The problem is proposed here and related to this question. Given $n$ and $k$, I would like to know how to compute$$\sum_{\substack{x_0 ⊕x_1⊕\cdots⊕x_k=0\\x_i≥0,\ 0≤i≤k\\\sum\limits_{i=0}^kx_i≤n-2k}}\binom{n-k-\sum\limits_{i=0}^kx_i}k$$ in $O(nk·\log n)$ time, where $⊕$ is exclusive or.
Let $\sum...
Let $Z,Z'\in\{-1,1\}^\ell$ be two independent vectors of i.i.d. Rademacher r.v.'s, where $1\leq \ell \leq d$ are two integers ($d\gg 1$). I am trying to get an upper bound on
$$
\mathbb{E}_{ZZ'}[ e^{n\left(e^{\sum_{i=1}^\ell \mathrm{Erf}(\varepsilon Z_i /\sqrt{d})} -1\right)\left(e^{\sum_{i=1}^\e...
I have no privileges to comment on MO, but is $\mathrm{Erf}(Z_i x)$ not simply $Z_i \mathrm{Erf}(x)$ for $Z_i \in \{-1, 1\}$ so that the error functions have no bearing at all on the question?
Let $U$ and $V$ be two formulas (of First Order Predicate Calculus). Let $P_U$ be a formula in which $U$ occurs as a subformula. Let $P_V$ denote the result of replacing some occurrences of $U$ by $V$. Let every variable that is free in $U$ or $V$ and bound in $P_U$ be in the list $v_1,\ldots,v_k$. Then, $$\vdash\forall v_1\ldots\forall v_k(U\leftrightarrow V)\to(P_U\leftrightarrow P_V)$$
So, my question is: What is the reason (or reasons) for including, "Let every variable that is free in $U$ or $V$ and bound in $P_U$ be in the list $v_1,…,v_k$.." in the statement of the result? What happens if we violate the condition?
Let $U$ and $V$ be two formulas (of First Order Predicate Calculus). Let $P_U$ be a formula in which $U$ occurs as a subformula. Let $P_V$ denote the result of replacing some occurrences of $U$ by $V$. Then for any variable $v$ we have, $$⊢∀v(U↔V)→(P_U↔P_V)$$
Do they not use the fact that de $v_i$ are free in U and bound in $P_U$ in that proof ?
user131753
@Astyx They use it exactly once when they assume that the formula $P_U$ is of the form $\forall v Q_U$. They use it only to conclude that $v$ is not free in $\forall v_1\ldots\forall v_k(U\leftrightarrow V)$.
What are some of the great way to model co-op advertising between retailer and manufacturer? I want to know few models which explain co-op advertising between manufacturer and retailer.Basically i am thinking to do individual project on it so if you people can suggest some research papers or your own ideas so that i can read them and get some idea so that i can start my own model.
Suppose $f : \Sigma \to \Sigma'$ is a map of surfaces, and $p \in \Sigma'$ such that $f^{-1}(p)$ is an embedded circle in $\Sigma$. I think $f$ has to be 2-to-1 in a neighborhood of $f^{-1}(p)$.
I have a function $f$ in the Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb S^{n-1})$ and I project it orthogonally in all directions of a complete set of orthogonal functions. Is the norm of the resulting vector bounded by the L2-norm of $f$?
@TedShifrin My aim is the estimate $\sum Proj_k(f)Proj_k(g) \leq \Vert f \Vert_2 \Vert g \Vert_2$. By cauchy-schwarz I bound the sum using the 2-norm of the vector $(Proj_1(f),Proj_2(f),...)$
Here is a two year old question of mine where I am still interested in an answer/perspective if somebody here wants to take a look: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1884274/…
@TedShifrin So these are the contours, where I think of the map as $(s, t) \mapsto (x, y)$ by $x = st, y = s^3$. The $t = \text{const}$ lines go to those family of cubics; it's clear the $(0, 0)$ is a very severe singularity.
Life is a million hurdles, there's no moment of respite. The second you cross one you feel you're the fucking king, until you realize the next one's coming fast
Nah, I'm done being wise. And because I wasn't being authoritative enough as "room owner," a certain person threw a tantrum and left (after giving me attitude I didn't deserve).
I think I'm missing something. I have a morphism of sheaves on some topological space X $f:\mathcal F\to\mathcal G$. I know that $f$ is injective iff the induced maps on stalks are all injective iff $f(U):\mathcal F(U)\to\mathcal G(U)$ is injective for all $U\subseteq X$ open. Why is it not enough to look at the map on global sections $f(X):\mathcal F(X)\to\mathcal G(X)$?
I'm thinking of $\mathbb P^n$ with its structure sheaf since that's easier for me. It doesn't have $0$ global sections, but it still has very few global sections and plenty of local ones
Given any covering space you can look at the sheaf of sections of the covering space. The set of global sections is even empty in this case, if the covering space was nontrivial.
@Eric: I hate it. One time in grad school I even cooked the pumpkin from scratch, used cream, fresh spices, etc. Made my usual excellent French pie crust. Everyone said it was the best they'd ever had. I took one bite and never have eaten any more.
So there's an elementary example which tells you the global sections need not retain any information about the whole sheaf (i.e., there are no global sections at all).
In complex geometry one has a notion of curvature for vector bundles (locally free sheaves). If there's one with negative curvature, it has no nontrivial global sections.
@Eric: I don't like the texture at all. And, although I tolerate squash as a vegetable, I'm just not fond of the family. Very few things foodly I don't like.
@Alessandro: Balarka and I have discussed this before. If you think of a sheaf as a topological space, it's very much like a covering space. But one thing fails ...
@Perturbative Hmm, all right. My class is gonna use that textbook next semester, I'm just hoping it's not going to expect a very strong real analysis background