/explore
|
You are here 
|
thatsmaths.com | ||
| | | | |
xorshammer.com
|
|
| | | | | Nonstandard Analysis is usually used to introduce infinitesimals into the real numbers in an attempt to make arguments in analysis more intuitive. The idea is that you construct a superset $latex \mathbb{R}^*$ which contains the reals and also some infinitesimals, prove that some statement holds of $latex \mathbb{R}^*$, and then use a general "transfer principle"... | |
| | | | |
nhigham.com
|
|
| | | | | A norm on $latex \mathbb{C}^{m \times n}$ is unitarily invariant if $LATEX \|UAV\| = \|A\|$ for all unitary $latex U\in\mathbb{C}^{m \times m}$ and $latex V\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times n}$ and for all $latex A\in\mathbb{C}^{m \times n}$. One can restrict the definition to real matrices, though the term unitarily invariant is still typically used. Two widely used matrix norms... | |
| | | | |
dominiczypen.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | Let $latex \omega$ denote the first infinite cardinal - that is, the set of non-negative integers. Let $latex p_0 = 2$ be the smallest prime number, and let $latex (p_n)_{n\in\omega}$ enumerate all prime numbers in ascending order. Let $latex \mathcal{U}$ be a free ultrafilter on $latex \omega$. We consider the field $latex F = \big(\prod_{n\in\omega}\mathbb{Z}/p_n\mathbb{Z}\big)/{\mathcal... | |
| | | | |
mycqstate.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | Today I'd like to sketch a question that's been pushing me in a lot of different directions over the past few years --- some sane, others less so; few fruitful, but all instructive. The question is motivated by the problem of placing upper bounds on the amount of entanglement needed to play a two-player non-local... | ||
