17,982 reputation
31756
bio website hjg.com.ar
location Buenos Aires, Argentina
age 47
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen 8 mins ago

1h
revised partition with infinite entropy?
edited tags
2h
comment partition with infinite entropy?
Related (practically dup) math.stackexchange.com/questions/279304
6h
comment Asymptotic Behaviour Of A Bizarre Function 2
I suggest you move your solution as an anwer.
2d
comment A set of all rational numbers in $[0, 1]$?
"A is a closed set containing all rational numbers" I'm, no sure if this is what confuses you, but: be aware that "a set containing (X)" is not the same as "a set consisting of (X)".
Jul
21
comment Combinatorics question: Boys and Girls around table
The statement is ambiguous. Two ways that differ on a rotation are considered different or not?
Jul
17
comment Detecting coplanarity by given pairwise distances
"to detect if a group of points are coplanar"? the group if a subset (if so, well, 3 points are always coplanar) or the full set? Or you mean any 4-points subset?
Jul
16
comment Deducing an optimal gambling strategy (using martingales).
If this were not the case, you'd win or loss the same (relative) amount each time, so the constraint of "legal game" would led you to bet as small a value as possible (that's why you get $A=0$ when you maximize). The problem only makes sense if the game has some advantage for you.
Jul
16
comment Deducing an optimal gambling strategy (using martingales).
For example, you start with wealth $Y_0=1$ and win the first round (so $X_1 =2$). Then you bet $C_1=A Y_0$, you new accumulated wealth is (according to the equation above) $Y_1=1+ X_1 C_1 = Y_0+ 2 A Y_0 =Y_0( 1 +2 A)$. BTW, this implies that when you win, you are paid $2 C_j$ $plus$ the amount gambled $C_j$ ($3 C_j$), so that the total $net$ increase in wealth is $2 C_j$
Jul
16
comment Deducing an optimal gambling strategy (using martingales).
I repeat once more: that interpretation is NOT what your first equation $Y_{k}=1+\sum_{j=1}^{k}C_{j}X_{j}$ says. This equation does NOT say (and is incosistent with) your interpretation that when one wins, one receives $2Ax$. So, either that equation is wrong OR your interpretation here is wrong.
Jul
15
comment Expected maximum of a sequence of i.i.d. Poissons
It seems that it grows as $\log n /\log \log n$, according to arxiv.org/pdf/0903.4373.pdf
Jul
14
comment Using decimals of $\pi$ to store data
Yes, of course, this does not depend on the base.
Jul
14
answered Using decimals of $\pi$ to store data
Jul
14
comment Using decimals of $\pi$ to store data
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/100477/…
Jul
13
comment Deducing an optimal gambling strategy (using martingales).
But your interpretation is not what the equation says: when you win $Y_{k}=Y_{k-1}+ C_k X_k = Y_{k-1} + A Y_{k-1} 2 $
Jul
13
comment Deducing an optimal gambling strategy (using martingales).
I you win, your wealth increases by $1+2A$, no? You wrote instead $1+A$
Jul
13
comment Maximum entropy joint distribution from marginals?
@Cupitor of course! fixed, thanks
Jul
13
revised Maximum entropy joint distribution from marginals?
edited body
Jul
12
comment Lattice Points in x-y plane
@user3481652 why? because that's the definition
Jul
12
revised Question about $\sigma$-Algebra of measurable function
edited title
Jul
10
comment Why isn't the Cantor Set contradictory?
What this answer says is true, but in the context of the question I find this misleading. It's true that "measure zero" does not imply "one point" (this is trivial: just consider two points). But the OP is asking about the "pieces" of the set; and each "piece" (as thought by the OP) is a connected (convex) set. For a connected set it's true that "measure zero" implies one point. The error in the reasoning is not here.