Timeline for Boyd & Chua 1985: Is the proof of Lemma 2 correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 12:03 | vote | accept | arash | ||
| Jan 8, 2023 at 11:56 | comment | added | arash | @DanieleTampieri Thank you very much. Truly appreciate the time and effort you put into this. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 6:09 | comment | added | Daniele Tampieri | Thanks @LSpice, your suggestions pertaining TeX are always very useful to me. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 2:12 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 74 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 0:17 | comment | added | LSpice |
@DanieleTampieri, re, TeX note: although I think they are usually typeset identically, if it is to be written symbolically, then it is semantically better to use \land for conjunction rather than \wedge. While fixing some typos, I edited accordingly.
|
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 0:15 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Proofreading
|
| Jan 7, 2023 at 21:16 | answer | added | Daniele Tampieri | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 7, 2023 at 20:22 | history | edited | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added further detail to the already comprehensive revision of Arash
|
| Jan 7, 2023 at 20:19 | comment | added | Daniele Tampieri | Arash, I am going to post an answer soon: I'll edit also the question, if you don't mind, as already I were preparing a revision. | |
| Jan 7, 2023 at 20:07 | comment | added | arash | @DanieleTampieri Many thanks for your kind comment. I decided to rewrite my question after Iosif's comments. Hope it's clearer now. | |
| Jan 7, 2023 at 20:04 | history | edited | arash | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
better definition of notation
|
| Jan 5, 2023 at 17:17 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @DanieleTampieri : Thank you for your comment and your generosity. | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 17:10 | comment | added | Daniele Tampieri | @IosifPinelis I'll try to improve further the question of arash. Partly of the responsibility of the above mess is mine. ;) | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 16:37 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | My comment was mainly, not on the word choice, but on having everything defined -- defined in your post. | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 16:35 | comment | added | arash | @IosifPinelis Thanks for your comment. Please note that I used their own wording precisely. Yet, I'm sure they would agree with you on the word choice: they addressed this issue in section IX, starting with "It is possible to generalize the results of this paper to a clean and simple mathematical form, at the cost of some engineering intuition". Indeed, they avoid confusion by setting up a context for every single term they used. I skipped explaining it, assuming that it is clear enough. But if not, I'll update my question. | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 15:19 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | You should explain what you mean by (i) "a functional $G_0 \in \mathbf{G}$, by defined an associated function $g_0$" ("defined" in what way exactly? "associated" in what way exactly? "by defined" or "defined by"? (ii) "endowed with a decaying weight $w(t)$ to ensure its compactness" ("endowed" in what way exactly? "ensure" how?) (iii) "w.r.t. $w(t)$ on $K_-$". Also, (i) undefined, non-mathematical terms such as "inputs" and "past times" should be avoided or, at least, defined mathematically; (ii) the functions are $u$ and $v$, not $u(t)$ and $v(t)$, please. | |
| Jan 5, 2023 at 13:40 | history | edited | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor Math Jaxing + formatting + added a complete reference information
|
| S Jan 5, 2023 at 12:59 | review | First questions | |||
| Jan 5, 2023 at 14:31 | |||||
| S Jan 5, 2023 at 12:59 | history | asked | arash | CC BY-SA 4.0 |