/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5400371
Where are they?

So yeah, I am looking at three distributions with different means and variances. How do I calculate the probability that any given distribution will have the highest value.

Suppose I am looking at three different set of parents, each with a different height. Naturally, the tallest set of parents are most likely to have the highest children. I want to know what the probability is, given the distributions, that the tallest parents will have the tallest children. Likewise I want to know what the probability is for the second tallest parents to have the tallest children - and likewise shortest set of parents.

I want an algebraic solution, so I prefer not to use Monte Carlo.

Any help or hints would be much appreciated.

is water tasteless

is it true that salt is 1 molecule away from being poison

I've been thinking about coding theory, and code equivalence.

Say you take a code, and make a list of its distances --- $$n_1$$ pairs of words that are different in one position, $$n_2$$ pairs of words with $$d=2$$ and so on.

Suppose you have two codes with the same list. Does it mean they are equivalent?


It is not difficult to come up with a counter example if we take q-ary codes, $$q>2$$. However I could not come up with binary counter example. I am pretty sure such a thing exist but I cannot find it.

Anybody can give a hand?

I'm trying to prove that the sequence <span class="math">\sum\limits_{k=0}^n \left|\frac{n^k-\frac{n!}{(n-k)!}}{k!n^k}\right|c^k[/spoiler] converges to zero as <span class="math">n \to \infty[/spoiler].

The idea is that the nominator is a polynomial (of n) of degree k-1, while the denominator (excluding k!) is of degree k. Therefore the expression is "a lot like" <span class="math">\frac{1}{n} \sum \frac{c^k}{k!}[/spoiler] which obviously converges to zero (as the sequence converges to <span class="math">e^c[/spoiler]).
What do you think? How do I prove the "behaves like" thing?

In a time equation of a position like :
X(t) = X0 + S0*t ± 1/2 * g * (t)²

How do I know if I have to add or substract 1/2 *g*(t)²?

It depends on which parameters?

nobody?

I posted this question yesterday, with no answer provided. Maybe I'll be luckier today.

Let <span class="math">X=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots\}[/spoiler] be a set in <span class="math">l_2[/spoiler]. A set <span class="math">U=\{u_1,u_2,\ldots\}[/spoiler] is called the backward orthogonalization of X if U is orthogonal and for every <span class="math">n \geq 1[/spoiler]: <span class="math">\overline{Sp}\{x_n,x_{n+1},\ldots\} = \overline{Sp}\{u_n,u_{n+1},\ldots\}[/spoiler].

Let <span class="math">x_k=e_k+e_{k+1}[/spoiler] when <span class="math">e_k[/spoiler]'s coordinates are all zero but kth, which is 1. Find the backward orthogonalisation of such an X.


I am pretty sure I have to find scalars such as <span class="math">u_k=x_k+\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty \alpha(k,j)x_j[/spoiler], but I still haven't quite figured out what they were.

Thanks for any help.

Let X = {x_1,x_2,...} be a set in l_2. A set U = {u_1,u_2,...} is called the backward orthogonalization of X if U is orthogonal, and for every n >= 1, the closure of Sp{x_n, x_{n+1}, ...} equals to the closure of Sp{u_n, u_{n+1}, ...}.

Let x_k = e_k + e_{k+}, where e_k is the element of l_2, for which all coordinates but k are zero, and the kth coordinate is 1. Find the backward orthogonalization of X.

Can naked short selling be done both through limit and market orders?

An orthogonal set {u_1,...} is called the backward orthogonalization of the set {x_1,...} iff for every n, Sp{x_n,...} = Sp{u_n,...}.
Find the backward orthogonalization of the set {e_k+e_{k+1}}, where {e_k} is the standard basis of l_2.

/sci/ I need help.
I need to know, whether for every analytic non-constant function f there is a complex z such as Ref(z) > |f(z)|².
I'm pretty sure I should use Liouville's theorem because I haven't studied much more, but I can't seem to get it.

Guys, I need your help. I've been thinking about it for a few days now.
Let z_n = (1+i) * (1+i/2) * (1+i/3) * ... * (1+i/n).
Proof that z_n is bounded.

Any idea? It's killing me.

>>3763812
>socialists

which of the both parties?

So, /sci/, I was thinking about black hole earlier and I'm confused about something:

So, hawking radiation is supposed to gradually dissipate black holes, right? And that's caused by anti-matter particles getting sucked in and then obliterating themselves when they touch matter, yeah? But then time eventually stops once you reach a certain point beyond the event horizon. So shouldn't it be impossible for any kind of reactions to take place inside a black hole? And even if they could, black holes are singularities which would essentially mean that anything that gets sucked in has to travel an infinite distance to finally hit the original matter that comprised the star before it collapsed.

So how exactly does hawking radiation destroy a black hole?

Dear god, if anyone on this board knows math, your help would be appreciated

I have this problem:

(x^-2*y^3)/x^4*y^-5) * (x^-3*y^2/x^0*y^3)

and i end up getting:
(y^8/x^6) * (x^3*y)

is this the simplest form it can be in?

Am i even doing this problem right?

Dear /sci/,

Have we discovered every colour there is to be discovered?

Greetings /sci/entists, I bear an rather easy mathematical problem which I believe you may find interesting.

Given circles with a certain radius r, what is the maximum number of identical circles you can place around a circle in the centre. The surrounding circles must touch the centre circle. Prove this mathematically.

Answer should be 6.