Timeline for Intercept the missile
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2020 at 13:43 | vote | accept | Eric | ||
| Apr 20, 2020 at 9:06 | comment | added | Kostya_I | @Eric, I added some explanation, hope that helps! | |
| Apr 20, 2020 at 9:05 | history | edited | Kostya_I | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
explanation added as per request
|
| Apr 20, 2020 at 2:14 | comment | added | Eric | Upon closer inspection, in this argument, why do we have to make the $S_t$ sphere our anchor and reference points in the first place? What about countless other plans that refers not to $S_t$ at all? "What is enough to show is the following claim..." Why is this claim enough? | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 14:09 | vote | accept | Eric | ||
| Apr 19, 2020 at 15:51 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2020 at 14:09 | comment | added | Eric | Yes, now I see why. Budd answered my comment just as I posted another one here so I deleted it. Together your answers are really conclusive. | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 13:29 | comment | added | Kostya_I | Well, Timothy has answered that comprehensively: to cover a curve by a curve, you don't need an $\epsilon$-neighborhood at all, just that the length at your disposal is large enough. It's imposible to cover a 2d surface by a curve, you need a neighborhood. In our case, the size of the neighborhood at our disposal decreases too quickly. | |
| Apr 18, 2020 at 17:42 | history | edited | Kostya_I | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Apr 18, 2020 at 16:51 | history | answered | Kostya_I | CC BY-SA 4.0 |