Skip to main content
18 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 29, 2013 at 15:54 history edited user40607 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 13 characters in body
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:08 history reopened Suvrit
Gil Kalai
Ricardo Andrade
Benoît Kloeckner
Dan Petersen
Sep 29, 2013 at 5:31 history edited user40607 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 78 characters in body
Sep 29, 2013 at 2:39 review Reopen votes
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:10
Sep 29, 2013 at 2:25 history edited Suvrit CC BY-SA 3.0
fixed title.
Sep 29, 2013 at 2:21 comment added Suvrit Actually this is a nice question, though a bit poorly phrased originally, but now it is clearly stated.
Sep 29, 2013 at 1:04 history closed Carlo Beenakker
Andrey Rekalo
Ricardo Andrade
David White
Ryan Budney
Needs details or clarity
Sep 28, 2013 at 18:50 vote accept user40607
Sep 28, 2013 at 22:37
Sep 28, 2013 at 18:17 history edited Suvrit
fixed tags for the question.
S Sep 28, 2013 at 17:32 review Close votes
Sep 29, 2013 at 1:04
S Sep 28, 2013 at 17:30 history suggested user91011 CC BY-SA 3.0
Latex edit
Sep 28, 2013 at 17:27 review Suggested edits
S Sep 28, 2013 at 17:30
S Sep 28, 2013 at 17:26 review Low quality posts
S Sep 28, 2013 at 17:32
S Sep 28, 2013 at 17:26 review First posts
Sep 28, 2013 at 17:27
Sep 28, 2013 at 17:26 answer added Suvrit timeline score: 4
Sep 28, 2013 at 17:22 comment added user40607 That is because A is a correlation matrix. So it has 1s on the diagonal.
Sep 28, 2013 at 17:12 comment added Carlo Beenakker if A and B are given there is nothing to maximize/minimize; if A is not given, what will stop you from taking A an arbitrarily large multiple of the unit matrix, so that the determinant of A+B will become arbitrarily large?
Sep 28, 2013 at 17:08 history asked user40607 CC BY-SA 3.0