Talk:Borel summation
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I think, there is an error in the formula. Instead of (k-1)! in
Define the Borel transform of by
certainly one would expect (k+1)!:
Define the Borel transform of by
Gottfried Helms
--Gotti 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost certainly the person who made the original k-1 error here. Before I edit I want to also find a good link for a references section. Sigfpe 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A worked example would be good
[edit]Perhaps
or
? --njh 04:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
link to laplace-transfomation
[edit]Following the link to the laplace-transformation, it seems, that in cases, where we do not deal with frequencies and time-series, a Borel-summation is not applicable. But I know, that Borel-sums were computed without the transformation into time-series. (simply summation of real-values sequences, for instance in K.Knopp and G.H.Hardy).
So, what's going on here?
--Gotti 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
[edit]This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
cleanup-rewrite
[edit]As already remarked on 21 August 2006, this article contains erroneous definitions from the start and no solid references. Therefore "cleanup-rewrite". A good starting point for a rewrite from scratch would be: http://www.nbi.dk/~polesen/borel/node7.html --que, 200808071740
Why Nicholas Katz?
[edit]Why is the quote attributed to Nicholas M. Katz, when the citation is clearly from M. Katz (as e.g. google books will confirm)? 129.199.98.61 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Someone must have been too aggressive in trying to find a full name. Fixed. Ozob (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)