MHB Basic symbology for involving a series but without summation necessarily

  • Thread starter Thread starter GP72
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series Summation
GP72
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but I was trying to find the symbol used for a vector of observations that doesn't implicitly infre multiplication or summation. I'm trying to express an inequality at the simple and general levels so that

\muAa \ne \muAA, \muaa

The idea is that this inequality should apply to means for factors (genotypes) at a single effect (a gene in this case), and more generally to the system of all means for all factors at all effects. Is that Pi that I should be using? I can't remember and can't find it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't quite understand you. Are you simply trying to say that one vector of observations does not equal another?
In that case, it would be $$(\mu_{Aa_1},\mu_{Aa_2},\mu_{Aa_3}...) \neq (\mu_{AA_1}...) \neq ...$$
Can you elaborate a little more on what you need?
Also, to type $\LaTeX$, use \$ and \$$ symbols or $$[\MATH] tags.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top