Timeline for Lacunary sequence

9 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jul 26, 2012 at 15:35	vote	accept	Charles
Jul 25, 2012 at 8:26	comment	added	Pietro Majer		I've always met this adjective in definitions given locally inside a theorem or inside a paper ("let's define a power series lacunary iff..."). It seems to me a case where it is more useful not to choose a standard definition once and for all. I'd rather leave the freedom to cover time by time each of the various possible cases of set of integers with "large gaps".
Jul 25, 2012 at 1:52	history	edited	Charles	CC BY-SA 3.0	+inf
Jul 24, 2012 at 17:50	comment	added	Anthony Quas		In subsequence ergodic theory, the condition is multiplicative, as everywhere else by the sound of it. We don't use any condition on the existence of the limit of the ratios. $n!$ is lacunary for example.
Jul 24, 2012 at 16:39	comment	added	Charles		@Zen Harper: Certainly the term should not be used without definition! But if the standard definition was A and I needed B, then I shouldn't use the term at all (except to clarify). Thus the question.
Jul 24, 2012 at 16:30	answer	added	user9072		timeline score: 2
Jul 24, 2012 at 16:12	comment	added	Boris Bukh		I think this is a self-answering question.
Jul 24, 2012 at 16:12	comment	added	Zen Harper		If there is a standard definition, it is clearly not well-known enough to be used without stating it; I think I've seen similar things with lim inf instead of lim. For a paper, it's safest to define exactly what you mean.
Jul 24, 2012 at 15:38	history	asked	Charles	CC BY-SA 3.0