Timeline for Fourier transform of $\exp(-\|x\|_p)$: more general question
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2021 at 18:27 | history | edited | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Math Jaxed
|
| Oct 25, 2009 at 5:33 | vote | accept | Tom Leinster | ||
| Oct 25, 2009 at 5:33 | history | bounty ended | Tom Leinster | ||
| Oct 24, 2009 at 15:54 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | Deane, that's because you're a convex geometer. I think most probabilists would go for a book on infinitely divisible distributions for a proof of the lemma. I'm enough of a probabilist to think that's what a canonical source ought to be, but not enough of one actually to be familiar with those sources. In any case, lest I give anyone the wrong impression, Koldobsky's book is very well-written and makes an excellent reference for everything it has in it. | |
| Oct 24, 2009 at 14:11 | comment | added | Deane Yang | Mark, Koldobsky's book was exactly what came to my mind when I saw this question. I think it is the right place for this. | |
| Oct 24, 2009 at 12:34 | history | edited | Mark Meckes | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Corrected typo in range of s.
|
| Oct 24, 2009 at 12:34 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | There are probably more-canonical sources for this than Koldobsky's book; that was just the one book on my shelf that I knew had a proof of that lemma. | |
| Oct 23, 2009 at 23:53 | comment | added | Tom Leinster | Thanks Mark! That looks promising. I'll try going through your argument tomorrow. (Incidentally, our library doesn't have Koldobsky's book, but I did eventually find it on the web, after a long trawl through various sites of increasing dodginess.) | |
| Oct 23, 2009 at 15:51 | history | answered | Mark Meckes | CC BY-SA 2.5 |