3,150 reputation
1621
bio website
location Germany
age
visits member for 2 years, 3 months
seen Jul 28 at 13:32

$1$ : It means "there exists something"

$0$ : It doesnt mean "there exists nothing", instead it means "there exist something but that is nothing"


Accept policy:

My accept policy is to accept the first completely correct answer. Acception is final and will never be changed. If no complete answer is available after a certain time, I accept partial answers.

Answering policy:

I try to answer at least two times more than the number of questions that I ask because my questions are usually two times more difficult than the questions that I am able to answer.

Voting policy:

I try to upvote all constructive answers to my questions and all nice questions/answers. I try to avoid downvoting and rather I use diplomatic ways to overcome the problems. All intentionally problematic questions or answers will be downvoted.

Respect policy:

I respect all persons who are willingly to help others. I show immediately in the comments that I dislike arrogant types.


Jul
23
comment Are the family of functions $C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
I also had the feeling that why? was asking for increasing $x^n$, because the rest was defined. Okay you meant minimum $1-\delta$. For the other question you already consider the minimum possible $1-\delta$ and inserted into the formulation w.r.t. $\epsilon$
Jul
23
comment Are the family of given nice functions $f\subset C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
you have a great understanding. I missed it. $\kappa$ cannot be arbitrary. For example if $l$ is increasing, then $\kappa$ is also increasing, which makes $f$ increasing too, as you said. I have a special $\kappa$ which is a function of $l$. In one specific case it was $\kappa=K_1 \ln(l)+K_2$ for some constant $K_1,K_2$. I dont know the general case but I think it is just some convex function of $l$. In one other case $(k_1+k_2 l(y)^{1-\alpha})/((\alpha-1)(k_3+k_4 l(y)^{1-\alpha})$, constants $k_i$ are chosen. I guess convexity should be okay.
Jul
23
comment Are the family of given nice functions $f\subset C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
Yes each $f$ is specified by $l$ and a suitable $\kappa$. We select some $l$ first and this will define the domain of $f$. Then we select some $\kappa$ for which $f$ will be continuos. Whenever we change $l$, and choose possibly another $\kappa$, I will have another $f$ which is another member of $\mathcal{F}$.
Jul
23
revised Are the family of given nice functions $f\subset C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
added 1 character in body
Jul
23
revised Are the family of functions $C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
added 2 characters in body
Jul
23
comment Are the family of functions $C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
Thanks for the answer. About the question why? because by definition $|1-x|<\delta$ should hold. How large $n$? nobody knows)) depends on the choice of $\delta$, if it is really small then we need really large $n$. Please let me know if you have any idea about this question math.stackexchange.com/questions/875773/…
Jul
23
asked Are the family of given nice functions $f\subset C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
Jul
23
revised Sum of normally distributed independent random variables, where one has a different (exponential) unit
deleted 87 characters in body
Jul
23
accepted Are the family of functions $C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
Jul
22
asked Are the family of functions $C^0(I,[0,1])$ equicontinuous?
Jul
20
answered Sum of normally distributed independent random variables, where one has a different (exponential) unit
Jul
20
comment Sum of normally distributed independent random variables, where one has a different (exponential) unit
your $Z$ is still normal, the rest is only some details i guess.
Jul
20
comment Sum of normally distributed independent random variables, where one has a different (exponential) unit
$X$ and $Y$ independent?
Jul
20
revised Why $\int f_0 \mbox{d}(F_0+F_1)=\int f_0 \mbox{d}F_0+\int f_0 \mbox{d} F_1=1$ should be true?
added 158 characters in body
Jul
19
comment Which mathematical ideas most influenced the way you think?
that is balanced though but for that one needs to have infinite number of observations, which we simply dont have..
Jul
17
revised Why $\int f_0 \mbox{d}(F_0+F_1)=\int f_0 \mbox{d}F_0+\int f_0 \mbox{d} F_1=1$ should be true?
edited title
Jul
17
revised Why $\int f_0 \mbox{d}(F_0+F_1)=\int f_0 \mbox{d}F_0+\int f_0 \mbox{d} F_1=1$ should be true?
added 12 characters in body
Jul
17
revised Why $\int f_0 \mbox{d}(F_0+F_1)=\int f_0 \mbox{d}F_0+\int f_0 \mbox{d} F_1=1$ should be true?
added 4 characters in body
Jul
17
revised Why $\int f_0 \mbox{d}(F_0+F_1)=\int f_0 \mbox{d}F_0+\int f_0 \mbox{d} F_1=1$ should be true?
deleted 9 characters in body
Jul
17
revised Why $\int f_0 \mbox{d}(F_0+F_1)=\int f_0 \mbox{d}F_0+\int f_0 \mbox{d} F_1=1$ should be true?
deleted 9 characters in body