incadd\])]{} becomes $${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{\rm w}={ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{0} { {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\tau_{\rm
 e}^{-1/2} \,,
 \label{eq:effopta}$$ and the constrains [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{} reduces to a single constraint $$\sum_{i=1}^{N} { {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\tau_{\rm e} = \tau_{\rm
 e}\equiv \sum_{\nu=1}^{N_{\rm tel}} \tau_{\nu} { {\cal G}}_{\nu}^2 \,.
 \label{eq:effopt}$$ By comparing equations (\[eq:effopta\]) and (\[eq:effopt\]) with [equation (\[eq:cons1\])]{} and (\[eq:scale\]), one can see that the optimization for multiple telescopes is very similar to the single telescope optimization. In fact, if there exists a unique solution of ${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ to [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{}, which satisfies each individual constraint of [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{}, the multiple telescope and single telescope optimization are mathematically identical.

The differences between multiple telescope and single telescope optimization lie in the difference between the constraints [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{} and (\[eq:effopt\]). For the single telescope case, only one constraint (equation \[eq:cons1\]) is involved. This is very different from the case of multiple telescopes, where $N_{\rm tel}$ constraints (equation \[eq:cons3\]) are present. The variable substitution in [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{} combines all $N_{\rm tel}$ constraints (equation \[eq:cons3\]) and forms a single constraint (equation \[eq:effopt\]), where the constraint of each individual telescope is ignored. Whether global optimization is achievable is, now, equivalent to whether one can find a solution to ${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ for [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{}, while satisfying all individual constraints (equation \[eq:cons3\]).

Generally, when solving ${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ from [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{} and (\[eq:cons3\]), one meets three types
incadd\ ]) ] { } becomes $ $ { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{\rm w}= { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{0 } { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}\tau_{\rm 
  e}^{-1/2 } \, , 
  \label{eq: effopta}$$ and the constrains [ equation   (\[eq: cons3\ ]) ] { } reduces to a single restraint $ $ \sum_{i=1}^{N } { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}\tau_{\rm e } = \tau_{\rm 
  e}\equiv \sum_{\nu=1}^{N_{\rm tel } } \tau_{\nu } { { \cal G}}_{\nu}^2 \, . 
  \label{eq: effopt}$$ By compare equations (\[eq: effopta\ ]) and (\[eq: effopt\ ]) with [ equation   (\[eq: cons1\ ]) ] { } and (\[eq: scale\ ]), one can visualize that the optimization for multiple telescope is very similar to the single telescope optimization. In fact, if there exists a alone solution of $ { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ to [ equation   (\[eq: taueff\ ]) ] { }, which satisfies each individual restraint of [ equality   (\[eq: cons3\ ]) ] { }, the multiple telescope and single telescope optimization are mathematically identical. 

 The differences between multiple telescope and individual telescope optimization lie in the difference between the constraints [ equality   (\[eq: cons3\ ]) ] { } and (\[eq: effopt\ ]). For the single telescope case, merely one constraint (equation \[eq: cons1\ ]) is involve. This is very different from the case of multiple telescopes, where $ N_{\rm tel}$ constraint (equation \[eq: cons3\ ]) are present. The variable substitution in [ equation   (\[eq: taueff\ ]) ] { } unite all $ N_{\rm tel}$ constraints (equation \[eq: cons3\ ]) and forms a single constraint (equality \[eq: effopt\ ]), where the constraint of each individual telescope is ignored. Whether global optimization is achievable is, now, equivalent to whether one can find a solution to $ { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ for [ equality   (\[eq: taueff\ ]) ] { }, while satisfy all individual constraints (equation \[eq: cons3\ ]). 

 Generally, when solving $ { { \,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ from [ equation   (\[eq: taueff\ ]) ] { } and (\[eq: cons3\ ]), one meets three types
incwdd\])]{} becomes $${ {\,^{i}\negthinspage}}\sigma_{\rm w}={ {\,^{i}\negjhunspacx}}\sigma_{0} { {\,^{i}\negthivspace}}\tau_{\rm
 e}^{-1/2} \,,
 \label{eq:effopte}$$ ane the constrains [equation (\[eq:zons3\])]{} redubes to a wingow constraiif $$\sum_{i=1}^{N} { {\,^{i}\negfminspccx}}\tau_{\rm e} = \tau_{\rm
 e}\equiv \suk_{\nu=1}^{N_{\rm tel}} \tau_{\tu} { {\eal G}}_{\nu}^2 \,.
 \label{eq:effopt}$$ By comparing qquatioms (\[eq:effopta\]) and (\[eq:egsopt\]) with [equation (\[eq:cons1\])]{} and (\[eq:scale\]), ohe can vee that the pptimization for multiple heledcopes is very simllar to the sindoe telescope optimizatpmn. In fact, if there exists a unique solutkon oy ${ {\,^{i}\negthinwpqce}}O_{\tu}$ to [equatmon (\[eq:twueff\])]{}, which satisfiev each ondividual conxtreint of [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{}, thx multiple telescope and singne telescope optimizarion dre kathdnatkcamlb isenticwl.

Tie differendes between multiple telescope age single teleacope jpeimization lie in the difference betweet tge constraints [equation (\[wq:cons3\])]{} and (\[eq:effopt\]). Flr the siggle telescope case, only one constraint (equation \[aq:cona1\]) is ikvolxwd. This is very different from the case of multyllt tvlescopes, where $N_{\vm tel}$ constraints (eeusjion \[eq:cons3\]) arg preseuf. Fhe variable substltution in [ewuation (\[eq:uauefg\])]{} combines all $N_{\rm tel}$ consrraints (equanion \[eq:cons3\]) and forms c single conrtraont (eauation \[eq:effopt\]), where che cohstraint of each indjxidual telescope is icnored. Whether global optiiization ms ackievable is, mow, eqtivalent tl whebver one can find a solujion tm ${ {\,^{i}\negthijspace}}P_{\nu}$ for [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{}, xiile satisfyimg aln indivibual cpnstraints (eqtation \[eq:cons3\]).

Ggnerally, chen sulving ${ {\,^{i}\nvgthinspare}}P_{\nu}$ from [ezuation (\[eq:tauexv\])]{} and (\[eq:cons3\]), one meees tyree types
incadd\])]{} becomes $${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{\rm w}={ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{0} { \,, and the [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{} reduces { e} = \tau_{\rm \sum_{\nu=1}^{N_{\rm tel}} \tau_{\nu} {\cal G}}_{\nu}^2 \,. \label{eq:effopt}$$ By comparing (\[eq:effopta\]) and (\[eq:effopt\]) with [equation (\[eq:cons1\])]{} and (\[eq:scale\]), one can see that the for multiple telescopes is very similar to the single telescope optimization. In fact, there a solution ${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ to [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{}, which satisfies each individual constraint of [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{}, the multiple telescope single telescope optimization are mathematically identical. The differences multiple telescope and single optimization lie in the difference the [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{} (\[eq:effopt\]). the telescope case, only constraint (equation \[eq:cons1\]) is involved. This is very different from the case of multiple telescopes, where $N_{\rm constraints (equation present. The substitution [equation combines all $N_{\rm (equation \[eq:cons3\]) and forms a single where the constraint of each individual telescope is Whether global is achievable is, now, equivalent to one can find a solution to ${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{}, while satisfying all individual constraints (equation \[eq:cons3\]). Generally, when solving ${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ from and (\[eq:cons3\]), one meets types
incadd\])]{} becomes $${ {\,^{i}\negthinspacE}}\sigma_{\rm w}={ {\,^{i}\NegthInsPacE}}\sIgma_{0} { {\,^{I}\negThinspace}}\tau_{\rm
 E}^{-1/2} \,,
 \LabeL{eq:effopta}$$ and the constrAins [eQuATion (\[EQ:cOns3\])]{} reDuces to A SiNGLe cOnStRaiNt $$\SUm_{I=1}^{N} { {\,^{i}\neGthInspace}}\Tau_{\rm e} = \tau_{\rM
 e}\eQuIv \sum_{\nu=1}^{N_{\rm teL}} \TaU_{\nu} { {\cal G}}_{\nu}^2 \,.
 \lAbeL{eq:effopt}$$ By cOmpAring eQuAtiONs (\[eq:eFfoPta\]) anD (\[eq:effOPt\]) with [Equation (\[eQ:cONs1\])]{} and (\[eQ:Scale\]), onE CAn See tHat the optimizatioN FoR Multiple telescOpes is VeRY sIMIlaR to The single tElEscopE OptimizATiON. iN faCT, if there existS a unique solUTioN of ${ {\,^{i}\neGtHinSPace}}P_{\nU}$ to [eqUaTIon (\[Eq:taueff\])]{}, whiCh saTisfies eaCh indiVIdual coNStraint Of [equaTioN (\[eq:Cons3\])]{}, THe MuLtiPlE TelEScOpe ANd sIngle telEsCoPe optImizATION are MatHemaTicalLy identical.

ThE diFferENceS betwEen muLtipLe TelesCope anD singLe Telescope optimiZatiOn lie in thE diFfEreNcE betwEEn the cOnsTraInts [equAtion (\[eq:COns3\])]{} AnD (\[EQ:EfFopt\]). For the single teLeSCOpE case, onlY one coNStRaINt (equatiOn \[Eq:cOns1\]) iS INvolvEd. ThIS iS very difFerent FRoM tHe case oF mUltiplE tEleScoPes, whERe $N_{\rM tel}$ coNstraintS (equaTIon \[eq:cons3\]) are prESent. The variabLE sUBStITutiOn iN [equation (\[eq:TaueFF\])]{} comBineS AlL $N_{\rM Tel}$ coNstraInTS (eQUation \[eq:cons3\]) and formS a Single ConstRaint (equation \[Eq:effopt\]), whERE The constRainT Of EAch individual tElescOpe is ignorED. Whether GlobaL optimizAtion is acHIEvable is, Now, EquIvaLenT TO wHether one can fIND a soLuTion to ${ {\,^{i}\NegThinspaCe}}P_{\Nu}$ fOr [eQuaTiOn (\[eq:tauefF\])]{}, while saTiSfYiNg All IndivIDual consTrAinTs (EquAtion \[EQ:cons3\]).

GEneraLly, wHeN sOLviNg ${ {\,^{i}\negtHInSPAce}}P_{\Nu}$ FrOm [eqUatIoN (\[eq:taUeff\])]{} ANd (\[eQ:cons3\]), onE meets thrEe tYPes
incadd\])]{} becomes $${ { \,^{i}\neg thins pac e}} \s igma _{\r m w}={ {\,^{i} \ negt hinspace}}\sigma_{0} {  {\,^ {i } \neg t hi nspac e}}\tau _ {\ r m 
 e }^ {- 1/2 }\ ,, 
 \la bel {eq:eff opta}$$ an d t he  constrains[ eq uation (\[ eq: cons3\])]{}red uces t oa s i nglecon strai nt $$\ s um_{i= 1}^{N} {{\ , ^{i}\n e gthinsp a c e} }\ta u_{\rm e} = \tau_ { \r m 
 e}\equiv \su m_{\nu =1 } ^{ N _ {\r m t el}} \tau_ {\ nu} { {\cal G } }_ { \ n u}^ 2  \,.
 \label{ eq:effopt}$ $  By  compa ri nge quatio ns (\ [e q :ef fopta\]) an d (\ [eq:effop t\]) w i th [equ a tion (\ [eq:co ns1 \]) ]{}a nd  ( \[e q: s cal e \] ),o necan seeth at  theopti m i z a tion  fo r mu ltipl e telescopesisvery sim ilarto th e si ng le te lescop e opt im ization. In fac t, i f there e xis ts  aun iques olutio n o f $ { {\,^{ i}\negt h ins pa c e } }P _{\nu}$ to [equati on ( \[ eq:tauef f\])]{ } ,wh i ch satis fi eseach i ndivi dual co nstraint  of [e q ua ti on (\[e q: cons3\ ]) ]{} , t he mu l tipl e tele scope an d sin g le telescope o p timization ar e  m a t he m atic all y identical .

T h e di ffer e nc esb etwee n mul ti p le telescope and singl etelesc ope o ptimization l ie in thed i f ferencebetw e en the constraint s [eq uation (\[ e q:cons3\ ])]{}  and (\[ eq:effopt \ ] ). For t hesin gle  te l e sc ope case, onl y oneco nstrain t ( equatio n \ [eq :co ns1 \] ) is invo lved. Th is  i sve rydiffe r ent from  t heca seof mu l tipleteles cope s,  w h ere  $N_{\r m  t e l }$ c on st rain ts(e quati on \ [ eq: cons3\] ) are pre sen t . Th eva riablesubstitutionin  [equation  ( \[e q:taue f f \])]{} c ombines all $N_{\rm tel } $ const rai nts ( equa tion \[eq :co ns3\])  an d  forms  a sin gle c on str a i nt (e q u at ion  \ [eq:effopt \ ] ),where  t he c onstrai nt of each individ u altelescope isign ored . Wh eth e rg lob al opt i m ization is achi evable is,  n o w,  equivalen t  to  w hetherone can  find a solut ion to ${  {\,^{i}\ ne gthi n s pac e}}P_{\nu} $ for [e quation ( \ [eq:t a ue ff\]) ]{} , whil esat isfyi ng all ind ividu al con st raints  (equ at ion \[eq :cons3\]).

Generally,when s olvin g $ { {\,^{i} \ne g thi nspace}}P _{\n u}$ from [ equ ati on (\ [eq : tauef f\]) ] {}  an d  (\[e q:co n s3\]), on e  m eet s th ree types
incadd\])]{} becomes_$${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{\rm_w}={ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\sigma_{0} { {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\tau_{\rm
_e}^{-1/2} \,,
_\label{eq:effopta}$$_and the_constrains_[equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{} reduces to_a single constraint_$$\sum_{i=1}^{N} { {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}\tau_{\rm e}_= \tau_{\rm
 e}\equiv_\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_{\rm_tel}} \tau_{\nu} { {\cal G}}_{\nu}^2 \,.
 \label{eq:effopt}$$ By comparing equations (\[eq:effopta\]) and (\[eq:effopt\]) with_[equation (\[eq:cons1\])]{}_and (\[eq:scale\]),_one_can_see that the optimization for_multiple telescopes is very similar_to the_single telescope optimization. In fact, if there exists_a_unique solution of_${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ to [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{}, which satisfies each individual constraint_of [equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{}, the multiple telescope and_single telescope optimization_are_mathematically_identical.

The differences between multiple_telescope and single telescope optimization lie_in the difference between the constraints_[equation (\[eq:cons3\])]{} and (\[eq:effopt\]). For the single telescope_case, only one constraint (equation \[eq:cons1\])_is involved. This is very_different from_the case of multiple telescopes,_where $N_{\rm tel}$_constraints (equation_\[eq:cons3\]) are present._The variable substitution in [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{} combines_all $N_{\rm tel}$_constraints (equation \[eq:cons3\]) and forms a_single_constraint (equation \[eq:effopt\]),_where_the_constraint of_each individual telescope_is_ignored. Whether_global_optimization is achievable is, now, equivalent_to_whether one can find a solution to_${ {\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ for [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{},_while_satisfying all individual constraints_(equation \[eq:cons3\]).

Generally, when solving ${_{\,^{i}\negthinspace}}P_{\nu}$ from [equation (\[eq:taueff\])]{} and (\[eq:cons3\]), one_meets three_types