Prev: 'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
Next: Auditing & Assurance Services by Louwers, 3rd Edition Test Bank and solution manual is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.
From: icystorm on 14 Feb 2010 21:02
A N Niel,

Thanks! That's exactly right! The problem is that I am only getting
about half of the people who read it to understand it, which strongly
suggests that I need to make some improvements.

Cheers,
J

On Feb 14, 7:52 pm, A N Niel <ann...(a)nym.alias.net.invalid> wrote:

> I interpreted it ... add the first 3 y's in column 1 (0+1+1 = 2) the
> first two y's in column 2 (0+1 = 1 more) and the 0's in the last two
> columns, getting 3 in all.- Hide quoted text -

From: icystorm on 14 Feb 2010 21:10
Ray wrote:


> "The given values of R require i in {0,1,2}, j in {0,1}, k = m = 0,
> and the sum is 0 because every product includes y3_{0} y4_{0},
> both of which are 0. How do your get 3?

Why were you obtaining products? The y_i,j,k,m was supposed to be a
summing operation, based on the conditions defined under Sigma, which
equals 3.

I think you are correct in pointing out that I need to better define
the x and y variables. I thought it would be obvious that the x and y
sets related direcly to their associated i, j, k, and m sets, but I
was wrong.

Thanks for helping me to improve this. I will post a new example soon.

Cheers,
J

On Feb 14, 6:39 pm, Ray Koopman <koop...(a)sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:18 am, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Would someone examine my sigma notation to make sure it is technically
> > correct, according to numbers theory?
>
> >http://www.box.net/shared/yl9pesf7dl
>
> > If so, are you able to determine the summation of y using the
> > information provided?
>
> > The correct answer is 3.
>
> > If you see a better way to present Sigma in my problem, please tell
> > me.
>
> > Thank you!
>
> > Cheers,
> > J
>
> The only way I can make of this is to infer additional indices
> that are treated as part of the names of the variables:
>
> i x1_{i} y1_{i}    j x2_{j} y2_{j}    etc.
> 0   0.0   0        0   0.0   0
> 1   1.0   1        1   1.0   1
> 2  99.0   1        2  49.7   1
> 3 157.4   1        3  78.2   1
>                    4 106.7   1
>
> The summand is the product  y1_{i} y2_{j} y3_{k} y4_{m},
>
> and the conditions under the summation are
>
> i: x1_{i} <= R34e,
> j: x2_{j} <= R50e,
> k: x3_{k} <= R64e,
> m: x4_{m} <= R87e.
>
> The given values of R require i in {0,1,2}, j in {0,1}, k = m = 0,
> and the sum is 0 because every product includes y3_{0} y4_{0},
> both of which are 0. How do your get 3?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: icystorm on 14 Feb 2010 21:37
Ray,

Here is an update with your recommended changes included.

http://www.box.net/shared/tem22hqrtj

I think I understand why you were finding the products of y_i,j,k,m
earlier, rather than the sums. There are actually commas between each
of the index variables in the summand, but they are very small and
easily missed in the online box.net viewer.

Does the new example make more sense now?

Thanks much for your feedback! I appreciate your willingness to post
your comments and helpful advice.

Cheers,
J

On Feb 14, 6:39 pm, Ray Koopman <koop...(a)sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:18 am, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Would someone examine my sigma notation to make sure it is technically
> > correct, according to numbers theory?
>
> >http://www.box.net/shared/yl9pesf7dl
>
> > If so, are you able to determine the summation of y using the
> > information provided?
>
> > The correct answer is 3.
>
> > If you see a better way to present Sigma in my problem, please tell
> > me.
>
> > Thank you!
>
> > Cheers,
> > J
>
> The only way I can make of this is to infer additional indices
> that are treated as part of the names of the variables:
>
> i x1_{i} y1_{i}    j x2_{j} y2_{j}    etc.
> 0   0.0   0        0   0.0   0
> 1   1.0   1        1   1.0   1
> 2  99.0   1        2  49.7   1
> 3 157.4   1        3  78.2   1
>                    4 106.7   1
>
> The summand is the product  y1_{i} y2_{j} y3_{k} y4_{m},
>
> and the conditions under the summation are
>
> i: x1_{i} <= R34e,
> j: x2_{j} <= R50e,
> k: x3_{k} <= R64e,
> m: x4_{m} <= R87e.
>
> The given values of R require i in {0,1,2}, j in {0,1}, k = m = 0,
> and the sum is 0 because every product includes y3_{0} y4_{0},
> both of which are 0. How do your get 3?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Ray Koopman on 15 Feb 2010 02:16
On Feb 14, 6:37 pm, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ray,
>
> Here is an update with your recommended changes included.
>
> http://www.box.net/shared/tem22hqrtj
>
> I think I understand why you were finding the products of y_i,j,k,m
> earlier, rather than the sums. There are actually commas between
> each of the index variables in the summand, but they are very small
> and easily missed in the online box.net viewer.
>
> Does the new example make more sense now?

Yes, that's an improvement, and it would be even clearer if
you wrote it as the explicit sum of four indicated sums:

HSI_s = sigma y1_i + sigma y2_j + sigma y3_k + sigma y4_m,

with the corresponding condition under each summation sign.

Also, I did not intend to suggest that the subscripts should be
enclosed in braces. Those were left over from a draft response that
suggested using two subscripts, and I was following LaTeX form for
multiple subscripts (as in hagman's y_{i,j,k,m}). I subsequently
changed my mind and thought it would be better to treat the first
subscript as part of the name of the variable, but I forgot to remove
the braces.

>
> Thanks much for your feedback! I appreciate your willingness to
> post your comments and helpful advice.
>
> Cheers,
> J
>
> On Feb 14, 6:39 pm, Ray Koopman <koop...(a)sfu.ca> wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 8:18 am, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would someone examine my sigma notation to make sure it is
>>> technically correct, according to numbers theory?
>>>
>>> http://www.box.net/shared/yl9pesf7dl
>>>
>>> If so, are you able to determine the summation of y using the
>>> information provided?
>>>
>>> The correct answer is 3.
>>>
>>> If you see a better way to present Sigma in my problem,
>>> please tell me.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> J
>>
>> The only way I can make of this is to infer additional indices
>> that are treated as part of the names of the variables:
>>
>> i x1_{i} y1_{i} j x2_{j} y2_{j} etc.
>> 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0
>> 1 1.0 1 1 1.0 1
>> 2 99.0 1 2 49.7 1
>> 3 157.4 1 3 78.2 1
>> 4 106.7 1
>>
>> The summand is the product y1_{i} y2_{j} y3_{k} y4_{m},
>>
>> and the conditions under the summation are
>>
>> i: x1_{i} <= R34e,
>> j: x2_{j} <= R50e,
>> k: x3_{k} <= R64e,
>> m: x4_{m} <= R87e.
>>
>> The given values of R require i in {0,1,2}, j in {0,1}, k = m = 0,
>> and the sum is 0 because every product includes y3_{0} y4_{0},
>> both of which are 0. How do your get 3?
From: icystorm on 15 Feb 2010 11:02
Thank you, Ray.

Here is the latest, sans the errant braces.

http://www.box.net/shared/de64eqtkem

I toyed with the idea of presenting the equation as four sigmas, but
decided against doing that for the time being.

Question: In the term i: x1_i <= R34e

How is the "i:" read and is it completely necessary?

I think one reads it like this: "For series i, for all values in the
corresponding series x1_i that are less than or equal to the variable
R34e, execute the corresponding summand."

Is that correct?


Cheers,
J


On Feb 15, 1:16 am, Ray Koopman <koop...(a)sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 6:37 pm, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ray,
>
> > Here is an update with your recommended changes included.
>
> >http://www.box.net/shared/tem22hqrtj
>
> > I think I understand why you were finding the products of y_i,j,k,m
> > earlier, rather than the sums. There are actually commas between
> > each of the index variables in the summand, but they are very small
> > and easily missed in the online box.net viewer.
>
> > Does the new example make more sense now?
>
> Yes, that's an improvement, and it would be even clearer if
> you wrote it as the explicit sum of four indicated sums:
>
> HSI_s = sigma y1_i + sigma y2_j + sigma y3_k + sigma y4_m,
>
> with the corresponding condition under each summation sign.
>
> Also, I did not intend to suggest that the subscripts should be
> enclosed in braces. Those were left over from a draft response that
> suggested using two subscripts, and I was following LaTeX form for
> multiple subscripts (as in hagman's y_{i,j,k,m}). I subsequently
> changed my mind and thought it would be better to treat the first
> subscript as part of the name of the variable, but I forgot to remove
> the braces.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks much for your feedback! I appreciate your willingness to
> > post your comments and helpful advice.
>
> > Cheers,
> > J
>
> > On Feb 14, 6:39 pm, Ray Koopman <koop...(a)sfu.ca> wrote:
> >> On Feb 14, 8:18 am, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
>
> >>> Would someone examine my sigma notation to make sure it is
> >>> technically correct, according to numbers theory?
>
> >>>http://www.box.net/shared/yl9pesf7dl
>
> >>> If so, are you able to determine the summation of y using the
> >>> information provided?
>
> >>> The correct answer is 3.
>
> >>> If you see a better way to present Sigma in my problem,
> >>> please tell me.
>
> >>> Thank you!
>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> J
>
> >> The only way I can make of this is to infer additional indices
> >> that are treated as part of the names of the variables:
>
> >> i x1_{i} y1_{i}    j x2_{j} y2_{j}    etc.
> >> 0   0.0   0        0   0.0   0
> >> 1   1.0   1        1   1.0   1
> >> 2  99.0   1        2  49.7   1
> >> 3 157.4   1        3  78.2   1
> >>                    4 106.7   1
>
> >> The summand is the product  y1_{i} y2_{j} y3_{k} y4_{m},
>
> >> and the conditions under the summation are
>
> >> i: x1_{i} <= R34e,
> >> j: x2_{j} <= R50e,
> >> k: x3_{k} <= R64e,
> >> m: x4_{m} <= R87e.
>
> >> The given values of R require i in {0,1,2}, j in {0,1}, k = m = 0,
> >> and the sum is 0 because every product includes y3_{0} y4_{0},
> >> both of which are 0. How do your get 3?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: 'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
Next: Auditing & Assurance Services by Louwers, 3rd Edition Test Bank and solution manual is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.