Timeline for When does the finite union of convex sets have a hole in it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2013 at 5:30 | answer | added | Anton Petrunin | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 27, 2013 at 2:49 | comment | added | user21816 | Man, that is a cool answer you linked to. I do have a way to test intersections, so that will do perfectly. | |
| Apr 27, 2013 at 1:56 | comment | added | zeb | If you have a way test whether intersections of the convex sets are nonempty, you can adapt the solution to this problem: mathoverflow.net/questions/21911/… | |
| Apr 27, 2013 at 1:18 | history | edited | user21816 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 27, 2013 at 1:11 | history | edited | user21816 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 299 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2013 at 1:09 | comment | added | user21816 | 1. Yes, it's the union, not the intersection of the sets (the intersection would be convex =) ). 2. Yes, I am attempting a floating-point algorithm. Rather than place restrictions on the sets, I'm hoping to use standard convex optimization techniques as a subroutine (the $\epsilon$-fudginess in these techniques is okay; I'd be fine with an algorithm that reports "the functions come within $\epsilon$ of being hole-less"). | |
| Apr 27, 2013 at 1:00 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | 1. You're really asking about the union (not intersection :-) of closed convex sets. 2. Are you attempting a practical algorithm? Then you need restrictions on your convex sets. Algorithms must depend on restrictions (while there is none that would work well universally). | |
| Apr 27, 2013 at 0:46 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | So it is actually a union and not an intersection? | |
| Apr 27, 2013 at 0:33 | history | edited | user21816 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body; edited title; added 55 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2013 at 0:26 | history | asked | user21816 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |