Timeline for Well approximating sets
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 4, 2021 at 0:35 | vote | accept | Nate River | ||
May 3, 2021 at 16:46 | answer | added | Yuval Peres | timeline score: 4 | |
May 3, 2021 at 6:40 | comment | added | Nate River | ... and that would have measure 0. You’re right. The same example was given to me by Yuval Peres a bit earlier. Would you like to post this as an answer so I can flag it as accepted? | |
May 3, 2021 at 6:39 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | Say, if $D$ is the set of numbers $0.x_1x_2\ldots$ such that $x_{2^n}=1$ for all $n$, then for every $x\in (0, 1) $ there exists $d\in D$ for which $s_i$'s are distinct powers of 2, thus growing faster than any polynomial. Right? | |
May 3, 2021 at 3:21 | comment | added | Nate River | It isn’t. One might say “polynomially unbounded gaps” for a more precise term but I don’t think this is standard either. | |
May 3, 2021 at 3:18 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Is "anti-syndetic" a standard term? | |
May 3, 2021 at 3:10 | comment | added | LSpice |
@Buzz, if you like \ldots , you'll like the "semantic dots" \dotsc and co. (\dotsb , \dotsm , \dotsi ) even more!
|
|
S May 3, 2021 at 3:05 | history | suggested | Buzz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed typo
|
May 3, 2021 at 3:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
S May 3, 2021 at 3:05 | |||||
May 3, 2021 at 1:33 | history | edited | Nate River | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
May 3, 2021 at 1:25 | history | edited | Nate River | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
May 3, 2021 at 1:18 | history | asked | Nate River | CC BY-SA 4.0 |