Timeline for Geometric interpretation of $BN$-pairs
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 26 at 21:10 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | @Andy But as you'll see when I try to explain it, probably this is something you should take seriously but not literally. The point is just that one of the things the triangle equality tells you is that if A and B are close to each other, their distances from C cannot be very different. $gB$ and $g'B$ (in my notation above) are close to each other (distance 1) so their distance from $B$ must be similar, which is what (B) is trying to say. | |
| Sep 26 at 21:07 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 524 characters in body
|
| Sep 26 at 20:51 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I mean, there's a decent chance that this isn't working because the statement of (B) is wrong; you only want to apply that relation when $h=x_i$. | |
| Sep 25 at 16:13 | comment | added | Andy | How does the triangle inequality (in terms of lengths) imply relation (B)? I know you said it's easy to see but I can't figure it out; how does one show one of two distances is $0$? | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 8:29 | vote | accept | Thomas Connor | ||
| Feb 20, 2011 at 18:15 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2011 at 18:08 | vote | accept | Thomas Connor | ||
| Feb 21, 2011 at 8:29 | |||||
| Feb 20, 2011 at 18:05 | history | answered | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |