for starters i like this forum and its members but im kinda tired of people thinking that they are clear about their methods.
sorry , but apart from the classical methods like koenigs function , carleman matrix etc , there are not so many methods well defined and well explained.
i know its not always easy to prove things like analytic , size of radius , existance , uniqueness etc but at least explain your method decently.
i might not be the smartest person on the planet but a better explaination is sometimes really really required.
a typical thing is something in the line of :
" we start with an intial guess depending on base q and then ... "
" ... we take an integral and do as in ' link ' ( containing similar intial guesses ) ..." " ... and repeat the process k times where k is depending on q ... " " and then we estimate the contour integral of ... " " ... and repeat till it converges .. "
continuing with a " im not sure about this and that and how to do this and that " but then adding a nice picture in the next post ??
also i have nothing again C code and similar , but i want to see the math , C code is not my language. although i of course see use of that for software computations and plots.
( i must say Bo did an excellent job explaining Kneser partially and andrews slog completely but many others are still vague , integral methods e.g. undefined estimates and guesses mean little to me ! )
this is a perfect example of what i meant.
suddenly there is a new method for base 2.33 + 1.28 i.
no tex ! just a link.
to another vaguelue described method.
the continuum sum is clear to me.
and trying the continuum sum on some four estimate makes sense too.
but nowhere do i see what fourier series is used as approximation of base 2.33 + 1.28i
i might have missed this or that , but im sure a newbie cant follow this way and i guess we dont what that do we ?
clarity is at the heart of mathematical intentions ...
quote :
" gradually stepping back the base, using the already-calculated solution as an initial guess "
thats what i meant.
stepping back the base ... is that math terminology ? is it clear to anyone ?
maybe but i doubt it.
1 unclear thing and whole method is unclear.
this is nothing personal mike.
its a general remark.
although i dont understand how you got that pic.
initial guess .. stepping back ...
further you seem to contradict yourself :
if your method is analytic :
you say it is different then regular , and later on you mention its the same on the real line.
then it cant be analytic !
those 3 exclude eachother.
sorry for being so critical. but i waited to long to say this.
tommy1729
sorry , but apart from the classical methods like koenigs function , carleman matrix etc , there are not so many methods well defined and well explained.
i know its not always easy to prove things like analytic , size of radius , existance , uniqueness etc but at least explain your method decently.
i might not be the smartest person on the planet but a better explaination is sometimes really really required.
a typical thing is something in the line of :
" we start with an intial guess depending on base q and then ... "
" ... we take an integral and do as in ' link ' ( containing similar intial guesses ) ..." " ... and repeat the process k times where k is depending on q ... " " and then we estimate the contour integral of ... " " ... and repeat till it converges .. "
continuing with a " im not sure about this and that and how to do this and that " but then adding a nice picture in the next post ??
also i have nothing again C code and similar , but i want to see the math , C code is not my language. although i of course see use of that for software computations and plots.
( i must say Bo did an excellent job explaining Kneser partially and andrews slog completely but many others are still vague , integral methods e.g. undefined estimates and guesses mean little to me ! )
this is a perfect example of what i meant.
suddenly there is a new method for base 2.33 + 1.28 i.
no tex ! just a link.
to another vaguelue described method.
the continuum sum is clear to me.
and trying the continuum sum on some four estimate makes sense too.
but nowhere do i see what fourier series is used as approximation of base 2.33 + 1.28i
i might have missed this or that , but im sure a newbie cant follow this way and i guess we dont what that do we ?
clarity is at the heart of mathematical intentions ...
quote :
" gradually stepping back the base, using the already-calculated solution as an initial guess "
thats what i meant.
stepping back the base ... is that math terminology ? is it clear to anyone ?
maybe but i doubt it.
1 unclear thing and whole method is unclear.
this is nothing personal mike.
its a general remark.
although i dont understand how you got that pic.
initial guess .. stepping back ...
further you seem to contradict yourself :
if your method is analytic :
you say it is different then regular , and later on you mention its the same on the real line.
then it cant be analytic !
those 3 exclude eachother.
sorry for being so critical. but i waited to long to say this.
tommy1729
