Tutorial 2: Question 2

Author 
Message 
g3kho
Student
Reputation: 0

Tutorial 2: Question 2
Between the second and third lines of case (i) the denominator goes from (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...) to simply (.d1 d2 ...). Is there a justification for this or is it a typo?
This would suggest that the bounds are for del = (x  fl(x)) / fl(x) instead of del = (x  fl(x)) / x.
If it is a typo, then i get as a final answer that (del = b^(1t) / (1 + b^(1t))


20150426 09:12 

ccc
Instructor
Reputation: 0

RE: Tutorial 2: Question 2
(20150426 09:12)g3kho Wrote:
Between the second and third lines of case (i) the denominator goes from (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...) to simply (.d1 d2 ...). Is there a justification for this or is it a typo?
This would suggest that the bounds are for del = (x  fl(x)) / fl(x) instead of del = (x  fl(x)) / x.
If it is a typo, then i get as a final answer that (del = b^(1t) / (1 + b^(1t))
The denominator (.d1 d2 ...) is meant to be (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...).
But then, it does not matter, as the denominator is replaced
by the smallest possible (normalized) denominator 0.1.


20150427 16:31 

g3kho
Student
Reputation: 0

RE: Tutorial 2: Question 2
(20150427 16:31)ccc Wrote: (20150426 09:12)g3kho Wrote:
Between the second and third lines of case (i) the denominator goes from (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...) to simply (.d1 d2 ...). Is there a justification for this or is it a typo?
This would suggest that the bounds are for del = (x  fl(x)) / fl(x) instead of del = (x  fl(x)) / x.
If it is a typo, then i get as a final answer that (del = b^(1t) / (1 + b^(1t))
The denominator (.d1 d2 ...) is meant to be (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...).
But then, it does not matter, as the denominator is replaced
by the smallest possible (normalized) denominator 0.1.
We are also making an assumption that (.dt+1 dt+2 ... ) is maximal (i.e. equals 1xb^t) .
Is this assumption compatible with the assumption that (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ..) = 1?
That is, if we've already assumed that (.dt+1 dt+2 ... ) = 1xb^t then shouldn't the minimum value for (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ..) at least be 1+1xb^t?


20150429 05:44 

ccc
Instructor
Reputation: 0

RE: Tutorial 2: Question 2
(20150429 05:44)g3kho Wrote: (20150427 16:31)ccc Wrote: (20150426 09:12)g3kho Wrote:
Between the second and third lines of case (i) the denominator goes from (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...) to simply (.d1 d2 ...). Is there a justification for this or is it a typo?
This would suggest that the bounds are for del = (x  fl(x)) / fl(x) instead of del = (x  fl(x)) / x.
If it is a typo, then i get as a final answer that (del = b^(1t) / (1 + b^(1t))
The denominator (.d1 d2 ...) is meant to be (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ...).
But then, it does not matter, as the denominator is replaced
by the smallest possible (normalized) denominator 0.1.
We are also making an assumption that (.dt+1 dt+2 ... ) is maximal (i.e. equals 1xb^t) .
Is this assumption compatible with the assumption that (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ..) = 1?
That is, if we've already assumed that (.dt+1 dt+2 ... ) = 1xb^t then shouldn't the minimum value for (.d1 d2 ... dt dt+1 ..) at least be 1+1xb^t?
We are not making any assumption.
We are only maximizing the numerator and minimizing the denominator.
In this way we get an upper bound.
The maximization of numerator and minimization of denominator
do not have to be compatible to get a bound (just a bound).


20150429 14:18 

Thread Rating:
 0 Votes  0 Average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)