These mice were used instead of B cell deficient (µMT) mice, because µMT mice show a distorted splenic microarchitecture resulting in a defective T cell response [29], [30].
For ε ′, B tan that represents anti-sunward energy flux is used instead of B of the original form of ε (dash is added to differentiate, but the result is almost the same), and the constant coefficient (e.g., contact length at the magnetopause l 0= 7 to 10 R E ) is not included.
However, it may be felt expedient to use sign A instead of sign B. But if we do this, we must treat it as an entirely new sign which had no sense prior to the definition.
It's the equivalent of using Google instead of Bing or Yahoo for search.
This suggests that the modified G-R law is not necessarily applicable for a long term data and the G-R law using α-value instead of b-value derived from short term data might be useful for forecasting.
Following the reasoning in the proof of Theorem 3.1, from (3.7), we take θ n = β n (γ n Δ n + c n ) and use F(S) ∩ Ω instead of B r 0 ( x 1 ) ∩ F ( S ) ∩ Ω in Step 1. From Step 2, we have the sequence {Δ n } is bounded, and hence θ n = β n (γ n Δ n + c n ) → 0 as n → ∞.
Resulting maps from masked classifications on PS1 with subtraction of the residual signal using (A ) six instead of eight classes; (B ) a different random seed; and (C ) ten classes and a slightly different mask from the run shown in Figure 2. The classes similar to the three largest classes shown in Figure 2 are highlighted in the same cyan and blue colors.
Next, following the reasoning in the proof of Theorem 3.1 and using F(S) ∩ Ω instead of B r 0 ( x 1 ) ∩ F ( S ) ∩ Ω, we deduce the conclusion of Theorem 3.8.
We observe in Theorem 3.1 we can replace ξ → +∞ and (t1,..., t n ) → with ξ → 0+ (t1,..., t n ) → (0+,..., 0+), respectively, that by the same way as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 but using conclusion (c) of Theorem 2.1 instead of (b), the system (1) has a sequence of weak solutions, which strongly converges to 0 in X.
In particular, for the sake of brevity, we use the simplified notation B 0 instead of B ( 0 : 1 ).
Arguing as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, but using conclusion (c) of Theorem 2.4 instead of (b), one establishes the following result.
