Timeline for State of the art in the expected length of the Longest Increasing Subsequence of a random permutation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2015 at 15:01 | vote | accept | chubakueno | ||
| Oct 11, 2015 at 14:59 | comment | added | kantelope | Looking at the BDJ paper, I think one can likely make the little-o explicit (see (1.7), (1.8), and proof of 1.1 in Section 9), but I don't think it is sufficiently impressive looking to do so. But maybe I miss something. | |
| Oct 11, 2015 at 3:05 | history | edited | Alexey Ustinov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 11, 2015 at 2:38 | answer | added | Dan Romik | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 11, 2015 at 1:25 | comment | added | chubakueno | @user61318 and JosephORourke Thanks for the reference to such an interesting, recent, free book! I will update the post after giving it a read, hopefully having an answer to both questions. | |
| Oct 11, 2015 at 0:13 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | Dan Romik's book: The Surprising Mathematics of Longest Increasing Subsequences, Cambridge University Press, 2015. (Link to author page.) | |
| Oct 10, 2015 at 21:32 | comment | added | user35313 | I am not sure if there is anything better than Baik-Deift-Johansson's seminal result. If there indeed is, Dan Romik's fantastic book devoted to this and more would be the place to begin. | |
| Oct 10, 2015 at 19:34 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 10, 2015 at 19:35 | |||||
| Oct 10, 2015 at 19:30 | history | asked | chubakueno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |