Felix Goldberg
Reputation
3,259
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
 Apr 27 awarded Nice Question Mar 29 awarded Popular Question Mar 26 accepted How many isolated roots can a polynomial in $z$ and $\overline{z}$ have? Mar 26 awarded Nice Question Mar 10 awarded Yearling Mar 5 awarded Nice Question Mar 4 asked Solving a system of quadratic equations over a subspace Dec 9 asked Least-squares solution of systems of Sylvester equations Jul 21 awarded Popular Question May 18 comment Intrinsic definition of arc length Does your formula give the same value as the usual definition of arc length? How is the + to be interpreted? As a Minkowski sum? Thanks. May 18 comment Intrinsic definition of arc length @DavidRoberts I've considered this option, but I think there's a catch: to talk about line segments created by a set of points $S$ sampled from the curve, we would need to rely on a (sensible) ordering of the points in $S$ - which seems to throw us back to the need for a parametrization of sorts. Do you agree or am I missing something here? May 18 comment Intrinsic definition of arc length @LoïcTeyssier Indeed. May 18 awarded Popular Question May 18 asked Intrinsic definition of arc length May 15 awarded Popular Question Apr 23 comment power laws emerging from the sandpile model Thanks, @YoavKallus, this is very interesting. Apr 5 comment Does this inequality always hold? So, what is the motivation/context for this conjecture? Apr 1 comment How large can a set of nearly equidistant points be? @BenoîtKloeckner I am more interested in $\epsilon>\frac{1}{n-1}$ and fixed. Apr 1 revised How large can a set of nearly equidistant points be? edited title Apr 1 comment How large can a set of nearly equidistant points be? @BillJohnson JL says that if I have such a set in a higher dimension $n \approx e^{k}$ , then I can embed it into $\mathbb{R}^{k}$ while (almost) preserving the distance property. But I don't see how it guarantees the existence of such a set to begin with. Am I missing something here? P.S. JL does not assume anything on the relation of the pairwise distances to each other, while in this case I need to. P.P.S. The question actually originates in an attempt to understand a result related to JL. :)