Timeline for Young-Fibonacci version of Nekrasov-Okounkov
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
37 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2021 at 16:44 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected error in the $E_k(u)$-expansion of $H^\vee_t(u)$ as well as an error in the expansion of $F^\vee(z ; t)$. These are not trivial edits, but important corrections so that I can at least keep track of what's going on. Otherwise I will forget and perpetuate errors in any future calculations.
|
| S Jul 12, 2021 at 22:00 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 12, 2021 at 22:00 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jul 4, 2021 at 20:48 | comment | added | Jeanne Scott | Any explanation for the minus vote ? | |
| S Jul 4, 2021 at 20:04 | history | bounty started | Jeanne Scott | ||
| S Jul 4, 2021 at 20:04 | history | notice added | Jeanne Scott | Draw attention | |
| Jul 4, 2021 at 19:58 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
tuned the question
|
| Apr 13, 2021 at 2:00 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Mar 14, 2021 at 0:03 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott |
added differential equations tag
|
|
| Mar 1, 2021 at 0:00 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo $\gamma_{<k}$
|
| Feb 28, 2021 at 22:45 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed some problems with the exponential generating function and simplified the $(\dagger \dagger)$ system
|
| Feb 28, 2021 at 22:40 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed some problems with the exponential generating function and simplified the $(\dagger \dagger)$ system
|
| Feb 28, 2021 at 2:44 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott |
added two additional tags
|
|
| Feb 28, 2021 at 1:57 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
re-formatting equations to improve visibillity
|
| Feb 27, 2021 at 2:11 | answer | added | Jeanne Scott | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 26, 2021 at 6:24 | comment | added | Jeanne Scott | See the section OGF $\displaystyle \longleftrightarrow$ EGF conversion formulas in the Wikipedia entry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Feb 26, 2021 at 6:19 | comment | added | Jeanne Scott | I'm referring to this trick from the theory of Borel re-summation: $\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle \sum_{n \geq 0} \, \langle E_k \rangle_n \, z^n &\displaystyle = \ \int_0^\infty \, dt \, e^{-t} \sum_{n \geq 0} \, {\langle E_k \rangle_n \over {n!}} \, (zt)^n \\ &\displaystyle = \ \int_0^\infty \, dt \, e^{-t} \, F_k(zt) \\ &\displaystyle = \ z^{-1} \text{$\frak{L}$} \big\{ F_k \big\}(z^{-1}) \quad \text{Laplace transform} \end{array}$ | |
| Feb 26, 2021 at 4:37 | comment | added | Jeanne Scott | For a fixed valued of $k \geq 0$ the ODE corresponding to the generating function of the expectation values $\langle E_k \rangle_n$ is first order and (hopefully) easier to solve. If its solution can be obtained, it may then be possible to recover the generating function of the $\sigma_k(n)$ by the inverse Laplace transform. I'll work on this (at least for small values of $k$). | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 4:29 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
sign error in ODE changed
|
| Feb 25, 2021 at 3:49 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added URL for Stanley's notes
|
| Feb 25, 2021 at 3:29 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
some technical errors addressed
|
| Feb 25, 2021 at 0:13 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
still making changes
|
| Feb 24, 2021 at 19:23 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
editing the definition of coherence
|
| Feb 24, 2021 at 2:55 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
more clarification
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 19:41 | answer | added | Jeanne Scott | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 23, 2021 at 19:04 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
rephrased the question, clean-up some text
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 6:53 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | Hi. The guideline for writing questions usually do not encourage the use of formulas like "Thank you", "Thanks in advance" or similar, since questions and answers are considered as mini blog-posts and one wants to minimize noise and clutter. I tend to agree with this interpretation. Instead of saying "thanks" (that is implicit) one can upvote the answers that helped them, and accept the answer that helped them the most. See the related post meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115694/… | |
| Feb 23, 2021 at 6:42 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 6:40 | history | edited | Francesco Polizzi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 4:12 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
more typos
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 4:06 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
correction to calculations for $F^\vee_1(z)$ added
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 3:54 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
some calculations for $F^\vee_1(z)$ added
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 2:53 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
right not left !; added 3 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 2:46 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I think it's ok now
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 2:29 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formula edit
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 2:17 | history | edited | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typos
|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 2:11 | history | asked | Jeanne Scott | CC BY-SA 4.0 |