bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 1 year, 5 months |
seen | 15 mins ago | |
stats | profile views | 458 |
Apr 29 |
comment |
An unfair marriage lemma
It hardly seems necessary, but if you are going to thank me in the paper for putting you on the trail of that reference, you may as well use my real name (which I am now emailing to you) instead of the silly and slightly impolite acronym I use here. |
Apr 25 |
comment |
Analysis of Nim-Like Game?
@DouglasZare I thought every Nim-type game was equivalent to Nim with only one pile? |
Apr 25 |
comment |
Analysis of Nim-Like Game?
I don't understand how you get from $[1,2,3]$ to $[1,2]$ in one move. |
Apr 24 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Apr 24 |
comment |
An unfair marriage lemma
@SergeiIvanov Hope you don't mind that I've incorporated your comment into my answer. Please feel free to remove or edit the postscript as you see fit. |
Apr 24 |
revised |
An unfair marriage lemma
added 205 characters in body |
Apr 24 |
revised |
An unfair marriage lemma
added 16 characters in body |
Apr 24 |
revised |
An unfair marriage lemma
added 295 characters in body |
Apr 23 |
answered | An unfair marriage lemma |
Apr 22 |
comment |
Fermat numbers and the infinitude of primes
Don't know much about history, but I would have thought Euclid would know about Fermat numbers, seeing as the recursive definition $$a_1=3,\ a_{n+1}=a_1a_2\cdots a_n+2$$ seems especially natural if you consider $3$ to be the smallest prime number, as I've been told Euclid did. |
Apr 19 |
comment |
Are all minimal totally separated spaces compact?
In the context of this question, it seems to me that "totally separated" and "zero-dimensional" are not that different. Namely, a minimal totally separated topology is zero-dimensional (it's generated by its clopen sets), so "minimal totally separated" is the same as "minimal zero-dimensional Hausdorff". Right? |
Apr 17 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Apr 13 |
answered | Countable, $T_1$, and not metacompact |
Apr 10 |
comment |
“Epicycles” (Ptolemy style) in math theory?
@darijgrinberg: Isn't the use of generating functions to solve recurrences similar to the use of Laplace transforms to solve differential equations? When I took Differential Equations, when we got to Laplace transforms, we made a fuss about convergence. Was that unnecessary? Could we have gotten by with "formal Laplace transforms"? |
Apr 10 |
comment |
Mid point free sets
In the literature, "mid point free sets" have been called "non-averaging sets". |
Apr 10 |
revised |
Adding vertex-disjoint edges to reduce the diameter
deleted 1 character in body |
Apr 10 |
answered | Adding vertex-disjoint edges to reduce the diameter |
Apr 7 |
comment |
Dedekind-finite arithmetic vs natural numbers arithmetic
@AsafKaragila Interesting. Since exponentiation is definable in arithmetic, I guess that means that exponentiation of Dedekind-finite cardinals is defined in Sageev's model. But it can't be cardinal exponentiation, becase D-finite cardinals aren't closed under cardinal exponentiation. So what is it? |
Apr 2 |
comment |
Existence of $\lambda$-transitive linear orders for $\lambda \geq \aleph_0$
What is an "increasing set"? |
Mar 21 |
comment |
For a partition of $\mathbb{R}$ into countably infinite sets, must there be an almost-disjoint family of $2^{\frak c}$ many selectors?
Under GCH this is Problem 19/A in the old "Unsolved problems in set theory" paper of P. Erdős and A. Hajnal. |