Timeline for Is the sequence of partition numbers log-concave?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2015 at 3:30 | history | edited | Stephen DeSalvo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 359 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2013 at 3:02 | history | edited | Stephen DeSalvo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added the UPDATE section to include the new ArXiv submission.
|
| Aug 2, 2013 at 4:22 | comment | added | Suvrit | Very interesting; I don't know, however, if Janoski's whole approach is flawed or it is rescueable. I'd like to see a version based on PF though! | |
| Aug 2, 2013 at 3:47 | comment | added | Stephen DeSalvo | I find pages 9 and 10 of the proof highly suspect. On page 9, there is an inequality about 1/3 of the way down that I do not believe is true. There appears to be a positivity and monotonicity assumption placed on the coefficients $A_k(n)$ that is simply not true. I believe counterexamples to the inequality are n=27, 36, 87, 744. These are just a few that I checked by eye in Mathematica. | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 21:32 | comment | added | Suvrit | But it seems that in the thesis: math.clemson.edu/~janoski/reu/2012/thesis.pdf from Janoski, there is a proof; I've only skimmed it as of now (pg. 7 onwards), but maybe you can judge better if that delivers on the promise. Thanks! | |
| Aug 1, 2013 at 19:42 | history | answered | Stephen DeSalvo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |