reference request – Closed manifolds of nonnegative curvature operator are symmetric spaces

In an online webinar, I heard (not directly) the statement that (closed) manifolds of nonnegative curvature operator $mathcal{R}geq 0$ are symmetric spaces. Is this a valid theorem? Any reference that contains its proof? I am not sure that in the above statement whether “positive curvature” is a part of assumptions or not.

So by the above claim, it seems that $mathcal{R}geq 0iff$ $M$ is symmetric space!

Can the Upgrade: header have spaces between the comma?

This is probably best answered by the RFC defining HTTP headers: RFC 2616.

In section 4.2, defining the general form of headers, is written:

Any LWS (linear white space)
that occurs between field-content MAY be replaced with a single SP
before interpreting the field value or forwarding the message

And the header format:

   message-header = field-name ":" ( field-value )
   field-name     = token
   field-value    = *( field-content | LWS )
   field-content  = <the OCTETs making up the field-value
                    and consisting of either *TEXT or combinations
                    of token, separators, and quoted-string>

Note the section about field-content.
The section describing the upgrade header in special, 14.42, does not mention any further restrictions. This is why my answer to your question is:
Yes, space in between the values should be legal.

Sorry about citing the wrong RFC, the correct one is RFC7231 – but my answer is still valid, see Appendix B. This section lists the changes from the obsolete RFC 2616, and a change of the header format is not listed.

The new definition, which is quite similiar, is found in RFC 7230, Secion 3.2:

 header-field   = field-name ":" OWS field-value OWS

 field-name     = token
 field-value    = *( field-content / obs-fold )
 field-content  = field-vchar ( 1*( SP / HTAB ) field-vchar )
 field-vchar    = VCHAR / obs-text

 obs-fold       = CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB )
                ; obsolete line folding
                ; see Section 3.2.4

templates – strange spaces in the Footer HTML/CSS

templates – strange spaces in the Footer HTML/CSS – Stack Overflow

reference request – Definition of pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for metric spaces

Whereas the definition of Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for compact metric spaces seems to be standard, difference sources seem to give slightly different definitions of pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence for (noncompact) pointed metric spaces.

For example, A course in metric geometry (D. Burago, Yu. Burago, and S. Ivanov) at page 272 gives this definition

Definition A A sequence ${(X_n,d_n,p_n)}$ of pointed metric spaces converges to the pointed metric space ${(X,d,p)}$ if for all $varepsilon,r>0$ there exists a natural number $n_0$ such that for every $n>n_0$ there is a map $f:B(p_n,r)rightarrow X$ such that

  1. $f(p_n)=p$
  2. $text{dis} f<varepsilon$ (i.e. $sup_{B(p_n,r)}|d_n(x_1,x_2)-d(f(x_1),f(x_2))|<varepsilon$)
  3. the $varepsilon$-neighbourhood of $f(B(p_n,r))$ contains the ball $B(p,r-varepsilon)$

On the other hand, Petersen’s Riemannian Geometry (3rd edition) in Chapter 11.1.2 (page 401) restricts to proper metric spaces, introduces a pointed Gromov-Hausdorff distance as follows:
where the inf is over all metrics $d$ on the disjoint union $Xsqcup Y$ which extend the metrics on $X$ and $Y$ and $d_H$ denotes the Hausdorff distance of $X$ and $Y$ as subsets of $Xsqcup Y$ and gives the following definition

Definition B A sequence ${(X_n,d_n,p_n)}$ of pointed metric spaces converges to the pointed metric space ${(X,d,p)}$ if for all $r>0$ there exists a sequence $r_nrightarrow r$ such that
$$d_{text{GH}}left((overline{B}(p_n,r_n),p_n),(overline{B}(p,r),p)right)rightarrow 0$$

Finally, Gromov’s own book Metric Structures for Riemannian and Non-Riemannian Spaces (Def. 3.1.4, at page 85) uses essentially the same definition as Petersen’s, but restricts to (complete) locally compact length metric spaces.

And these are not all the definitions I have found in the literature.
For example, this paper by Dorothea Jansen states (Definition 2.1)

Definition C Let $(X, d_X , p)$ and $(X_n, d_{X_n} , p_n)$, $ninmathbb{N}$, be pointed proper
metric spaces. If $$d_{text{GH}}left((overline{B}(p_n,r),p_n),(overline{B}(p,r),p)right)rightarrow 0$$ for all $r>0$ where the balls are equipped with the restricted metric, then $(X_n, p_n)$ converges to $(X, p)$ in the pointed Gromov-Hausdorff sense.

Not all of them are equivalent. For example, say $X_n$ is the space consisting of the two points ${0,1+frac{1}{n}}$ and $X={0,1}$ (both with the metric inherited from $mathbb{R}$).
Here all $X_n$ (and $X$) are proper, but they are not length spaces. It is easy to see that $(X_n,0)rightarrow (X,0)$ according to definitions A and B. However for all $n$, $overline{B}_{X_n}(0,1)={0}$ and $overline{B}_X(0,1)={0,1}$, so $(overline{B}_{X_n}(0,1),0)notto (overline{B}_X(0,1),0)$ and $(X_n,0)notto (X,0)$ according to definition C.

Also, these notes (which adopt Petersen’s definition B) claim that if ${(X_n,d_n,p_n)}$ ($ninmathbb{N}$) and ${(X,d,p)}$ are compact pointed spaces such that $d_{text{GH}}left((X_n,p_n),(X,p)right)to 0$, then $(X_n,p_n)to (X,p)$ in the sense of definition B, i.e. for each $r>0$ there exist $r_nto r$ such that $$d_{text{GH}}left((overline{B}(p_n,r_n),p_n),(overline{B}(p,r),p)right)rightarrow 0$$
without ever assuming the spaces are length spaces.

My questions are:

  • When are these definitions equivalent?
  • What are the advantages of restricting to proper spaces? What are the advantages of restricting to length spaces?
  • Is there a reference which deals with these issues?

Linear Algebra – Spanning Subspaces and Spaces Plz help!

Exercise 1. Let Mn(R) denote the vector space (actually an R-algebra) of n × n matrices
with entries in R. Given A ∈ Mn(R), let
HA = {B ∈ Mn(R)| AB = BA}.
Show that HA is a subspace of Mn(R).

Exercise 2. Given A ∈ Mn(R), let
JA = {f(A)| f(X) ∈ R(X)} ⊆ Mn(R)
Show that JA is a subspace of Mn(R) by showing that
JA = Span{I, A, A2, A3, . . .}.

Exercise 3. In the notation of the preceding two exercises, show that JA ≤ HA.

Exercise 4. Let H = {f(X) ∈ R(X) | f(0) = 0}.
a. Show that
H = X · R(X) = {X · f(X)| f(X) ∈ R(X)} = Span{X, X2
, X3
, . . .}.
b. Use the preceding part to show that H is a subspace of R(X). Find a basis for H.
c. What can you say about Ha = {f(X) ∈ R(X) | f(a) = 0}, where a ∈ R is arbitrary?

Exercise 5. Let V denote the vector space of all sequences {an}

n=1 of real numbers. We
will say that {an} is eventually zero if there is an N ∈ N so that an = 0 for all n ≥ N (N
can vary with the sequence). That is,
{an} = {a1, a2, . . . , aN−1, 0, 0, 0, . . .}.
Let H denote the set of all eventually zero sequences. Show that H is a subspace of V . Find
a basis of H.

Exercise 6. Let a, b ∈ R and set
H = {e^(ax)(p(x) cos bx + q(x) sin bx)| p(x), q(x) ∈ R(x)} .
Show that H is a subspace of C
(R). Show that this conclusion remains valid if we replace
R(x) in the definition of H with Pn. Find a basis for H in both cases. (Remark. You’ll need
to know that the function tan x is not a rational function of x. Why is this true? Think in
terms of vertical asymptotes.)

Exercise 7. Show that the set (field) of complex numbers C is an R-vector space. Find an
R-basis for C.

linear algebra – Prove that $V^n$ and $mathcal{L}(mathbf{F}^n,V)$ are isomorphic vector spaces

For $n$ positive integer, define $V^n$ by $V^n=underbrace{Vtimes…times V}_{n times}$. Prove that $V^n$ and $mathcal{L}(mathbf{F}^n,V)$ are isomorphic vector spaces. I would like to know if my proof holds and to have a feedback, please.

Let $(v_1,…,v_n)$ be a basis of $V$. So, each element in $V$ can be expressed as $lambda_1 v_1+…+lambda_n v_n$ for $lambda_1,…,lambda_n in mathbf{F}$.

Let $xi:mathbf{F}^nto V$, $xi(lambda_1,…,lambda_n)=lambda_1 v_1+…+lambda_n v_n$ and define $psi: V^nto mathcal{L}(mathbf{F}^n,V)$ as $psi (lambda_1 v_1+…+lambda_n v_n,…,lambda_1 v_1+…+lambda_n v_n)=xi(lambda_1,…,lambda_n)$.

Clearly $psi$ is a linear application (it is easy to check). We show now that $psi$ is injective.

$psi(lambda_1 v_1+…+lambda_n v_n)=xi(lambda_1+…+lambda_n)=lambda_1v_1+..+lambda_nv_n=0 iff lambda_1=…=lambda_n=0$ because $(v_1,…,v_n)$ is linearly independent in $V$. So, $lambda_1 v_1+…+lambda_n v_n=0$ (so null vector in $V$) and we conclude that $psi$ is injective.

Moreover, the dimension of $V^n$ is equal to a dimension of $mathcal{L}(mathbf{F}^n,V)$. Thus, by fundamental theorem we conclude that $psi$ is surjective. Therefore, $psi$ is an isomorphism

ag.algebraic geometry – Open immersion of affinoid adic spaces

If $R$ and $S$ are complete Huber rings with $varphi: R to S$ a continuous map, then is it true in general that if $mathrm{Spa}(S, S^circ) to mathrm{Spa}(R, R^circ)$ is an open immersion of adic spaces (here $S^circ$ and $R^circ$ are the power-bounded subrings) then $mathrm{Spec}(S) to mathrm{Spec}(R)$ is injective?

For example, this is true if $R$ and $S$ both have the discrete topology, because if $frak p$ and $frak q$ are two prime ideals in $S$ which are equal after restricting to $R$ then $(frak p, |cdot|_{rm triv})$ and $(frak q, |cdot|_{rm triv})$ (trivial valuations), which are both points in $mathrm{Spa}(S,S)$, restrict to the trivial valuation on $R/varphi^{-1}(frak p)$.

But I’m not sure how generally to expect that this is true.

reference request – Kernels with finite dimensional feature spaces

Suppose $x,y in mathbb{R}^n$ for some given fixed n.

Consider a kernel $K(x,y) = f(langle x, y rangle)$, I’d like to know which functions $f$ admit a finite dimensional feature map. In other words, for $x,y in mathbb{R}^n$, what functions $f$ does there exist an $m$ and $phi: mathbb{R^n} rightarrow mathbb{R}^m$ with

$f(langle x, y rangle ) = langle phi(x), phi(y)rangle?$

I can show that $f$ must be polynomial if $m < 2^n$, but I’m sure there must exist a more comprehensive result.

real analysis – Supremum norm for convolution in sequence spaces


Suppose that $1 leq p leq infty$, and the convolution $x ast y$ exists. For sequences $x in ell^p(mathbb{Z})$ and $y in ell^q(mathbb{Z})$, we have

$$||x ast y ||_{infty} leq ||x||_p||y||_q,$$

and $x ast y in ell^{infty}$.

We know $p=1$ and $p=infty$ follow by Young’s Inequality ($||x ast y||_p leq ||x||_p||y||_1$).

For $1 < p < infty$, I’m trying take the supremum over what Hölder’s inequality gives. We can define the $n$-th “convolution” as

$$(x ast y)_n = sum_{i=-infty}^{infty} x_iy_{n-i},$$

and so Hölder’s gives

$$||(x ast y)_n||_1 leq ||x||_pleft(sum_{i=-infty}^{infty} |y_{n-i}|^qright)^{frac{1}{q}}.$$

Taking the sup over $n$,

$$||(x ast y)_n||_{infty} leq ||x||_p sup_{n in mathbb{Z}} left(sum_{i = -infty}^{infty} |y_{n-i}|^qright)^{frac{1}{q}} stackrel{?}{=} ||x||_p||y||_q.$$

Can I just reindex this in some manner, $i mapsto n – i$? Is this equivalent to the translation invariant that one would do for the convolution in function spaces?

Confused about D50/D65 conversion going from Lab to sRGB color spaces

I am writing code for some color conversion work and have a confusion. Here are my steps:

  • I utilize a color calibration target (ISA ColorChecker) with reference values provided by the manufacturer in Lab space with D50 white point.
  • I capture a raw image of the target and demosaic the Bayern pattern arriving at RawRGB values for each of the Calibration Target’s patches (average value is taken). To calculate a color correction matrix, I want to find the (not-gamma-corrected) sRGB values starting from the Lab reference values of the Target.
  • I use the formulas in First step is going from Lab to XYZ I use the D50 white reference point XYZReference = 0.9504,1.0000,1.0888
  • Second step is going from XYZ to sRGB and this is where the confusion is: I arrived at the XYZ values using a D50 white point, but sRGB standard seems to use D65. Which of the inverseM matrices shall I be using to get this right?

As additional info: My purpose for this conversion is to get the colors look reasonably correct in a typical commercial display (PC, tablet etc) when I save as png or jpeg for example. After the linear conversion above, I know that I must also apply the gamma-companding.

Thank you!

DreamProxies - Cheapest USA Elite Private Proxies 100 Private Proxies 200 Private Proxies 400 Private Proxies 1000 Private Proxies 2000 Private Proxies - Buy Cheap Private Proxies Buy 50 Private Proxies Buy 100 Private Proxies Buy 200 Private Proxies Buy 500 Private Proxies Buy 1000 Private Proxies Buy 2000 Private Proxies ProxiesLive New Proxy Lists Every Day Proxies123