Timeline for looking for proof or partial proof of determinant conjecture
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2013 at 22:37 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Stefan: $S$ is a subset of the indices. The convention is that we negate all of the $\gamma$ whose indices are in the subset. | |
| Jul 28, 2013 at 22:15 | comment | added | Stefan | Thanks for the latest revision to your answer. Knowing that the conjecture is false for negative $B$ may be useful. I do not quite understand the "closed form" at the end, in particular the definition of $\gamma_S$ (what is $S$?). | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 18:03 | history | edited | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added more stuff
|
| Jul 25, 2013 at 21:31 | comment | added | Stefan | Thanks, that is really impressive. I had never heard of a Cauchy matrix before. By the way, $B \geq 0$ and all the $\gamma$'s are positive and distinct. David Speyer's commment above also looks helpful. I am going to wait a week or so and accept my favorite answer. | |
| Jul 25, 2013 at 21:21 | history | answered | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |