Timeline for Is there a finite family of functions such that the max of any two functions can be dominated by a third?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7 at 7:42 | vote | accept | domotorp | ||
| Nov 7 at 7:05 | answer | added | domotorp | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 27, 2020 at 18:13 | comment | added | domotorp | @Tobias No, this question is quite different. | |
| Jun 27, 2020 at 12:13 | comment | added | Tobias Fritz | This question seems to be the same as (or at least closely related to) multiplayer nontransitive dice. If I understand correctly, for example Oskar dice provide a solution with $t=2$, $n=21$ and $|\mathcal{F}| = 7$, the same parameters as in David Speyer's solution. | |
| Jun 27, 2020 at 10:21 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added links to related papers
|
| S Sep 19, 2017 at 13:13 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 19, 2017 at 13:13 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 12, 2017 at 4:48 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
removed (tag-removed) tag (The question has been bumped anyway.)
|
|
| Sep 11, 2017 at 11:33 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 65 characters in body
|
| S Sep 11, 2017 at 11:32 | history | bounty started | domotorp | ||
| S Sep 11, 2017 at 11:32 | history | notice added | domotorp | Draw attention | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Feb 18, 2014 at 21:39 | answer | added | Sam Zbarsky | timeline score: 22 | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 9:47 | vote | accept | domotorp | ||
| Oct 17, 2017 at 20:40 | |||||
| Nov 27, 2013 at 17:57 | answer | added | David E Speyer | timeline score: 29 | |
| Nov 25, 2013 at 22:28 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 320 characters in body
|
| S Nov 24, 2013 at 16:39 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 24, 2013 at 16:39 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 19, 2013 at 15:16 | comment | added | Lev Borisov | After trying for a while, my guess is that the strong version is unlikely to be achieved, but I have no proof to the contrary. | |
| Nov 18, 2013 at 14:33 | comment | added | domotorp | Indeed, I have never realized that! To be honest, never got further than trying to prove the weak version for t=2... | |
| Nov 18, 2013 at 0:35 | comment | added | Lev Borisov | Just pointing out the obvious: a strong version for $t=2$ and arbitrary $\epsilon$ implies strong version for any $t$. | |
| Nov 16, 2013 at 20:59 | comment | added | domotorp | @Seva: No, I could not. | |
| Nov 16, 2013 at 19:32 | comment | added | Seva | For $t=2$, one needs $n\ge 5$. Could you rule out the case $n=5$? | |
| S Nov 16, 2013 at 15:00 | history | bounty started | domotorp | ||
| S Nov 16, 2013 at 15:00 | history | notice added | domotorp | Draw attention | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:28 | comment | added | domotorp | I rewrote is as I've indicated it in my comment. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 1:19 | comment | added | Włodzimierz Holsztyński | I'd suggest, @domotorp, that instead of answering Seva's and other doubts with a comment by you, you'd rewrite your question, please. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 0:26 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Maybe you can adapt a Hadamard design. Let the rows of a 7x7 0-1 matrix of maximal determinant be the seven functions. We don't have strict inequality, but any row is equal to or greater than the max of two other rows on 4 and sometimes 5 of the columns. Gerhard "Maybe It's A Design Problem" Paseman, 2013.11.10 | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 17:40 | comment | added | Suvrit | this reminds me of an ultrametric .... | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 15:54 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2013 at 13:51 | comment | added | domotorp | Sorry, I just want to know if there is an n, I don't want all n's, I changed the first line. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 13:50 | history | edited | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2013 at 13:49 | comment | added | domotorp | Taking all different values means that for any i, j, k, l we have $f_i(k)\ne f_j(l)$. Btw, this condition is in fact redundant, so you can ignore it if you wish. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 10:52 | comment | added | Seva | Is $n$ assumed to be large in terms of $t$? (Otherwise, even the cases $n=1$ and $n=2$ seem to present a problem.) | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 10:41 | comment | added | Seva | Exactly what do you mean by "taking all different values"? | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 9:12 | history | asked | domotorp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |