Timeline for A calculus question related to quantization dimension
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2018 at 18:02 | history | edited | Gerald Edgar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2018 at 17:54 | history | edited | Gerald Edgar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 35 characters in body
|
| S Jan 29, 2018 at 17:06 | history | suggested | jeq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copied image to imgur.com, as it was not being displayed because of the new https rule. (There is still another broken image; the Wayback Machine does not help.)
|
| Jan 29, 2018 at 16:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 29, 2018 at 17:06 | |||||
| Jun 9, 2011 at 20:37 | comment | added | fedja | It took more than one evening but by now (I believe that) I have a proof. I'll try to update my answer as soon as I have more computer time (I'm traveling right now, so it is not always easy to find a quiet place and time; the proof is a bit long, so maybe I'll write piece after piece bumping the post :). Let's see if I'll make more silly mistakes). | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 12:51 | comment | added | fedja | Ah, you're right! $D(0)$ is undefined, so I need 3 strictly positive points on the line (the dip instead of the hump). It is also easy when you have more than 2 summands (I don't know if it is meaningful, but $D'\ge 0$ works for every number) but for 2 it may be, indeed, impossible. I'll check by the evening and update the post :). | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 4:13 | history | edited | Gerald Edgar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Jun 6, 2011 at 4:06 | history | answered | Gerald Edgar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |