Timeline for Combinatorics of lattice walks with forbidden points
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2010 at 21:05 | comment | added | Jason Reed | Gjergji: I don't see how nonselfintersection is required. I'm just relying on the binomial coefficients converging to the Gaussian distribution in the limit, aren't I? | |
| Mar 15, 2010 at 21:03 | vote | accept | Jason Reed | ||
| Mar 15, 2010 at 21:10 | |||||
| Mar 15, 2010 at 7:43 | comment | added | Gjergji Zaimi | In the scaling limit, are you talking about the Gaussian free field? Can you elaborate a little? GFF only works for paths with no self intersection. If so then there is a generalization to annuli, punctured planes or any surface for that matter. | |
| Mar 15, 2010 at 7:28 | answer | added | Douglas Zare | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 15, 2010 at 5:25 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Depending on your interpretation of "similar," my guess is "no." The reason is that there is a natural way to write down a generating function that answers your first question, but to do something similar for the second question one must throw away certain terms when expanding a product, which is "unnatural" from the generating function point of view. In other words, the generating function approach ignores the order in which a walk is taken. Since you have to take order into account, a generating function-based approach is unlikely to work, and these are the ones giving "similar" answers. | |
| Mar 15, 2010 at 2:08 | history | asked | Jason Reed | CC BY-SA 2.5 |