Timeline for Conjectured combinatorial non-equality
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:54 | comment | added | John McVey | To record for posterity, the result can be made stronger with a little less work. We can prove @Martin Rubey's observation directly (alternating (k), (n-k), (k+1), (n-k-1), etc. yields a strictly increasing sequence) using only the second and third computation. | |
| Aug 31, 2018 at 6:53 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | @JohnMcVey of course you are welcome to use this argument and cite it on the manner suggested by License Agreement as suggested by Gerhard. | |
| Aug 30, 2018 at 23:51 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | @John, when Fedor responds, of course respect his preferences. Until then, a sentence like yours is appropriate, and follow it up with a bibliographic reference that includes the question title , the year, and a URL like mathoverflow.net/q/309371 for the question. (If you want to refer to just the answer, click on 'share' above Fedor's photo for a URL/id for his answer, and cut off the /id part for the bibref.). Gerhard "Remember The StackExchange License Agreement" Paseman, 2018.08.30. | |
| Aug 30, 2018 at 19:23 | vote | accept | John McVey | ||
| Aug 30, 2018 at 19:23 | comment | added | John McVey | Well, that was exactly what I was looking to find. Thank you so much! The only remaining question (as I haven't yet figured out the etiquette for attribution from this site), should I actually get the publication (a) may I use this argument, and (b) what is the appropriate way to say "my thanks to Fedor Petrov for providing the following proof" (he says hoping that sentence to be the answer)? | |
| Aug 30, 2018 at 8:16 | history | answered | Fedor Petrov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |