meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 11 months |
| seen | Nov 14 '12 at 12:05 | |
| stats | profile views | 6 |
|
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 |
