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 15 Feb 2010 12:36
I thought of an easy way to remove the necessity of having y variables
present in set, assuming that the sigma notation rules allow one to
sum the FLOOR of each INDEX (e.g., [i],[j],[k],[m]) across multiple
sets.

Is my intent clear in the following example and is it all "legal"?

http://www.box.net/shared/3p9rbciph0

Thanks!

J





From: A N Niel on 15 Feb 2010 13:08
In article
<986171e8-401f-4d8d-95fd-272a4ad11b7d(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
icystorm <icystorm(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> I thought of an easy way to remove the necessity of having y variables
> present in set, assuming that the sigma notation rules allow one to
> sum the FLOOR of each INDEX (e.g., [i],[j],[k],[m]) across multiple
> sets.
>
> Is my intent clear in the following example and is it all "legal"?
>
> http://www.box.net/shared/3p9rbciph0
>
> Thanks!
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>

No, you should have four separate sums.
From: icystorm on 15 Feb 2010 13:35
Thanks kindly for commenting, A N.

Actually, I do want the one sum to be the final answer.

The summation of the floor of i + the floor of j + the floor of k +
the floor of m.

So, in the problem here...

http://www.box.net/shared/3p9rbciph0

....the solution sould be 3, correct?

Am I missing something?

Cheers,
J


On Feb 15, 12:08 pm, A N Niel <ann...(a)nym.alias.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <986171e8-401f-4d8d-95fd-272a4ad11...(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought of an easy way to remove the necessity of having y variables
> > present in set, assuming that the sigma notation rules allow one to
> > sum the FLOOR of each INDEX (e.g., [i],[j],[k],[m]) across multiple
> > sets.
>
> > Is my intent clear in the following example and is it all "legal"?
>
> >http://www.box.net/shared/3p9rbciph0
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > J
>
> No, you should have four separate sums.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Ray Koopman on 15 Feb 2010 15:33
On Feb 15, 9:36 am, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I thought of an easy way to remove the necessity of having y variables
> present in set, assuming that the sigma notation rules allow one to
> sum the FLOOR of each INDEX (e.g., [i],[j],[k],[m]) across multiple
> sets.
>
> Is my intent clear in the following example and is it all "legal"?
>
> http://www.box.net/shared/3p9rbciph0
>
> Thanks!
>
> J

"Floor" truncates non-integer values: floor(2.5) = 2, floor(2) = 2.
You want "Iverson brackets", which give 1 or 0 according
as the statement inside the brackets is true or false.
Then delete row 0 in all the tables, and you can write

sum_i [x1_i <= R34e] + [x2_i <= R50e] + [x3_i <= R64e] + [x4_i <=
R87e].

But you need the plus signs. Commas would have no meaning.
From: icystorm on 15 Feb 2010 17:31
Ray, that looks like a pretty good solution. The only thing further
that I did, and correct me if I am wrong, is add a range for i (i=0
below sigma and 25 above sigma).

Is it valid (e.g., legal) to define a total possible range for i when
i exists in multiple sets? Also, do you find the result to be 3, after
considering the four variables declared in the example (posted below)?

http://www.box.net/shared/kkq9xpi2d5

Thanks!

J

On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, Ray Koopman <koop...(a)sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:36 am, icystorm <icyst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought of an easy way to remove the necessity of having y variables
> > present in set, assuming that the sigma notation rules allow one to
> > sum the FLOOR of each INDEX (e.g., [i],[j],[k],[m]) across multiple
> > sets.
>
> > Is my intent clear in the following example and is it all "legal"?
>
> >http://www.box.net/shared/3p9rbciph0
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > J
>
> "Floor" truncates non-integer values: floor(2.5) = 2, floor(2) = 2.
> You want "Iverson brackets", which give 1 or 0 according
> as the statement inside the brackets is true or false.
> Then delete row 0 in all the tables, and you can write
>
> sum_i [x1_i <= R34e] + [x2_i <= R50e] + [x3_i <= R64e] + [x4_i <=
> R87e].
>
> But you need the plus signs. Commas would have no meaning.

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.