Timeline for Generalization of Lagrange inversion with "skewed" formal parameter
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2012 at 0:37 | comment | added | Gabriel Mitchell | Thanks for pointing this out. I have fixed the misprints and expanded on the connection between the problem statement and my application. I seem to have run into a length restriction at the end of the edit, so I will comment here. In the case where $A(y) = (1+-p+py)^{N-1}$ the variance (and higher order cumulants) no longer vanish for general $p$. The equation I obtained allows for recursive computation of $X^(m)(0)$, but this is somewhat unwieldy, which motivates my interest in the Lagrange inversion analog. | |
| Dec 3, 2012 at 0:28 | history | edited | Gabriel Mitchell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammar corrections, refactoring and expansion of postscript.; deleted 127 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2012 at 15:01 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | The question seems interesting, but could you please read it carefully and correct the misprints in the formulas ? It is incomprehensible. (What is $t$ in the first equation? "Polynomials in the derivatives of $u$ should be "polynomials in the derivatives of $w$" ? And so on. | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 6:57 | comment | added | Max Alekseyev | Just to double check: there is no $t$ in your implicit equation - is it correct? | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 0:21 | history | asked | Gabriel Mitchell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |