Needing clarification on some notation employed in the book by Koralov and Sinai

  • Thread starter Thread starter adarpodracir
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Notation
adarpodracir
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Dear Physics Forums Community,

I am reading "Theory of Probability and Random Process" by Koralov L.B. and Sinai Y.G. and am having a hard time trying to understand the notation shown below (page 10).

In particular, what does
ω:ε(w)=x
mean below the second summation?

And how the authors could convert the single summation into that double one?

In this link, there is an image showing the notation employed by the authors:
i47.tinypic.com/jh8piq.png

As I am a new user, I cannot post links yet, so it will be greatly appreciated if you can check it manually.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and for any comments you could give me.

Ricardo.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Ricardo! Welcome to PF! :smile:
adarpodracir said:
In particular, what does
ω:ε(w)=x
mean below the second summation?

And how the authors could convert the single summation into that double one?

the colon (:) means "such that" …

so ω:ε(ω)=x means all ω such that ε(ω)=x​

the first step is partitioning Ω into classes with the same value of ε(ω) …

"all ω in Ω" is the same as "all ω in Ω such that ε(ω) = x, for all x in X" :smile:
 


Dear tiny-tim,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply.

Everything is clear now, but

Is there a theorem which says that:
"all ω in Ω" is the same as "all ω in Ω such that ε(ω) = x, for all x in X"

I did three examples, and they work perfectly nice! However, I would like to know if there is a theorem that supports it or if it follows from an intuitive idea.

Thank you!
 
adarpodracir said:
I would like to know if there is a theorem that supports it or if it follows from an intuitive idea.

Thank you!

obvious and intuitive really :biggrin:

let's see …

the theorem would begin "if ε is a function from Ω to X …"

how would you continue it? :wink:
 
I think you're right.

Sometimes the most obvious and intuitive ideas/concepts in mathematics come with demonstrations. :)

Ricardo.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top