Timeline for Is the Jaccard distance a distance?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2020 at 21:14 | comment | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | @rgrig Yes, didn't mean to sound critical, I was just excited that it works | |
| May 24, 2020 at 20:23 | comment | added | rgrig | @BjørnKjos-Hanssen: Maybe it works now. The question is many years old. I don't have a Mathematica licence any more, because of changing jobs. | |
| May 24, 2020 at 7:57 | comment | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | @rgrig Just write the unfactored expression into Mathematica and press "expand". It works perfectly. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 19:11 | comment | added | rgrig | IIRC, the first inequality is exactly what I plugged in some Mathematica function. But now I can't recall which one ... | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 23:48 | comment | added | David Zhang | @Suvrit I definitely agree it's not the most enlightening proof! I was mostly spurred by the OP's remark that the problem "seems hopeless for Mathematica," to which I thought "nonsense --- moderate-sized rational inequalities should be well within reach." And I do find some elegance, admittedly of a different sort, when a simple-minded proof idea can be made to work modulo computational effort. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 13:25 | comment | added | Suvrit | Actually, going via the Steinhaus transform gives you vastly more than just triangle inequality for the Jaccard distance (because it applies to arbitrary metric spaces!). That said, I think so far the cleanest "venn" diagram proof is in Ryan Moulton's answer. The rational inequality you note above also looks very nice! | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 8:03 | history | answered | David Zhang | CC BY-SA 4.0 |