Timeline for Derivative norm estimates
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4 at 16:21 | comment | added | Bazin | Taking into account the aforementioned multidimensional difficulty, it is indeed straightforward to prove (5) (which is the requested estimate) inductively. | |
| Sep 4 at 16:19 | history | edited | Bazin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Taking into account the aforementioned multidimensional difficulty, it is indeed straightforward to prove (5),
|
| Sep 3 at 22:08 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 3 at 21:48 | history | edited | Bazin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Sep 3 at 16:40 | vote | accept | T. Amdeberhan | ||
| Sep 3 at 16:35 | comment | added | T. Amdeberhan | Thank you much, will take a look closely. | |
| Sep 3 at 16:12 | comment | added | Bazin | @T.Amdeberhan I wrote some more details on the meaning of the multidimensional Faa de Bruno formula. | |
| Sep 3 at 16:11 | history | edited | Bazin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I wrote some more details on the meaning of the multidimensional Faa de Bruno formula.
|
| Sep 2 at 14:04 | comment | added | Bazin | Hmm, I guess so. In fact, I hope that the formula $(\ast)$ can be used to prove this inductively, by just plugging your estimate for the $\Psi_r$, since the $\Omega_{r,n}$ have an explicit expression. I will return to that matter, but I feel that $(\ast)$ is following the piece of advice given in a previous comment by A. Kulikov. | |
| Sep 2 at 13:59 | history | edited | Bazin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Sep 1 at 23:07 | comment | added | T. Amdeberhan | Thank you. You said "bounded above by a polynomial". Do you actually get the bound I posed in the problem? | |
| Sep 1 at 17:35 | history | edited | Bazin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
$\Omega$ dépends on $r$ and $n$.
|
| Aug 31 at 19:29 | history | answered | Bazin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |