Impact
~18k
people reached
- 0 posts edited
- 0 helpful flags
- 113 votes cast
Oct
4 |
comment |
Traces of operators in nuclear spaces
Ah, yes, thank you. |
Oct
4 |
comment |
Traces of operators in nuclear spaces
Something is strange for me here... For a locally convex space $X$ let us denote by $X^{\mathbb N}$ and $X_{\mathbb N}$ the direct product and the locally convex sum of contable copies of $X$. Then I would think that $({\mathbb R}^{\mathbb N})'_{\beta}\otimes_{\pi}{\mathbb R}^{\mathbb N}=({\mathbb R}^{\mathbb N})_{\mathbb N}\ne({\mathbb R}_{\mathbb N})^{\mathbb N}=L_{\beta}({\mathbb R}^{\mathbb N})$. |
Oct
4 |
comment |
Traces of operators in nuclear spaces
In the stereotype world, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_space, this equality is not true: ${\mathbb R}_{\mathbb N}\circledast {\mathbb R}^{\mathbb N}\ne {\mathcal L}({\mathbb R}^{\mathbb N})$. |
Sep
26 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Your last example with scarcity and real numbers does not convince me, since I believe that there is nothing bad in discussing which phenomena should be reflected in the theory, but I agree that the question is too vague, that's not good. |
Sep
26 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Yes, I agree. If there is a possibility, I would prefer this question to be deleted. |
Sep
25 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
@JyotirmoyBhattacharya, I wrote already that this was not my interpretation. And, perhaps, you did not understand, this is not a homework. However, I agree that the picture is not nice, I'll think how to edit the text. |
Sep
25 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
I think this means that you don't understand what I am speaking about: "I would say the problem is solved qualitatively in the sense that even in the general case in the sense that comparative advantage (measured by relative productivities) remains the determinant of the pattern of trade and the source of the gains from trade." My question is if it is still possible that introducing demand and supply (you can imagine that they are removed and after that introduced again) just changes the quantitative answer from 0 to a little $\varepsilon>0$. |
Sep
25 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
It will take me some time for finding the last two papers in the library, but this already sounds as if you were trying to answer another question, not the one I was asking. You say "with no logical problems", but my current question is: "In which sense these corrections solve the problems? One can imagine that introducing new parameters, supply and demand, solves the logical paradoxes (i.e. removes the uncertainity in the decisions), and changes the quantitative picture, but does not solve the problems qualitatively." Could you comment this? |
Sep
21 |
comment |
Unbounded operator
If $C^2$ means the space of two times continuously differentiable functions, then this operator is bounded, since it acts from $C^2[a,b]$ to $C[a,b]$, and the last space is continuously embedded into $L^2[a,b]$. Or what do you mean? |
Sep
18 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Will, who introduced these parameters in the theory, supply and demand? Ricardo himself? |
Sep
17 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine, if there is no problem here, and everything is written in textbooks, you can answer the last questions in my Edit. |
Sep
16 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
And which reading do you recommend? |
Sep
16 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Who is the author? Ethier? |
Sep
16 |
comment |
What are Reinert's reproaches to the Ricardo theory?
Does this mean that the theory that I am looking for (without those paradoxes) exists? |
Sep
10 |
comment |
Uniform definition of $S(\mathbb{R})$ and $S(\mathbb{Q}_p)$
For any LCA-group $G$ the multiplication by a real character on $\widehat{G}$ corresponds to the differentiation over a one-parametric subgroup in $G$, that's why I am speaking about polynomials. I don't know whether the multiplication by $|x|^k$ gives the same class of functions, I don't have intuition in $p$-adic fields. |
Sep
7 |
comment |
Uniform definition of $S(\mathbb{R})$ and $S(\mathbb{Q}_p)$
Yes, this seems to be true, if we change a bit the definition of a polynomial: $p$ must be locally representable as a finite linear combination of finite products of real characters. |
Sep
7 |
comment |
Uniform definition of $S(\mathbb{R})$ and $S(\mathbb{Q}_p)$
Your question is very vague... I can formulate a hypothesis: perhaps ${\mathcal S}(G)$ is the subspace in $L_2(G)$ consisting of functions $f:G\to{\mathbb C}$ such that $f$ and its Fourier transform $\hat{f}$ rest in $L_2$ after being multiplied by any polynomial $p$ (where a polynomial on $G$ is a linear combination of finite poducts of real characters, i.e. continuous homomorphisms $r:G\to{\mathbb R}$). I don't know, whether this is more intuitively reasonable (and whether this is true). |
Aug
6 |
comment |
Image of a Jordan compact set under a degenerate map
Igor, as far as I understand, Hajlasz proves that the $m$-th Hausdorff measure of $\varphi(K)$ vanishes, but why does this mean, that $T$ exists? |
Aug
6 |
comment |
Image of a Jordan compact set under a degenerate map
I would not recognize. And I am afraid, I need somebody to explain this. Is there a simple way to prove this proposition, without entering this deep theory? |
Jul
6 |
comment |
Which journals publish research announcements?
Yes, MatZametki. I published announcements there many times. |