quid
|
Registered User
|
Taking a break. Perhaps around from time to time. It was quite fun, for the most part.
|
|
15h |
revised |
What is the Bahadur-Anderson Algorithm? tags, minor format |
|
15h |
comment |
What is the Bahadur-Anderson Algorithm? Sorry, no, I cannot; it is this first time I hear about this. I mainly posted this since from your question I had no clue at all what this was about, say is it Topology, Number Theory, or Statistics or whatever else. Thus, I searched for it and documented the information I found easily here to save others the same effort. However, if you just search for it, you will find sources on the web. For example, the book mentioned in an anwer, and some other documents. Also, somebody might give a detailed answer. To increase the likelihood of this happening I added some tags. |
|
15h |
comment |
What is the Bahadur-Anderson Algorithm? From the linked page "The Anderson–Bahadur algorithm[4] is used in statistics and engineering for solving binary classification problems when the underlying data have multivariate normal distributions with different covariance matrices." If you knew this already you might have written a more detailed question. |
|
15h |
comment |
What is the Bahadur-Anderson Algorithm? It is explained on Wikipedia ;-) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghu_Raj_Bahadur |
|
15h |
revised |
Sperner’s lemma and Tucker’s lemma edited tags |
|
19h |
answered | unbounded power series |
|
20h |
comment |
Motivation for Frankl’s conjecture? It seems there isn't such thing in MathSciNet (which already makes its existence unlikely). Also I never had the impression the Handbook of Combinatorics (from the mid 1990s) is a new edition of anything, but I do not have physical access to one at the moment to check easily, but in any case again MathSciNet does not link it to any earlier edition, which it typically would. And, the way I read Douglas West's page it mentions a 1985 paper of Duffus as the earliest written source yet implying there must be earlier appeareances and then mentions Frankl's later paper where it is dated 1979. |
|
20h |
comment |
Motivation for Frankl’s conjecture? "in the 1979 edition of the Handbook of Combinatorics" I do not believe such a book exists (or ever existed). |
|
20h |
comment |
If a number belongs or not to the set of Natural numbers "But r is however a natural number because it can be written as a sum of infinite ones." This is not true. |
|
22h |
comment |
A measure of closure under sumset? You are welcome! |
|
22h |
accepted | A measure of closure under sumset? |
|
22h |
comment |
Bound of prime pairs As I said this is discussed in the question I link to; in a very litteral (but not interesting) sense the answer is "yes". In general I do not participate in deciding appropriateness of questions anywmore. Sorry if you found the welcome unfriendly. But since it is already answered here, I thought I just point you there. I'd guess substantial improvements will take a while. But the extent that seems feasible is also discussed there. |
|
22h |
comment |
Bound of prime pairs In addition to what HW says, in this particular case, the question (with its answers) I link to even answers the questions asked here. |
|
22h |
comment |
Bound of prime pairs Just look 10 questions down on the frontpage mathoverflow.net/questions/131185/… |
|
1d |
comment |
A measure of closure under sumset? No problem at all. It is quite in the spirit of the site that there are several answers even if they are not 'disjoint.' |
|
1d |
revised |
A measure of closure under sumset? expanded in view of edit of question |
|
1d |
comment |
Help with this system of Diophantine equations @Wlodzimierz Holsztynski: I think this continues on my earlier comment on Barry Cipra's answer where I said that one is more elegant than mine in my opinion. |
|
1d |
answered | A measure of closure under sumset? |
|
1d |
comment |
Help with this system of Diophantine equations @Jobin Idiculla: You are welcome! |
|
1d |
comment |
Help with this system of Diophantine equations @Barry Cipra: thank you for this additional information (which I did not check myself). So without the restriction the full set of solutions is, giving (a,b,c): (2,9,33) and (15,16,34). |
|
1d |
comment |
Help with this system of Diophantine equations Thanks, but in my opinion yours is more elegant. |
|
1d |
accepted | Help with this system of Diophantine equations |
|
1d |
comment |
Help with this system of Diophantine equations I redecided and fixed, it is hoped, the answer, not to create additional complaints regarding me embarrassing the site by my sloppiness ;-) |
|
1d |
revised |
Help with this system of Diophantine equations corrected flipping of a and b |
|
1d |
answered | Help with this system of Diophantine equations |
|
1d |
comment |
Yitang Zhang’s preprint on Landau-Siegel zeros @S. Sra: yes, I downvoted this answer so that the question is not 'formally' answered by having an answer with a positive score. @unknown: the reason you were not able to leave a comment is that you do not yet have 50 (or more points); for various things one can do on the site one needs a certain amount of points first (for details see faq, the section on reputation, link at the top). |
|
2d |
comment |
Yitang Zhang’s preprint on Landau-Siegel zeros I downvote this question for the formalistic reason that if this answer has positive score it will make this question (formallu) answered while it is not. |
|
2d |
revised |
Permutations of $(Z/pZ)^*$ edited tags |
|
2d |
comment |
Yitang Zhang’s preprint on Landau-Siegel zeros @zy: I am not sure what you mean. Still the result(s) would be big news. (Also I'd assume GH was aware of the main results claimed when asking the question.) |
|
2d |
comment |
Philosophy behind Yitang Zhang’s work on the Twin Primes Conjecture @provocateur: it is not quite clear to me what about my 'answer' you find 'quite inaccurate.' Except it contains several typing and language errors; if you mean this, sorry about the slopiness and my ignorance. Else, please, clarify what you mean if you want a reply. But please on meta (link at the top) not here. |
|
May 20 |
comment |
Philosophy behind Yitang Zhang’s work on the Twin Primes Conjecture @Niloptal Sinha: what is the point of piling on on Garhard Paseman's comment in this way? The general(?) disagreement with it was amply expressed before. And this (type of) question is most definitely not "more than perfectly fitted here" or "perfectly legitimate" (@user32240). It is likely acceptable as an exception. But on the general principle Gehard Pasemen is perfectly right. |
|
May 19 |
comment |
DAG graph and topologic order question While Paul Taylor's comment also clarifies the situation, and it thus might not be necessary, you could edit the question to implement the suggestion by clicking the link 'edit' just below the question. |
|
May 19 |
comment |
What is the exact mathematical formulation of a claim It seems you have several unregistered accounts. If you prefer this, this is of course up to you. But if you should not yet know: you can register an account so that all your contributions would be conveniently attached to one account. You then also could ask on 'meta' (link at the top) for all your accounts to be merged into that one. |
|
May 19 |
revised |
What math institutes offer research in pairs/research in teams? updated broken link |
|
May 19 |
comment |
What are the main structure theorems on finitely generated commutative monoids? Pierre Grillet's Commutative Semigroups (2001) seems like (another) good place to start. |
|
May 17 |
comment |
Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem @Dietrich Burde: I think even for $n \ge 6$, as the inequality is strict. |
|
May 17 |
revised |
Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem monir addition in view of an edit to the question |
|
May 17 |
revised |
extending truncated Barsotti-Tate group edited tags |
|
May 17 |
comment |
Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem You are welcome. Yes in some sense one can consider so to say "two limits" (in $z$ and in $n$) and thus there are in some sense different versions. Yet the finiteness of all solutions (under n> 3) contains all, as if there are only finitely many in total then there is a largest $n$ and a largest $z$ and so on. And, while I read it differently at first, thus my edit, I think the version you link to actually is meant to assert the finiteness of the set of all solutions , ie couples $(z,n)$ and thus contains Lang's. |
|
May 17 |
accepted | Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem |
|
May 17 |
revised |
Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem added "srongest possible" comment |
|
May 17 |
revised |
Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem added 62 characters in body |
|
May 17 |
answered | Effect of abc conjecture on Fermat’s Last Theorem |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Proof of the weak Goldbach Conjecture First, it was said (in some sense even twice!) before your answer and is mentioned very prominently in the paper itself (by line 8 or so). Second, if you are so little informed about the actual content of the paper as to not even being able to give any type of substantive information that might remotely qualify as an answer to the (first) question, it is really unclear to me why anybody should care about your impression. (If you could but did not this seems even worse.) |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Proof of the weak Goldbach Conjecture @Christi Stoica: if you disagree with a closure the best thing to do is to start a thread on meta. (Link at the top; extra sign up necessary, but easy and instant. Sign-up, top right, then 'apply for membership' which is granted instantly.) |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Proof of the weak Goldbach Conjecture I am not well placed to comment on details (and am sceptical regarding such questions in general) but in view of some other contributions I would like to say that since Vinogradov there were a number of contrib. towards getting the full conjecture, so if it is (and this seems likely) now fully settled this seems like quite an achievement. I have no time to write in detail but just a remark: only recently it was shown that all odd numbers (except minimal exceptions) are sum of 5 primes (Tao) improving on Ramaré (6 primes, for even). So now 3 (not 'only' 4) IMO is impressive. |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Proof of the weak Goldbach Conjecture "It needs to be iterated once again,..." Why? And, you do not answer the question. |
|
May 14 |
revised |
weights and exceptional root systems edited tags |
|
May 11 |
answered | A sequence based on Catalan–Mihăilescu problem |
|
May 10 |
revised |
How I can prove that Λ(C,s) have infinitely many simple zeros at non-positive integers? format; edited tags |
