151 reputation
3
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 4 months
seen Jul 27 at 13:28

Jul
3
comment Generating correlated random numbers: Why does Cholesky decomposition work?
But how do you specify whether the correlations of those variables are going to be positive or negative?
Jul
1
asked Where does the “2” come from in deriving Normal PDF from its kernel?
Nov
5
asked Numeric synaesthesia: uses of and advice for learning math.
Oct
4
awarded  Supporter
Feb
16
awarded  Editor
Feb
16
revised So is this, finally, the difference between convergence in probability and almost sure convergence?
Updated to candidate definitions that don't contradict convergence almost surely implying convergence in probability.
Feb
16
comment So is this, finally, the difference between convergence in probability and almost sure convergence?
You're right. How about: only the third statement (A_n/B_n -> 0) needs to be true for convergence in probability, while the first and third statements both need to be true for convergence almost surely?
Feb
16
asked So is this, finally, the difference between convergence in probability and almost sure convergence?
Jun
18
comment Reconciling 'intersecting planes' and 'linear transformation' interpretations of matrices
According to Wolfram Mathworld... "The dot product therefore has the geometric interpretation as the length of the projection of X onto the unit vector $\bf \hat Y$ when the two vectors are placed so that their tails coincide.". Now I'm confused-- it's not a projection of $\bf X$ onto $\bf Y$ but it is onto its unit vector?
Jun
18
comment Reconciling 'intersecting planes' and 'linear transformation' interpretations of matrices
I was going by this post. Perhaps I'm not interpreting what the author said about the dot product being the part of one vector that's in the direction of the other vector?
Jun
16
comment Reconciling 'intersecting planes' and 'linear transformation' interpretations of matrices
@mac: dot prodcut of x with itself is magnitude of $x$ times cos(0) times the magnitude of the other vector $\in R^1$ which happens to also be $x$. So, 10x1x10. So it seems like the dot product collapses neatly into ordinary scalar multiplication in the degenerate case. Regarding the second comment, I forgot to mention that for my purposes I'm assuming all normal vectors to be through the origin.
Jun
16
revised Reconciling 'intersecting planes' and 'linear transformation' interpretations of matrices
edited tags
Jun
16
awarded  Student
Jun
16
asked Reconciling 'intersecting planes' and 'linear transformation' interpretations of matrices