Timeline for Is there a transformation or a proof for these integrals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2021 at 22:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 20, 2021 at 16:48 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2021 at 16:55 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 31, 2021 at 3:08 | |||||
| Aug 11, 2021 at 13:09 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Nemo, making an unnecessary edit, just so you can vote a question down? Really? | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 20:21 | comment | added | Tom Leinster | @user44191 Thanks for writing the meta question - that's clearly the right forum for this discussion. | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 18:29 | comment | added | user44191 | I've tried asking a question on meta.MO whether there should be a policy on situations like this (meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/5116/…). | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 18:02 | comment | added | user44191 | @TomLeinster I agree that there are things that distinguish the apparent case from a self-answer - the lack of a self-answer being the key one. I guess I was more focused on the issue of "reputation farming" (though I can see that that intent didn't come through); a self-answer is acceptable, and would be eligible for more reputation, indicating that "reputation farming" shouldn't be considered the central issue. I agree with you that there are other issues raised (and to which rep farming could be secondary) - which is a part of why I suggested raising this on meta.MO. | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 17:17 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Besides, after $10$ years it is perfectly possible to forget to have ever proven that particular integral identity. | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 14:31 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | I can’t understand why downvoting this question. It seems to me interesting and perfectly suitable for MO. Not mentioning an existing proof is a defect, of course, yet I explain it to me with the purpose of not influencing who approaches the problem, since apparently the goal was to get new proofs, insights and connections. | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 13:32 | comment | added | Tom Leinster | @user44191 Whatever Stack Exchange policy might be, and independently of this particular case (on which I make no comment), it's (1) certainly unusual on MO to ask questions to which you already know the answer, and (2) abusive of other people's time to do this while giving the impression that you don't know the answer. If I spent time solving someone's problem and then typing it up, on the understanding that I was helping them out, I might feel quite angry to discover that they knew the answer all along. I don't use MO as much as I used to, but is there really any doubt over this? | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 13:31 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @Nemo What Apple product?? Could you tell your story on meta? | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 13:30 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | Could the OP speak for himself? | |
| Aug 10, 2021 at 10:59 | history | edited | Nemo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Couldn't downvote without editing it first.
|
| Aug 9, 2021 at 20:20 | comment | added | user44191 | For what it's worth, taking everything @Nemo says as true, this still seems to me to be within the MO (and more general SE) ethos. From the help center at mathoverflow.net/help/self-answer : "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions. If you have a question that you already know the answer to, and you would like to document that knowledge in public so that others (including yourself) can find it later, it's perfectly okay to ask and answer your own question on a Stack Exchange site." It may be worth bringing to meta.MO for clarification. | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 18:15 | comment | added | Nemo | The integral in this question was taken from your own paper that was written 10 years earlier "A dozen integrals: Russell-style" and you knew the proof. arxiv.org/abs/0808.2692 | |
| Mar 2, 2017 at 7:43 | vote | accept | T. Amdeberhan | ||
| Mar 1, 2017 at 20:13 | answer | added | juan | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 7:46 | answer | added | Nemo | timeline score: 24 | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 3:34 | comment | added | T. Amdeberhan | The Fourier of $x^2e^{-x^2}$ is its negative, but not true for $(1/4-x^2)e^{-x^2}$. It seems. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 2:29 | comment | added | Lucia | Use Fourier transforms: $\text{sech}$ is its own Fourier transform, and the Fourier transform of $(1/4-x^2)e^{-x^2}$ should give the negative of itself (properly dilated). Then by Plancherel the identity would follow. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 2:22 | history | edited | T. Amdeberhan |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 1, 2017 at 2:14 | history | asked | T. Amdeberhan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |