celtschk
Reputation
12,456
Top tag
Next privilege 15,000 Rep.
Protect questions
 Sep 19 comment Find the number of items to stock in order to maximize expected profit I would first approach it with an uppercase-to-lowercase converter. ;-) There's no reason to shout the word "probability". Sep 19 comment The probability of drawing three particular balls after three draws I'm not even able to parse that post. Sep 19 comment Can $s_n=1+x+x^2+x^4+x^8+\ldots+x^{2^n}$ be simplified? It is more clear if you write $s_n=1+\sum_{k=0}^n x^{2^k}$. I wonder, however, why you've got the extra $1$ term. Sep 18 comment Possible bisection method? I would start with the observation that neither $R$ not the roots of the polynomial change if you multiply the polynomial with a non-zero number. Thus you can just assume $a_n=1$ and get rid of the division. The case $\left|\alpha\right|\le1$ is easily handled by the condition $R>1$. This leaves the case $\left|\alpha\right|>1$. I'd use the fact that for $a_n=1$, $p(x) = (x-\alpha_1)(x-\alpha_2)\cdots(x-\alpha_n)$ and use that to express the $a_n$ in terms of $\alpha_n$, and look whether I can find some inequalities that can be applied. Sep 18 answered Is zero a scalar? Sep 16 comment What are properties, operators, and where do we get numbers from? … when you decided to give the successor of $3$ the name $4$. However you are right that operations like addition and multiplication are ultimately defined through the successor function. For example $a+b$ is defined by the two formulas $a+0=a$ and $a+S(b) = S(a+b)$. Saying essentially "If you add nothing, you arrive at the same number, and if you add the number following $b$, you get the number following $a+b$. Similarly, multiplication is defined by $a\cdot 0=0$ and $a\cdot S(b) = a\cdot b + a$. Sep 16 comment What are properties, operators, and where do we get numbers from? @user271090: In mathematics, the basic assumption is that all things are already there, and we just describe them. So basically, the axiom says "there is a successor $S(n)$ for every $n$; we just might create a new name for it, since it's not nice to always have to say "the successor of the successor of the successor of the successor of zero". But of course if you have four marbles, they didn't turn into four marbles at the point when you counted them and arrived at $4$. So it makes sense to assume the number $4$ existed from the beginning, and you just gave it a name … Sep 15 answered What are properties, operators, and where do we get numbers from? Sep 13 comment Show that 2n “1” digits subtract n “2” digits is a perfect square. @MCKapur: The original expression quite obviously gives an integer, and since everything done was just equivalence transformations, it is obvious that it still describes an integer. The number that is squared is clearly a rational number (quotient of two integers). Any rational number whose square is integer is itself an integer. Sep 13 comment Show that 2n “1” digits subtract n “2” digits is a perfect square. While you've gotten an answer, here's how you could have seen it for yourself: First, $10^{2n} = (10^n)^2$. Then just sort the numerator for powers, to get $(10^n)^2 + 2\cdot 10^n + 1$. At that point, you should be able to see the pattern of the binomial formula $a^2 + 2 a b + b^2 = (a+b)^2$ with $a=10^n$ and $b=1$. Sep 12 comment I roll a die repeatedly until I get 6, and then count the number of 3s I got. What's my expected number of 3s? @zhoraster: No. Why? Sep 12 comment I roll a die repeatedly until I get 6, and then count the number of 3s I got. What's my expected number of 3s? Well, that's probably the difference. I don't like the excessively sparse arguments. I think an answer is there to inform the reader, not to challenge the reader. Sep 12 comment I roll a die repeatedly until I get 6, and then count the number of 3s I got. What's my expected number of 3s? @zhoraster: The difference is that you don't need to intensely study it to recognize what it says. ;-) When I wrote my answer, I hadn't recognized yours to say the same. Indeed, on first glance it just looks like a big mess of symbols. Already a few explicit multiplication signs (or even just \, for some extra spacing) would have greatly increased the readability of your answer. Sep 11 answered Geometric meaning of a vector space Sep 10 comment Lemma, theorem, corollary… which one is a suitable term for an observation? @user153465: I cannot compare my answer with any other answer because I didn't write an answer to your question. I only wrote a comment concerning your comment claiming that you know that it is not new, contradicting the claim in your question that you don't know if anyone had made that observation. Sep 10 comment Find $z=1+\epsilon+\cdots+\epsilon^{n-1}$ where $\epsilon^{2n}=1$, $n\in \mathbb{N},\epsilon\in \mathbb{C}$ @CameronWilliams: No, I mean $\epsilon = \mathrm e^{\mathrm i\cdot 2\pi k/(2n)}=\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\pi k/n}$, so that $\epsilon^{2n} = \mathrm e^{2\pi\mathrm ik}=1$. With your definition of $\epsilon$, you'd have $\epsilon^{2n}=(-1)^k = -1$ for $k$ odd. Sep 10 answered Find $z=1+\epsilon+\cdots+\epsilon^{n-1}$ where $\epsilon^{2n}=1$, $n\in \mathbb{N},\epsilon\in \mathbb{C}$ Sep 10 comment How is $0\cdot\infty= -1$? That of course assumes that multiplication involving $\infty$ is associative. Sep 10 comment Lemma, theorem, corollary… which one is a suitable term for an observation? If you do not know if anybody else has made that observation (as you stated in the question), then you cannot know whether it is new. You can of course conjecture that it is not new, but until you verified that someone else already knows it, its non-novelty remains a hypothesis. Sep 10 answered A proof of the uniqueness of svd?