Timeline for Least sum squares given constraints on subcomponents
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Feb 19, 2011 at 8:40 | comment | added | drbobmeister | OK, so it looks like I was right. Thanks for clarifying, Tony. | |
| Feb 19, 2011 at 8:30 | comment | added | Tony | It is a subvector. My bad word usage. I added a p.s. to clarify. Thanks for your suggestion, drbobmeister. | |
| Feb 19, 2011 at 8:21 | history | edited | Tony | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 145 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2011 at 8:14 | comment | added | drbobmeister | @Tony: I'm having a little trouble understanding your question. Are the "subcomponents" orthogonal projections of $x$ onto a set of three (for example) mutually orthogonal, complementary subspaces whose sum is $R^{k}$, the space in which $x$ lives? That's my guess, but if you could clarify it might help folks to answer your question. | |
| Feb 19, 2011 at 5:51 | comment | added | Tony | I want the quadratic expressions as close to 0 as possible, and since A is not positive-definite, I have to minimize the sum of squares. I'm not sure if it's a good idea. | |
| Feb 19, 2011 at 4:20 | answer | added | Brian Borchers | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 19, 2011 at 4:16 | comment | added | Gilead | May I ask what the motivation is for making the quadratic expression a quartic one? Is it to avoid concave curvature? (at the expense of introducing multiple solutions) | |
| Feb 19, 2011 at 1:55 | history | asked | Tony | CC BY-SA 2.5 |