Timeline for Counting lattice points on an n-simplex
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
41 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2010 at 1:21 | vote | accept | Richard | ||
| Jan 6, 2010 at 1:21 | vote | accept | Richard | ||
| Jan 6, 2010 at 1:21 | |||||
| Jan 6, 2010 at 1:16 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Removed 'second question', made first question easier to read / self-consistant.
|
| Jan 6, 2010 at 1:07 | comment | added | Richard | Ilya, I agree with you. I was working on answering this myself last night, rewrote it a few times, and now it's a bit of a disaster to read. I put off dealing with it because I felt like I changing/updating it too much, that that was becoming obnoxious, etc. However, I will follow your advice and post a new question. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 0:17 | comment | added | Ilya Nikokoshev | @Richdard, it's very hard to read your post: if it's not too late I suggest you make another post with the contents of your second question. It's better to have exactly one question per post because people will understand what you mean better and you won't have "accidental CW" problem if you don't edit so much. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 0:15 | comment | added | Sam Nead | The zero vector (the origin) does not satisfy the summation condition. It does satisfy the non-negativity conditions! :) | |
| Jan 5, 2010 at 15:15 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Shortened question text.
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 13:53 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 13:51 | answer | added | Richard | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 5, 2010 at 13:37 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Resolved first part of question, provided note
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 13:21 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 99 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 12:52 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Changed title to properly name polytope 'n-simplex', provided formula for volume in n-dimensions given vertices {; deleted 7 characters in body; added 6 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 8:40 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 68 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 8:33 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Changed title, reformulated question in terms of lattice integer point count for a particular kind of polytope; edited title; added 53 characters in body; added 13 characters in body; deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 8:26 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 243 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 2:11 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 5 characters in body; added 15 characters in body; deleted 532 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 2:06 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 97 characters in body; added 31 characters in body
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 1:54 | comment | added | Richard | Qiaochu, thanks, I was actually just now reading about Ehrhardt polynomials. One requirement is that all vertices are points on the integer lattice, which should hold in this case. | |
| Jan 5, 2010 at 0:06 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | As far as Pick's theorem goes, the keyword is Ehrhardt polynomial: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrhart_polynomial . A good reference is Stanley's Enumerative Combinatorics. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 23:55 | comment | added | Anweshi | It would be nice if you put the math inside dollars, and make the appropriate changes for suiting LaTeX. | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 23:51 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Updated question on equivalence to lattice integer point counting for polyhedra; deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2010 at 0:04 | answer | added | Sam Nead | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 2, 2010 at 2:33 | comment | added | Richard | Qiaochu, I changed it from 'polynomial' to 'expression'. Hopefully that should be less confusing for folks. | |
| Jan 2, 2010 at 2:29 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Changed "polynomial" to "expression" & disambiguated r_k / x_k issue
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 22:14 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Also, when all of the terms are linear there's no reason to say "polynomial"; usually one says "linear form." | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 20:00 | answer | added | Christopher Creutzig | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 1, 2010 at 17:40 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 477 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 16:54 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 26 characters in body; deleted 6 characters in body; edited body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 14:14 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 893 characters in body; edited title; edited title
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 13:20 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 1 characters in body; Post Made Community Wiki
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 13:10 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 135 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 13:03 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 206 characters in body; deleted 21 characters in body; edited body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 0:47 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 0:41 | history | edited | Richard |
Added tag 'polynomials', which seemed to be more appropriate.
|
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 0:32 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added note on 'information loss' on copy types at limit of large numbers of different types of marbles, made Qiaochu's fixes...; added 7 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 0:10 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 95 characters in body; edited title; added 18 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2010 at 0:04 | comment | added | Richard | Qiaochu, you're right, I'll fix that. | |
| Dec 31, 2009 at 20:28 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | As a general rule, it's mildly confusing to use words like "weight" and "closed," which have well-established mathematical meanings, in their non-mathematical senses to ask a mathematical question. | |
| Dec 31, 2009 at 15:48 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 120 characters in body
|
| Dec 31, 2009 at 13:17 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| Dec 31, 2009 at 13:07 | history | asked | Richard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |