meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 2 months |
| seen | Apr 26 at 13:45 | |
| stats | profile views | 23 |
|
Apr 24 |
revised |
why do we use 'non-increasing' instead of decreasing? added 250 characters in body |
|
Dec 31 |
comment |
lower semicontinuity and closed graph yeah, i spotted other weird stuff in the article in reference. not to be taken as a reference ! |
|
Dec 31 |
accepted | lower semicontinuity and closed graph |
|
Dec 31 |
asked | lower semicontinuity and closed graph |
|
Dec 31 |
accepted | limit inferior and subsequence |
|
Dec 31 |
comment |
limit inferior and subsequence Makes sense. And now that you point at it i remember thinking vaguely the subsequence def was fishy while writing it. Thanks ! |
|
Dec 30 |
revised |
limit inferior and subsequence edited title |
|
Dec 30 |
asked | limit inferior and subsequence |
|
Dec 26 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Dec 26 |
comment |
Why is $\log(\sqrt{x^2+1}+x)$ odd? that's why I love math |
|
Oct 20 |
awarded | Critic |
|
Oct 20 |
comment |
Does Pi contain all possible number combinations? why would you care, really... there are so many interesting problems, why this one.. |
|
Oct 20 |
asked | Definition by commutation property on structures : continuity and where? |
|
Jul 1 |
comment |
Relation between Cholesky and SVD doesn't your first point stand as well if we assume A only semi positive definite ? |
|
Jul 1 |
comment |
Relation between Cholesky and SVD I guess if you already computed it somewhere, it makes a lot of sense. |
|
Mar 24 |
comment |
Pseudo Proofs that are intuitively reasonable The notion of "unrigorous" here is : there exists a functor which makes the statement true, although we are not going to explicit it. I don't think this example falls into this notion. |
|
Mar 24 |
comment |
Pseudo Proofs that are intuitively reasonable Most of the time those proof are rigorous, because there exists a functor that gives sense to the notation. Cf Dirac or physicist "unrigorous" notation that works very well.... because it is rigorous although it does not seem like it. |
|
Mar 11 |
asked | A digital notebook for Mathematics? |
|
Mar 4 |
comment |
why do we use 'non-increasing' instead of decreasing? @joriki in the presence of a term, whatever it is, increasing or else, the only consistent way is to assume the weakest form. If I tell you I have a "licence", you should not assume I have a doctor's licence, nor a driving's licence, and you should fear I am james bond. nothing personal, just logic. |
|
Mar 4 |
comment |
why do we use 'non-increasing' instead of decreasing? @joriki except that it is a matter of logic. the fact that you dont recognize it as such just underline the extent of the damages done. |
