tricki   45

Introduction to Scaling Laws
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/304/scaling.pdf

Galileo’s Discovery of Scaling Laws: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mpeterso/classes/galileo/scaling8.pdf
Days 1 and 2 of Two New Sciences

An example of such an insight is “the surface of a small solid is comparatively greater than that of a large one” because the surface goes like the square of a linear dimension, but the volume goes like the cube.5 Thus as one scales down macroscopic objects, forces on their surfaces like viscous drag become relatively more important, and bulk forces like weight become relatively less important. Galileo uses this idea on the First Day in the context of resistance in free fall, as an explanation for why similar objects of different size do not fall exactly together, but the smaller one lags behind.
nibble  org:junk  exposition  lecture-notes  physics  mechanics  street-fighting  problem-solving  scale  magnitude  estimate  fermi  mental-math  calculation  nitty-gritty  multi  scitariat  org:bleg  lens  tutorial  guide  ground-up  tricki  skeleton  list  cheatsheet  identity  levers  hi-order-bits  yoga  metabuch  pdf  article  essay  history  early-modern  europe  the-great-west-whale  science  the-trenches  discovery  fluid  architecture  oceans  giants  tidbits
august 2017 by nhaliday
st.statistics - Lower bound for sum of binomial coefficients? - MathOverflow
- basically approximate w/ geometric sum (which scales as final term) and you can get it up to O(1) factor
- not good enough for many applications (want 1+o(1) approx.)
- Stirling can also give bound to constant factor precision w/ more calculation I believe
- tighter bound at Section 7.3 here: http://webbuild.knu.ac.kr/~trj/Combin/matousek-vondrak-prob-ln.pdf
q-n-a  overflow  nibble  math  math.CO  estimate  tidbits  magnitude  concentration-of-measure  stirling  binomial  metabuch  tricki  multi  tightness  pdf  lecture-notes  exposition  probability  probabilistic-method  yoga
february 2017 by nhaliday
probability - How to prove Bonferroni inequalities? - Mathematics Stack Exchange
- integrated version of inequalities for alternating sums of (N choose j), where r.v. N = # of events occuring
- inequalities for alternating binomial coefficients follow from general property of unimodal (increasing then decreasing) sequences, which can be gotten w/ two cases for increasing and decreasing resp.
- the final alternating zero sum property follows for binomial coefficients from expanding (1 - 1)^N = 0
- The idea of proving inequality by integrating simpler inequality of r.v.s is nice. Proof from CS 150 was more brute force from what I remember.
q-n-a  overflow  math  probability  tcs  probabilistic-method  estimate  proofs  levers  yoga  multi  tidbits  metabuch  monotonicity  calculation  nibble  bonferroni  tricki  binomial  s:null
january 2017 by nhaliday
cv.complex variables - Absolute value inequality for complex numbers - MathOverflow
In general, once you've proven an inequality like this in R it holds automatically in any Euclidean space (including C) by averaging over projections. ("Inequality like this" = inequality where every term is the length of some linear combination of variable vectors in the space; here the vectors are a, b, c).

I learned this trick at MOP 30+ years ago, and don't know or remember who discovered it.
q-n-a  overflow  math  math.CV  estimate  tidbits  yoga  oly  mathtariat  math.FA  metabuch  inner-product  calculation  norms  nibble  tricki
january 2017 by nhaliday

Copy this bookmark:

description:

tags: