Do you know how to obtain such representation for Hausdorff distance? $d(X,Y) = \max\limits_{\|l\| \leqslant 1} | c(l \mid X) - c(l \mid Y) |$, where $c$ is a support function
@JM no. i didn't read dudley. i'm just curious about how to tell a genuine paper from a fake. it's hard to read through it and figure out why it wrong sometimes.
@meg_1997 OK, I didn't understand it quite well to draw the picture, but this might help you to get an idea. I'll be back later and will answer your question if I come up with a solution.
if $U_1, U_2$ are two $n \times x$ row-echelon matrices, is proving that $U_1 U_2$ is invertible if and only if $U_1$ and $U_2$ are both invertible, a trivial proof? (if we can't use the fact that $det(A)det(B) = det(AB)$.)
I was just trying to classify the different types of cases when f''(x)=0
I was thinking we have the case where the graph goes from convex to concave, the opposite case, and the third where it stays convex or concave through the point where f''(x)=0. Then I tried coming up with cases for the latter one. And $r = 1 + \cos \theta$ sprung to mind.
@AgainstASicilian If you're going to be asking a group of professional mathematicians, you'd do well to show initial effort first. Asking in this place before there counts as "initial effort".
@JaydonZhao It isn't hate; just a desire to keep things clean. Don't take closures personally. If you think you can improve a closed question so that it is something better, edit it, and make a petition on their meta site.
@AgainstASicilian well like i answer him yesterday finding an exact answer to this is very hard and approximating really about the best you can do if you don't want to spend the time computing.
@AgainstASicilian may i ask what motivated this question?
@Gigili thought he really got those coordinates as i had observed that the x coordinate of vertex C is twice the x coordinate of vertex A and his answer was exactly this way so i accepted his answer and thought that he might explain it later on ....
@experimentX the solution for a constant-coefficient case is always a linear combination of exponentials. (Some refinement is needed for the case of the characteristic polynomial having multiple roots, though.)
"If $A$ is a square matrix, then $A$ is invertible if and only if $Ax = 0$ implies $x = 0$." - to prove this, do we only need to prove that if $A$ is invertible, $Ax = 0$ will have a unique solution, or do we also need to prove the converse?
Does $f_n(x) \to \bar{f}(x)$ pointwise and $x_n \to \bar{x}$ imply $f_n(x_n) \to \bar{f}(\bar{x})$? I forgot, I think not, there is some trick with uniform convergence
@meg_1997 since none was given, the best you can do is to either assign it a value, in which case you can scale all values appropriately afterwards, or carry that length everywhere as a variable, say $r$. Either is completely acceptable.
@meg_1997 besides, I gave a hint. You can scale everything by $r$ and use that in the answer.
@meg_1997 yes, if that is the way you want to go. I think either is acceptable, but carrying a variable length $r$ around is probably the safest. It depends on the instructor what is acceptable.
Can someone correct the English errors in "Just an example. Suppose you have a power plant in which the temperature of the steam entering the turbine is measured by sensors in order to be controlled. You know the MTBF (mean time between failure) figures of different types of sensors. You have to decide to install 1 or 3 sensors. In the latter case a separate device will choose the 2 more similar measurements out of the 3.
... What would be the expected reliability of each option? Consider that the rest of the plant is responsible for let's say 98% of the overall reliability. Can the use of 2 sensors have any advantage?"?
"You have to decide to install 1 or 3 sensors, but in the latter case a separate device will choose the 2 most similar measurements of the 3." I don't know if that is any more proper but it flows a littler better
@Jordan It's quite cool, but you need to be good with Riemann Sums. He can't be lecturing you, he gives fast summaries, so don't expect great pedagogy. It seems better to use if you already know about the subject, to study.
they might make sense for someone who has already learned it but they are like a wall if you haven't
I don't know what to do
I am screwed I guess
I can't learn from my book, nothing good online, I have a quiz in the morning tomorrow that I will fail unless I learn a year of physics and this chapter of calculus tonight
this just doesnt make sense to me
$\frac{a}{16-xistar} = \frac{10}{20}$ this seems impossible
I have never been this frustrated, I just feel completely helpless
