Re: not so easy
- From: glenn <glenn077@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:12:19 +0200
O/H Marshall ??????:
On Dec 1, 11:34 am, glenn <glenn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:O/H Marshall ??????:
> You could perhaps be a *bit* clearer.
(2/n)^(1/2) > Gamma(n/2+1/2)/Gamma(n/2+1) > (2/(n+1))^(1/2)
What can be more clear from this? :)
Well, we could hear who you are, what you want,
what the origin of the equation is, what you intent
is with regards to a solution, etc. etc.
No problem.
The origin of the equation: This inequality is in fact true. It was very useful for the phd of an old friend of mine, who worked on combinatorial geometry and in particular on covering a convex subset of E^n of diameter 1 with two convex subsets of diameter less than 1 each. So, when he presented his phd 20 or so years ago, one participant asked him about this inequality. My friend told him that he didn't included a proof of the inequality because he thought that was very easy. So the participant (who was a member of his committee) said that unless my friend promise to mail the proof to him, he would give a negative vote. So, my friend promised, received the positive vote, earned the phd, and mailed the proof to the participant. It was two pages long. My friend wonders every now and then, if there is a simpler proof. So it is something like a joke between us.
Me: an unimportant asoc. professor, in an unimportant department, in an unimportant place, in the most important planet of the universe!
.
Marshall
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: not so easy
- From: Raymond Manzoni
- Re: not so easy
- References:
- Re: not so easy
- From: glenn
- Re: not so easy
- From: Marshall
- Re: not so easy
- From: glenn
- Re: not so easy
- From: Marshall
- Re: not so easy
- From: glenn
- Re: not so easy
- From: Marshall
- Re: not so easy
- Prev by Date: Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
- Next by Date: Hash collisions
- Previous by thread: Re: not so easy
- Next by thread: Re: not so easy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|