Talk:Fourier-analytic proof of Sperner: Difference between revisions
From Polymath Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
Undo revision 1474 by 194.8.75.50 (Talk) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Er, yeah. Well caught :-) [[User:Teorth|Terry]] 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) | :Er, yeah. Well caught :-) [[User:Teorth|Terry]] 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:: I am afraid now the coefficient 16 is missing! ;-) | |||
:: Also, with the illiterates like myself in mind, could you drop several words of motivation for (3) and (6)? Thanks! | |||
:: One more thing. The conclusion of Lemma 1 involves expectation, but there is nothing random in the assumptions! What does the lemma actually say? | |||
::: Oops, OK, I put the 4 in the right place, and added a few more words of description. I guess the symbol <math>{\Bbb E}</math> is used both for averaging and for expectation; I tried to clarify that it was averaging that was meant here. [[User:Teorth|Terry]] 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:01, 25 May 2009
In (5), isn't the coefficient 4 in front of the sum missing?
- Er, yeah. Well caught :-) Terry 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am afraid now the coefficient 16 is missing! ;-)
- Also, with the illiterates like myself in mind, could you drop several words of motivation for (3) and (6)? Thanks!
- One more thing. The conclusion of Lemma 1 involves expectation, but there is nothing random in the assumptions! What does the lemma actually say?
- Oops, OK, I put the 4 in the right place, and added a few more words of description. I guess the symbol [math]\displaystyle{ {\Bbb E} }[/math] is used both for averaging and for expectation; I tried to clarify that it was averaging that was meant here. Terry 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
