Timeline for Boyd & Chua 1985: Is the proof of Lemma 2 correct?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2023 at 8:15 | history | edited | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo fixed
|
| Feb 27, 2023 at 15:36 | history | edited | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor Grammar Improvements and typo fixes
|
| Jan 8, 2023 at 12:03 | vote | accept | arash | ||
| Jan 8, 2023 at 12:03 | comment | added | arash | I'm convinced by this answer. Yet, if that's what this Lemma wanted to say, it seems to me that the main premise of the paper (existence of $u$-independent Volterra expansionis for TI operators) not met. I may be wrong. I'll think about it and post an update or another question. Nonetheless, thanks to all who engaged. | |
| Jan 8, 2023 at 0:11 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo
|
| Jan 7, 2023 at 22:48 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | No need whatsoever for you to apologize for anything. | |
| Jan 7, 2023 at 21:20 | comment | added | Daniele Tampieri | @IosifPinelis I apologize for perhaps having "mugged" you an answer but, as you see, this is only a bad wording problem in the text, with no analytical difficulty involved. | |
| Jan 7, 2023 at 21:16 | history | answered | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |