which the gravity of the planet overcomes the solar gravity, i.e., the radius of the Hill sphere, and is defined in the units adopted here as 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 h=(μ/3)^(1/3)=2.15×10^(－3), (2・11) where the planetary mass M is chosen to be 5.977×10^25g, i.e., one-hundredth of the present terrestrial mass. As shown by Hayashi et al, there exists an approximate similarity law between solutions to the plane circular RTB problem as long as μ≦10^－4, which is well scaled by the above transformations and, hence, the results obtained for the special choice of μ (or M) can apply extensively to the problem with different value of μ. 長い文章ですが、ご教授いただけると助かります。

  • この文章の和訳を教えてください。

    3.1. Case of e=0 and i=0 We have first calculated 6000 orbits in the parameter range of b from b_min=1.9 to b_max=2.5 at intervals of 0.0001. It is already known from previous studies (Nishida, and Petit and Hénon) that no collision orbits exist outside this region. 　　　The orbits vary in a complicated way with the value of parameter b (see Petit and Hénon, 1986). In spite of the complex behavior of the orbits, we can classify them in terms of the number of encounters with the two-body sphere, from the standpoint of finding collision orbits. The classes are: (a) non-encounter orbit, (b) n-recurrent non-collision orbit, and (c) n-recurrent collision orbit, where the term “n-recurrent orbit” means the particle encounters n-times with the two-body sphere. That is, n-recurrent non-collision (or collision) orbits are those which fly off to infinity (or collide with the protoplanet ) after n-times encounters with the two-body sphere, while non-recurrent orbits are those which fly off without penetrating the two-body sphere. Examples of orbits in the classes (a), (b), and (c) are illustrated in Figs. 2,3, and 4, respectively. The above classification of orbits will be utilized for developing numerical procedures for obtaining <P(e, i)>, as described in the next section. よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文を和訳して下さい。

    The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks. Eventually, even under the "cruel" terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany′s economy had been restored to its pre-war status. Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany′s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. Barnett asserts that its post-war eastern borders were safer, because the former Austrian Empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the treaty "much enhanced" German power. Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again. By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that during the war the German right was committed to an annexationist program which aimed at Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa. Consequently, any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror would be unacceptable to them. Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles. Evans further noted that the parties of the Weimar Coalition, namely the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the social liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) and the Christian democratic Centre Party, were all equally opposed to Versailles, and it is false to claim as some historians have that opposition to Versailles also equalled opposition to the Weimar Republic.

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

専門家に質問してみよう

職業から探して質問する

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVEセレクト

質問する