How is this not a proof of the Jacobian conjecture in the complex case?An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hardInverse Function Theorem/ PolynomialDerivative of a determinantIs the first variation of a Jacobian determinant always zero?If $f$ is holomorphic and $left| f right|$ is constant then $f$ is constantDerivate of the cofactor and the determinantExpressing the determinant of a restricted map in terms of its cofactor matrixDeterminant of the Jacobian of a short mapProof for $A^-1=fracadj(A_j)det(A)$Differentiability of a determinant and its inverseEquation containing cofactor of derivative and Kronecker-delta

Why the color red for the Republican Party

Examples of a statistic that is not independent of sample's distribution?

Who deserves to be first and second author? PhD student who collected data, research associate who wrote the paper or supervisor?

Could a cubesat be propelled to the moon?

Good for you! in Russian

Do items de-spawn in Diablo?

PTIJ: Why can't I eat anything?

Aliens englobed the Solar System: will we notice?

How strictly should I take "Candidates must be local"?

Making a sword in the stone, in a medieval world without magic

How could our ancestors have domesticated a solitary predator?

Solving "Resistance between two nodes on a grid" problem in Mathematica

Can't find the Shader/UVs tab

How are such low op-amp input currents possible?

What are some noteworthy "mic-drop" moments in math?

My story is written in English, but is set in my home country. What language should I use for the dialogue?

How do you like my writing?

PTIJ: How can I halachically kill a vampire?

A question on the ultrafilter number

Do Bugbears' arms literally get longer when it's their turn?

How do I express some one as a black person?

Good allowance savings plan?

Should QA ask requirements to developers?

Algorithm to convert a fixed-length string to the smallest possible collision-free representation?



How is this not a proof of the Jacobian conjecture in the complex case?


An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hardInverse Function Theorem/ PolynomialDerivative of a determinantIs the first variation of a Jacobian determinant always zero?If $f$ is holomorphic and $left| f right|$ is constant then $f$ is constantDerivate of the cofactor and the determinantExpressing the determinant of a restricted map in terms of its cofactor matrixDeterminant of the Jacobian of a short mapProof for $A^-1=fracadj(A_j)det(A)$Differentiability of a determinant and its inverseEquation containing cofactor of derivative and Kronecker-delta













1












$begingroup$


I've just been reading the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jacobian conjecture, and it said that either the conjecture is true for all fields of characteristic zero, or it is false for all such fields.



Hence, I wonder, shouldn't this be an easy problem that yields to methods from real or complex analysis? After all, it involves only simple terms like determinant, inverse, constant, polynomial etc.



Specifically, the determinant condition gives a relation between the derivatives, which one may then be able to integrate in order to possibly obtain polynomials.



To make this more specific, say that we have a polynomial function $f: mathbb K^n to mathbb K^n$, where $mathbb K = mathbb R$ or $mathbb C$. Then $det J_f$ is a polynomial in the derivatives of the components and hence itself a polynomial. By the inverse rule and Cramer's rule, the derivative of the (local) inverse has the form
$$
frac1det(J_f) operatornameCof(J_f),
$$

where by assumption $det(J_f)$ is constant. Also, the cofactor matrix is a polynomial matrix. Thus, we integrate any of its entries for each component to obtain a local polynomial inverse, which is also global due to the identity theorem (at least in the complex case).




What makes this approach fail?




(This main part of my question makes it unique among other questions regarding the Jacobian conjecture, which have been completely falsely suggested to be a duplicate of this one.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hard
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    As far as I can tell, the given question does not suggest a specific approach, and neither does its answer address one (except for attempting to find a counter-example). So could you please un-duplicate this question?
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Run through the hypothetical argument outlined in one of those answers. While not a perfect duplicate, the fact you propose solving this problem as if it were a simple bit of ODE/Linear-Algebra implies to me you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated. I agree with you it's not a perfect duplicate, but it's better than my immediate answer to your question, which is that the Jacobian Conjecture involves multiple variables. You can't just integrate to cancel out the differentiation immediately and get polynomials.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    "you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated" - Yes, that's why I'm asking. Since I've only just met the conjecture, this doesn't imply that I'm stupid though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I never stated anything about your intelligence, so please don't accuse me of doing so. It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't get the nuance looking at the conjecture for the first time - I surely didn't when I first saw it. That is why I: 1) connected a question I think answers most aspects of this question decently well enough to be considered a duplicate, and 2) answered the one part of your question that isn't a duplicate via my above comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago
















1












$begingroup$


I've just been reading the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jacobian conjecture, and it said that either the conjecture is true for all fields of characteristic zero, or it is false for all such fields.



Hence, I wonder, shouldn't this be an easy problem that yields to methods from real or complex analysis? After all, it involves only simple terms like determinant, inverse, constant, polynomial etc.



Specifically, the determinant condition gives a relation between the derivatives, which one may then be able to integrate in order to possibly obtain polynomials.



To make this more specific, say that we have a polynomial function $f: mathbb K^n to mathbb K^n$, where $mathbb K = mathbb R$ or $mathbb C$. Then $det J_f$ is a polynomial in the derivatives of the components and hence itself a polynomial. By the inverse rule and Cramer's rule, the derivative of the (local) inverse has the form
$$
frac1det(J_f) operatornameCof(J_f),
$$

where by assumption $det(J_f)$ is constant. Also, the cofactor matrix is a polynomial matrix. Thus, we integrate any of its entries for each component to obtain a local polynomial inverse, which is also global due to the identity theorem (at least in the complex case).




What makes this approach fail?




(This main part of my question makes it unique among other questions regarding the Jacobian conjecture, which have been completely falsely suggested to be a duplicate of this one.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hard
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    As far as I can tell, the given question does not suggest a specific approach, and neither does its answer address one (except for attempting to find a counter-example). So could you please un-duplicate this question?
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Run through the hypothetical argument outlined in one of those answers. While not a perfect duplicate, the fact you propose solving this problem as if it were a simple bit of ODE/Linear-Algebra implies to me you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated. I agree with you it's not a perfect duplicate, but it's better than my immediate answer to your question, which is that the Jacobian Conjecture involves multiple variables. You can't just integrate to cancel out the differentiation immediately and get polynomials.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    "you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated" - Yes, that's why I'm asking. Since I've only just met the conjecture, this doesn't imply that I'm stupid though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I never stated anything about your intelligence, so please don't accuse me of doing so. It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't get the nuance looking at the conjecture for the first time - I surely didn't when I first saw it. That is why I: 1) connected a question I think answers most aspects of this question decently well enough to be considered a duplicate, and 2) answered the one part of your question that isn't a duplicate via my above comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


I've just been reading the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jacobian conjecture, and it said that either the conjecture is true for all fields of characteristic zero, or it is false for all such fields.



Hence, I wonder, shouldn't this be an easy problem that yields to methods from real or complex analysis? After all, it involves only simple terms like determinant, inverse, constant, polynomial etc.



Specifically, the determinant condition gives a relation between the derivatives, which one may then be able to integrate in order to possibly obtain polynomials.



To make this more specific, say that we have a polynomial function $f: mathbb K^n to mathbb K^n$, where $mathbb K = mathbb R$ or $mathbb C$. Then $det J_f$ is a polynomial in the derivatives of the components and hence itself a polynomial. By the inverse rule and Cramer's rule, the derivative of the (local) inverse has the form
$$
frac1det(J_f) operatornameCof(J_f),
$$

where by assumption $det(J_f)$ is constant. Also, the cofactor matrix is a polynomial matrix. Thus, we integrate any of its entries for each component to obtain a local polynomial inverse, which is also global due to the identity theorem (at least in the complex case).




What makes this approach fail?




(This main part of my question makes it unique among other questions regarding the Jacobian conjecture, which have been completely falsely suggested to be a duplicate of this one.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I've just been reading the Wikipedia entry regarding the Jacobian conjecture, and it said that either the conjecture is true for all fields of characteristic zero, or it is false for all such fields.



Hence, I wonder, shouldn't this be an easy problem that yields to methods from real or complex analysis? After all, it involves only simple terms like determinant, inverse, constant, polynomial etc.



Specifically, the determinant condition gives a relation between the derivatives, which one may then be able to integrate in order to possibly obtain polynomials.



To make this more specific, say that we have a polynomial function $f: mathbb K^n to mathbb K^n$, where $mathbb K = mathbb R$ or $mathbb C$. Then $det J_f$ is a polynomial in the derivatives of the components and hence itself a polynomial. By the inverse rule and Cramer's rule, the derivative of the (local) inverse has the form
$$
frac1det(J_f) operatornameCof(J_f),
$$

where by assumption $det(J_f)$ is constant. Also, the cofactor matrix is a polynomial matrix. Thus, we integrate any of its entries for each component to obtain a local polynomial inverse, which is also global due to the identity theorem (at least in the complex case).




What makes this approach fail?




(This main part of my question makes it unique among other questions regarding the Jacobian conjecture, which have been completely falsely suggested to be a duplicate of this one.)







real-analysis linear-algebra complex-analysis proof-verification open-problem






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







AlgebraicsAnonymous

















asked 2 days ago









AlgebraicsAnonymousAlgebraicsAnonymous

1,434113




1,434113







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hard
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    As far as I can tell, the given question does not suggest a specific approach, and neither does its answer address one (except for attempting to find a counter-example). So could you please un-duplicate this question?
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Run through the hypothetical argument outlined in one of those answers. While not a perfect duplicate, the fact you propose solving this problem as if it were a simple bit of ODE/Linear-Algebra implies to me you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated. I agree with you it's not a perfect duplicate, but it's better than my immediate answer to your question, which is that the Jacobian Conjecture involves multiple variables. You can't just integrate to cancel out the differentiation immediately and get polynomials.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    "you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated" - Yes, that's why I'm asking. Since I've only just met the conjecture, this doesn't imply that I'm stupid though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I never stated anything about your intelligence, so please don't accuse me of doing so. It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't get the nuance looking at the conjecture for the first time - I surely didn't when I first saw it. That is why I: 1) connected a question I think answers most aspects of this question decently well enough to be considered a duplicate, and 2) answered the one part of your question that isn't a duplicate via my above comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hard
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    As far as I can tell, the given question does not suggest a specific approach, and neither does its answer address one (except for attempting to find a counter-example). So could you please un-duplicate this question?
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Run through the hypothetical argument outlined in one of those answers. While not a perfect duplicate, the fact you propose solving this problem as if it were a simple bit of ODE/Linear-Algebra implies to me you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated. I agree with you it's not a perfect duplicate, but it's better than my immediate answer to your question, which is that the Jacobian Conjecture involves multiple variables. You can't just integrate to cancel out the differentiation immediately and get polynomials.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    "you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated" - Yes, that's why I'm asking. Since I've only just met the conjecture, this doesn't imply that I'm stupid though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I never stated anything about your intelligence, so please don't accuse me of doing so. It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't get the nuance looking at the conjecture for the first time - I surely didn't when I first saw it. That is why I: 1) connected a question I think answers most aspects of this question decently well enough to be considered a duplicate, and 2) answered the one part of your question that isn't a duplicate via my above comment.
    $endgroup$
    – Brevan Ellefsen
    2 days ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hard
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of An explanation for undergraduated students about why the Jacobian conjecture is hard
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
2 days ago












$begingroup$
As far as I can tell, the given question does not suggest a specific approach, and neither does its answer address one (except for attempting to find a counter-example). So could you please un-duplicate this question?
$endgroup$
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
2 days ago




$begingroup$
As far as I can tell, the given question does not suggest a specific approach, and neither does its answer address one (except for attempting to find a counter-example). So could you please un-duplicate this question?
$endgroup$
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Run through the hypothetical argument outlined in one of those answers. While not a perfect duplicate, the fact you propose solving this problem as if it were a simple bit of ODE/Linear-Algebra implies to me you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated. I agree with you it's not a perfect duplicate, but it's better than my immediate answer to your question, which is that the Jacobian Conjecture involves multiple variables. You can't just integrate to cancel out the differentiation immediately and get polynomials.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
2 days ago





$begingroup$
Run through the hypothetical argument outlined in one of those answers. While not a perfect duplicate, the fact you propose solving this problem as if it were a simple bit of ODE/Linear-Algebra implies to me you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated. I agree with you it's not a perfect duplicate, but it's better than my immediate answer to your question, which is that the Jacobian Conjecture involves multiple variables. You can't just integrate to cancel out the differentiation immediately and get polynomials.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
2 days ago













$begingroup$
"you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated" - Yes, that's why I'm asking. Since I've only just met the conjecture, this doesn't imply that I'm stupid though.
$endgroup$
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
2 days ago




$begingroup$
"you don't actually understand why the problem is nuanced and complicated" - Yes, that's why I'm asking. Since I've only just met the conjecture, this doesn't imply that I'm stupid though.
$endgroup$
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
I never stated anything about your intelligence, so please don't accuse me of doing so. It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't get the nuance looking at the conjecture for the first time - I surely didn't when I first saw it. That is why I: 1) connected a question I think answers most aspects of this question decently well enough to be considered a duplicate, and 2) answered the one part of your question that isn't a duplicate via my above comment.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
2 days ago





$begingroup$
I never stated anything about your intelligence, so please don't accuse me of doing so. It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't get the nuance looking at the conjecture for the first time - I surely didn't when I first saw it. That is why I: 1) connected a question I think answers most aspects of this question decently well enough to be considered a duplicate, and 2) answered the one part of your question that isn't a duplicate via my above comment.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
2 days ago











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

I now see what my mistake was. Instead of being a polynomial in $y$, the variable of the target space, the inverse is a polynomial in $f^-1(y)$. Specifically:



$$
J_f^-1(y) = J_f^-1(f^-1(y)).
$$



Thus, we only obtain a polynomial in the components of $f^-1(y)$, which is probably worthless.



The only property of the inverse we have thus shown is this: If we differentiate the function in any direction, we obtain a polynomial in the components of that function. Yet this is even true for $exp$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3142145%2fhow-is-this-not-a-proof-of-the-jacobian-conjecture-in-the-complex-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

I now see what my mistake was. Instead of being a polynomial in $y$, the variable of the target space, the inverse is a polynomial in $f^-1(y)$. Specifically:



$$
J_f^-1(y) = J_f^-1(f^-1(y)).
$$



Thus, we only obtain a polynomial in the components of $f^-1(y)$, which is probably worthless.



The only property of the inverse we have thus shown is this: If we differentiate the function in any direction, we obtain a polynomial in the components of that function. Yet this is even true for $exp$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago















1












$begingroup$

I now see what my mistake was. Instead of being a polynomial in $y$, the variable of the target space, the inverse is a polynomial in $f^-1(y)$. Specifically:



$$
J_f^-1(y) = J_f^-1(f^-1(y)).
$$



Thus, we only obtain a polynomial in the components of $f^-1(y)$, which is probably worthless.



The only property of the inverse we have thus shown is this: If we differentiate the function in any direction, we obtain a polynomial in the components of that function. Yet this is even true for $exp$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$

I now see what my mistake was. Instead of being a polynomial in $y$, the variable of the target space, the inverse is a polynomial in $f^-1(y)$. Specifically:



$$
J_f^-1(y) = J_f^-1(f^-1(y)).
$$



Thus, we only obtain a polynomial in the components of $f^-1(y)$, which is probably worthless.



The only property of the inverse we have thus shown is this: If we differentiate the function in any direction, we obtain a polynomial in the components of that function. Yet this is even true for $exp$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I now see what my mistake was. Instead of being a polynomial in $y$, the variable of the target space, the inverse is a polynomial in $f^-1(y)$. Specifically:



$$
J_f^-1(y) = J_f^-1(f^-1(y)).
$$



Thus, we only obtain a polynomial in the components of $f^-1(y)$, which is probably worthless.



The only property of the inverse we have thus shown is this: If we differentiate the function in any direction, we obtain a polynomial in the components of that function. Yet this is even true for $exp$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered 2 days ago









AlgebraicsAnonymousAlgebraicsAnonymous

1,434113




1,434113











  • $begingroup$
    We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago
















  • $begingroup$
    We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
    $endgroup$
    – AlgebraicsAnonymous
    2 days ago















$begingroup$
We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
$endgroup$
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
2 days ago




$begingroup$
We do get a nice ODE for $f^-1$ though.
$endgroup$
– AlgebraicsAnonymous
2 days ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3142145%2fhow-is-this-not-a-proof-of-the-jacobian-conjecture-in-the-complex-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye