Timeline for Any rigorous way to claim that sums with repeat summands are few?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 17, 2014 at 21:12 | history | suggested | LSpice | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Missing words inserted
|
| Jul 17, 2014 at 21:08 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 17, 2014 at 21:12 | |||||
| Feb 8, 2011 at 22:31 | vote | accept | Stanley Yao Xiao | ||
| Feb 6, 2011 at 20:46 | answer | added | Kevin O'Bryant | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 17:30 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 16:24 | comment | added | user9072 | There seems to be a possibly confusing typo: 'it is more convenient to work with $R_{B,h}(n)$.' I believe $r_{B,h}(n)$ is meant instead of $R_{B,h}(n)$. | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 8:19 | answer | added | Thomas Bloom | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 4:37 | history | asked | Stanley Yao Xiao | CC BY-SA 2.5 |