born
Reputation
543
Top tag
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
Create tags
 Oct30 comment Does $\log(x)$ stop at a finite value when x is infinite? one could note that the gradient of $\log$ is smaller than the gradient of any polynomial. Oct29 comment Math induction ($n^2 \leq n!$) help please @chris and Andreas: yeah that was definitly crap :-) fixed it. Oct29 revised Math induction ($n^2 \leq n!$) help please added 119 characters in body Oct29 answered Math induction ($n^2 \leq n!$) help please Oct25 comment Diagonalizing a matrix with a symmetric matrix with "problem I have is that the U i found is not symmetric" you mean that "problem I have is that the U i found is not orthogonal" or not? Beeing symmetric ($A=A^T$) is something different then beeing orthogonal ($A^{-1}=A^T$) Sep2 comment A question regarding non archimedean absolute values I think this argument has circular reasoning in it (the part where you say "consequently the second term cannot contribute") so I did the proof thoroughly in an own answer. Sep2 answered A question regarding non archimedean absolute values Sep1 awarded Excavator Sep1 revised A question regarding non archimedean absolute values looked wired without a centered dot in it Sep1 suggested approved edit on A question regarding non archimedean absolute values Aug31 accepted equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” Aug31 comment equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” g thank you very much! I'm not sure about the netiquette here: in a situation like this, should I have edited the mistakes? Aug30 comment equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” the $=$-sign after that should also be a $\geq$. Aug30 comment equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” In the line after you chose $l$ with $l+2\leq k$ there is a $\leq$ in the middle where (imho) should be an $\geq$. Aug30 comment equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” And then I don't get the line with $k\rightarrow\infty$: Do you mean that the relation in the line befor ($m_kv_x+n_kv_y\in[2kR,2(k+1)R)\times(-\infty,-kR)$ holds for all $k$? And then: Why does it hold for all $k$? :-) Aug30 awarded Commentator Aug30 comment equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” there is something wrong in the line starting with "is a lattice on $\mathbb{R}^2$: Do you mean for all $p,q\in\mathbb R$ define $v$ and $w$ in the way you did and then use the triangle-inequality? Aug29 asked equivalence of two definitions of norm equivalence: “$|\cdot|_1=|\cdot|_2^\alpha$” vs. “being a Cauchy sequence is the same for both norms” Jul11 revised $\alpha x^2+\beta y^2=\gamma$ solvable over $\mathbb Q$ iff $ax^2+by^2=z^2$ solvable over $\mathbb Z$ with coprime $x,y,z$? there was a typo: wrote u insted of v Jul11 suggested approved edit on $\alpha x^2+\beta y^2=\gamma$ solvable over $\mathbb Q$ iff $ax^2+by^2=z^2$ solvable over $\mathbb Z$ with coprime $x,y,z$?