Timeline for Finding $\sum_i x_i$ given $\{\sum_i x_i^{2n}\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr 13 at 15:43 | vote | accept | CWC | ||
Apr 13 at 15:43 | |||||
Apr 13 at 7:09 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
M
|
Apr 13 at 6:40 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I think you have $\psi-\phi$ in one place, where you want $\phi-\psi$. | |
Apr 13 at 5:36 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 34 characters in body
|
Apr 13 at 4:57 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | You are right: I realised that $\phi(t)-\psi(t)=o(t)$ as $t\to-\infty$ is much easier to prove, and it is sufficient to conclude | |
Apr 13 at 4:55 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 476 characters in body
|
Apr 13 at 4:21 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
Apr 13 at 1:01 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
Apr 12 at 17:30 | comment | added | CWC | Thank you. This is surprising and counter-intuitive to me. In your proof, the step that I am slightly confused with is the part where you show $\phi(t)-\psi(t) = o(1)$ by the dominated convergence theorem. It might be something trivial, but could you please elaborate? | |
Apr 12 at 16:15 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Please ask, is something is not clear | |
Apr 11 at 21:07 | history | undeleted | Pietro Majer | ||
Apr 11 at 21:07 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 198 characters in body
|
Apr 11 at 20:53 | history | deleted | Pietro Majer | via Vote | |
Apr 11 at 20:22 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
Apr 11 at 20:09 | history | answered | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |