Timeline for Wasserstein distance of push-forward measures
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9 at 16:27 | vote | accept | tommy1996q | ||
| Sep 8 at 23:04 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 8 at 22:14 | answer | added | Iosif Pinelis | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 8 at 20:52 | history | edited | tommy1996q | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 60 characters in body; added 20 characters in body
|
| Sep 8 at 15:43 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | I think your post should be edited to make the question specific. "[A]ny relation" is very non-specific. The best would be to state your question formally. Also, there should be only one question in one post. | |
| Sep 8 at 14:58 | comment | added | tommy1996q | @IosifPinelis I mean if using the Lipschitz constant on $f$ is the only known (at leat, well known) way to estimate the distance between the two push-forward measures, not requiring anything specific on $\mu$ and $\nu$ | |
| Sep 8 at 13:02 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | Your comment is unclear to me. There is no such thing as "we can say nothing on". About any object A, we can always say "A is A". | |
| Sep 8 at 10:37 | comment | added | tommy1996q | @IosifPinelis do you perhaps know some counterexample that shows that, if $f$ is not Lipschitz, we can say nothing on the distance between $f_\# \mu, f_\# \nu$? Or do you at least believe this to be true? | |
| Sep 8 at 0:22 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | For this, you need conditions on $f$, say a Lipschitz condition. | |
| Sep 7 at 18:15 | history | asked | tommy1996q | CC BY-SA 4.0 |