Can anyone help me translate the following into English automation major .

I'm helping you change it.,Google has some right and some wrong.。

To overcome these shortcomings, it is best to find a flexible robot based on an infinite-dimensional model instead of a robust controller design. In fact, there are many works that are directly related to the design of the book loss controller, and the flexible connection of the original partial differential equations of the robot. Thus, a stable original infinite-dimensional system can lead to stable conclusions, and the problems listed earlier can be avoided.

These results can be found in [9]-13]. Typically, the focus is on the exponential stability of asymptotic stability or closed-loop systems. However, since flexible systems are infinite-dimensional, the well-known Lasalle's theorem [14] cannot be used to prove the asymptotic steady slag determination, as this is usually found in the literature on finite-dimensional systems.

Previous methods were either based on rather complex mathematical tools such as half-group theory [9] or operator theory [10], or rigorous assumptions made through stable proofs [13]. In fact, there is a relatively simple but very straightforward way to indicate the asymptotic or exponential stability of the system.

OK pull. This is really annoying.,A lot of terms.,It's good that Google gets the terminology.,Even this will be fine.。

We sometimes do, however, when the built model is not enough. Battery voltage, for example, may be more and more current paintings, or battery era. The resistance of the bulb may change because it heats up, the filament may have a bit of inductance and capacitance as well as related properties, when the switch is turned off, the current can not jump instantaneously from zero to the last, steady-state value.

These wires can be underdeveloped, and some of the power will be lost by the battery on the wires before it reaches the load. These subtle effects may or may not be significant, depending on how accurately we try to figure out and how accurate we are to perform the circuit. If we decide that they are important, we can change the model at any time and then analyze.

The first property, known as the Kirchhoff Current Method (abbreviated section), states that at each moment the sum of the currents flowing into any node of the circuit must be equal to the current leaving the node, ** a node is anywhere where two or more wires are connected together. It's a simple, but powerful concept. It is undoubtedly possible that once you assert that the current flows for a fee, that money is conservative-either created and cannot be destroyed as if entering the node.

Unless the charge is somehow built on a node, it doesn't, then the rate at which a node enters a node must be equal to the rate at which the supervisor is responsible for leaving the node.

Maybe there are times, however, when the model is not enough. Battery voltage, for example, may drop as more and more are currently set, or as the battery ages. The resistance of the small bulb will change as it heats up, and the filament may have inductance and the capacitance bit and resistance associated with it, so that when the switch is turned off, the current may not jump from zero to some final, steady-state value.

It may be a short wire, as well as a battery that provides power to some of the load that may be lost before the wire is lost. These subtle effects may or may not be significant, depending on how we are trying to figure out how we must be able to accurately ** the performance of the circuit. If we decide that they are important, we can change the model as often as we need and then analyze it.

The first property, as Kirchhoff's law of current (potassium chloride for short), is well known, states that the sum of the currents flowing to any one circuit node at each moment must be equal to the tide that leaves the node, and that a node is the sum of any part if two or more wires are connected. It's a very simple, yet powerful concept. This is obvious, once you intuitively assert that the current is the flow of electric charges, while the charge is conservative and neither created nor eliminated as it enters a node.

Unless somehow accumulates charge at a node, which it does not, then the speed of charging, entering a node must be equal to the rate of the charging leaf node.

Who is this, the typing speed is fast enough, but it just happens that we typed it ourselves, by the way, the answer above is obviously not good.。。。

It's long, it won't ... Is this a big question or a translation question?