Skip to main content

Timeline for A search for optimal order ideals

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Aug 11, 2011 at 22:36 comment added Victor Miller @Gerhard: I fixed the typos (I think that I got all of them). One other thing: you can also define a different partial order on subsets of M: Say that $A \ge_D B$ if $f_A(t) \ge f_B(t)$ for all $t \in (0,1)$ (the $D$ is for dominates). It's necessary (but not sufficient) for $A$ to be maximal in this partial order (at least restricted to sets of cardinality $|A|$) in order for it to be optimal. I found empirically that almost all of the maximal sets for $N=64$ were optimal.
Aug 11, 2011 at 19:22 history edited Victor Miller CC BY-SA 3.0
fixed a typo and added an explanation using bit-strings
Aug 11, 2011 at 19:11 comment added Gerhard Paseman Also, it is easy for me to get confused. A in M suggests that A is a set of numbers. A finite set A from M is a finite subset of M. By a finite set A in M I am guessing you mean the latter, but I would expect A subset M instead of what you have, which is A in M. Can I consider it a typo, and mentally substitue the subset symbol for the member of symbol in those places to get your meaning? Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.08.11
Aug 11, 2011 at 19:03 comment added Gerhard Paseman Thank you for showing this problem. I assume in the definition of A isomorphic to B you want B= instead of A=. Also, I apologize for an earlier error. The partial order I and Libor Polak used involved multisets, not sets, of the positive integers. I shall contemplate upon this problem. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.08.11
Aug 11, 2011 at 18:54 history edited Victor Miller CC BY-SA 3.0
another typo
Aug 11, 2011 at 18:47 history asked Victor Miller CC BY-SA 3.0