Timeline for mixing convex and concave for convexity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2017 at 16:41 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 26, 2017 at 14:11 | comment | added | fedja | @T.Amdeberhan Feel free to ask any questions if something is unclear (I tried to write with sufficiently many details but, of course, I've cut some corners to make the typing possible in finite time). | |
| May 26, 2017 at 14:06 | comment | added | T. Amdeberhan | Fedya: this has been a very details task you encountered, and I will try to check it as well. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 14:05 | comment | added | fedja | @Suvrit If you allow CAS, there is no problem from the beginning: you can easily handle the range like $m\ge 13$, after which you just run the partial sum test on a few polynomials of degree up to $200$ or something like that even without any simplifying observations. Of course, then you'll have to list both the computer and the software developers as your co-authors if you ever want to publish the result. :-) | |
| May 26, 2017 at 13:43 | comment | added | Suvrit | I know you handled the case $n=1$ by hand on principle; but it's worth noting that the case $n=1$ is equally boringly immediate via a CAS too after one brief simplifying observation. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 13:30 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 26, 2017 at 13:20 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2155 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2017 at 9:52 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 26, 2017 at 2:48 | comment | added | Paata Ivanishvili | @T.Amdeberhan not for the present problem. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 1:23 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2095 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 23:03 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2285 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 22:00 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 747 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 19:45 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 749 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 19:14 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 19:07 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1810 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 18:38 | comment | added | T. Amdeberhan | By "curious inequality", I thought there could be some possible relation. Do you have a "simple potential analysis proof" for the present problem here? | |
| May 25, 2017 at 17:52 | history | edited | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1597 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 15:21 | comment | added | Paata Ivanishvili | Maybe not a mushroom. I would love to see why T. Amdeberhan mentioned Curious Inequality initially (which by the way has a very simple potential analysis proof) | |
| May 25, 2017 at 12:51 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | very pertinent mycological metaphor, sadly :P | |
| May 25, 2017 at 12:22 | history | answered | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |