Normal Distribution
nothing is called 95% until it has been counted
The collection

Every essay — page 16

Essays 361 to 384 of 613, in the same order.

A cut point, at a correlation

The geometry of a balancing dictionary over two dependent covariates is closed for polynomials and was taken to be asymptotic for cut points, because a threshold's Hermite coefficients never terminate. Conditioning on the second variable closes it exactly: every mixed inner product is ρ^j times a one-variable answer and the only two-dimensional object left is an orthant probability, which at the median is (2/π) arcsin ρ. The truncation that was feared falls geometrically in the correlation rather than algebraically in the order — and the interaction guarantee a correlation destroys for powers survives it exactly for median splits, because a two-valued function squares to a constant.

The guarantee that survives a correlation, and the one that does not. What a balancing rule handed both main effects removes of the pure interaction between them, as the covariates become dependent. For median splits it is exactly zero at every correlation, because sign(x)² = 1: the interaction sign(X)sign(Y) is orthogonal to sign(X) and to sign(Y) whatever ρ is. For the product of the raw covariates it is 4ρ²/(1+ρ²)² — 64.00% by ρ = 0.5, rising to all of it at perfect correlation. A cut away from the median sits between them and is not small: 23.01% at a cut of one. The zero is not a fact about interactions. It is a fact about a dictionary whose functions square to a constant, which a polynomial one does not.

The zero that survives a cut

A rule holding both main effects removes half of a pure interaction between correlated powers and exactly none between correlated median splits. The guarantee that a correlation destroyed was never about interactions.

3 figures · Criterion, part 10 What a companion with a known expectation can remove from the variance of a simulated 5% rate. For a rate of 0.05, a companion used linearly removes at most 22.4% of the variance however well it correlates. At a correlation of 0.9 it removes 18.1%, the companion's own rate at the same cut 38.2%, and the best function of the companion 48.1%; at 0.99, 21.9%, 77.0% and 82.8%. The companion's rate overtakes the linear companion at a correlation of 0.64.

A rate needs a rate beside it

A simulated rejection rate is an average of indicators, and a companion with an exactly known expectation can remove at most φ(c)²/p(1 − p) of its variance when it is used as a straight line — 22.4% for a 5% rate, 7.2% for a 1% rate — however closely it tracks the statistic. The ceiling is the share of a normal's information a cut keeps. Used as its own rate at the same cut, the same companion removes 38.2% at a correlation of 0.9 and 77.0% at 0.99. On the t test's size for lognormal data it was worth 1.43 times the draws used linearly and 2.32 times used as a rate at a matched level.

5 figures · Routes, part 5 Post-stratifying a simulated 5% rate on a companion correlated 0.9: the share of its variance removed, by the number of strata. The best any function of the companion can do is 48.1%; its own rate at the same cut, 38.2%. Strata spent across the band where the conditional probability changes reach 95% of the best at 8 strata; equal-probability strata need 32. At eight strata the two remove 46.8% and 29.9%.

A companion cut into many

A simulated rate can be estimated within bands of a companion whose distribution is exact, and the bands weighted back by their exact probabilities. One band boundary at the target's threshold is the companion's own rate; infinitely many are the best any function of the companion can do, which for a 5% rate at a correlation of 0.9 removes 48.1% of the variance. Eight bands placed where the target's conditional probability is changing remove 46.8%; eight at equal probabilities remove 29.9%, and need thirty-two to catch up. On the lognormal t test's size, thirty-two bands of the logarithms' t statistic were worth 2.99 times the draws and two hundred and fifty-six, 2.14.

4 figures · Routes, part 6 What two exact companions are worth to a simulated rate: the lognormal t test's size post-stratified three ways, by the number of cells. To first order, bands of the logarithms' t statistic are worth at most 2.77 times the draws; a 32 × 32 grid in the pair 4.68; bands of a score fitted to the pair on a thousand samples 4.64 at sixteen bands and 4.69 at sixty-four. Counted over runs of 4,000 samples, the grid of 1,024 cells was worth 1.97, with 94 cells a run left empty.

A companion with two coordinates

The logarithms' t statistic, cut into bands, is worth at most 2.77 times the draws to a simulation of the lognormal t test's size. It is one function of two exactly known statistics, the logarithms' mean and spread, and the pair is worth 4.64 when a score fitted to it on a pilot of a thousand samples is cut into sixteen bands whose probabilities are integrated exactly. A grid of cells in the pair needs a thousand cells to reach the same and, counted on runs of four thousand samples, is worth 1.97. Band weights estimated from a pilot instead of computed are worth less than the pilot's draws would have been had they simply been counted — exactly nothing at a pilot the size of the run.

4 figures · Routes, part 7 Approximate weights against the size of the run. What sixteen bands of the logarithms' t statistic are worth to a simulation of the lognormal t test's lower-tail size, in multiples of the draws, against the size of the run, with the band weights from Student's t exactly and from three approximations to it. Exact weights are worth 2.709 at every size. Fisher's one-term expansion is worth 2.708 at four thousand draws and 2.523 at a million, and breaks even with counting at 23.7 million draws. The variance-matched normal is worth 1.849 at four thousand and breaks even at 14,698. The standard normal is worth 0.762 at a thousand and breaks even at 669: a bias that does not shrink is multiplied by every draw added.

Weights from an approximate law

A companion whose law is only approximately known can still be cut into bands, with each band's weight computed from the approximation. The weight's error is a bias that does not shrink, and the run multiplies it: the stratified rate is worth p(1 − p)/(v + Nb²) times the draws. Reading Student's t on nineteen degrees of freedom as normal breaks even at 669 draws; the normal with the t's variance at about fifteen thousand; Fisher's one-term expansion at twenty-four million. What decides the bias is how the weight errors line up with the band rates, not how large they are — Fisher's is wrong by sixty per cent in one band and biases the rate by six hundredths of one.

5 figures · Routes, part 8

What a block may vary

Two questions from two corners of the collection with the same answer. A walk over the admissible assignments that exchanges more than one unit per arm mixes faster and is refused more often, and the trade is exactly computable: the gain is a factor of six where a hunt is fifty times cheaper anyway, and nothing at all where the comparison is actually decided. And a variance ratio that drifts between blocks cannot be estimated inside the block it weights — but it can be modelled across them, once the bias in a log variance estimate is subtracted, because that bias depends on the degrees of freedom and the degrees of freedom alternate with the allocation.

A proposal that moves more, refused more often. The two halves of the trade, both exact, on the 410 admissible assignments of twelve units. The integrated autocorrelation time of an imbalance the rule was never handed falls from 7.30 at one swap to 3.97 at three, and the acceptance rate falls with it, from 58.8% to 40.8%. A rejected proposal costs one evaluation and leaves the chain where it was, so acceptance is not the price of anything and the ranking by acceptance is the reverse of the ranking by cost. Past three the family folds: exchanging k of six from each arm is the complement of exchanging six − k, so k = 5 has the same 36 proposals as k = 1 and k = 6 has 1.

A proposal that moves more than two units

The walk's autocorrelation is a fact about its step size and not about its acceptance rate. Exchanging three units from each arm mixes nearly twice as fast as exchanging one, and is refused a third more often.

3 figures · Randomisation, part 8 Stationary is not the same as convergent. How far each k-swap walk is from uniform after t steps, started at the least balanced admissible assignment of 410. Every one of these chains has a symmetric proposal and rejects by standing still, so every one of them is doubly stochastic and every one preserves the uniform distribution exactly. Only five of the six get there. Exchanging all six units of each arm is a single proposal — the complement — and the admissible set is closed under complement, so the walk takes it every time and oscillates between two assignments for ever: after 160 steps it has visited 1 state and sits 0.9976 from uniform. Its stationary distribution is a fact about the matrix; its limit does not exist.

Stationary is not convergent

A walk that exchanges every unit in each arm preserves the uniform distribution exactly and never gets near it. Every doubly stochastic matrix has the same stationary distribution; only some of them have a limit.

3 figures · Randomisation, part 9 The crossing barely moves. Both methods' costs in one unit — assignments evaluated per usable draw — as the tolerance tightens. A hunt costs 1/p and rises without limit: from 2.22 at a tolerance of 1.2 to 357.14 at 0.18. A walk costs its autocorrelation time and barely moves. The two cross at a tolerance of 0.190 at one swap and 0.195 at eight — the whole family of proposal sizes crosses inside a band of about two hundredths, because where the crossing is, the large proposal has already lost its advantage. A multi-swap proposal is worth a factor of 5.65 in the regime where the walk should not be used at all.

Where the gain is, and where the decision is

A bigger proposal is worth a factor of six at a loose tolerance and nothing at a tight one. The tolerances where it helps are the ones where a hunt costs two evaluations a draw, and the crossing barely moves.

4 figures · Assignment, part 10 A wrong weight costs width; a random weight costs level. Five weightings on a trial whose variance ratio drifts by a factor of 20.1 between the first block and the last, over 4000 runs. The rule that knows every λ_b covers at 95.1% and sets the width. One ratio for the whole trial is wrong for every block and costs nothing in level — 94.8% — while being 20% wider; equal weights are calibrated by an identity and 22% wider. The ratio estimated inside each block is the only rule aimed at the quantity that actually varies, and it is the only one that misses the level, at 92.0%: a weight computed from a handful of degrees of freedom is mostly noise, and noise in a weight is not a wrong weight. Modelling the drift across blocks recovers the oracle's width at 94.8%.

A ratio that changes between blocks

A wrong weight costs width and a random weight costs level. The rule aimed at the quantity that actually varies is the only one that misses its own coverage, and the rule that models it across blocks recovers the whole of what knowing it is worth.

3 figures · Nuisance, part 6 Where the bias lands. The drift in the log variance ratio, fitted across 12 blocks over 4000 trials. E[log λ̂_b] is log λ_b plus ψ(k_B/2) − log(k_B/2) − ψ(k_A/2) + log(k_A/2), which depends on nothing but the degrees of freedom — so the tempting sentence is that it goes into the intercept and leaves the slope alone. It does not, because the blocks alternate between allocations and the alternation is correlated with the covariate being fitted: the lopsided blocks carry 0.5383 of bias and the even ones carry none. Uncorrected the slope reads 1.5597 against a truth of 1.5, which is 8.0 standard errors. Subtracting the two digammas block by block leaves 1.4976.

The bias that lands in the slope

The bias in a log variance estimate depends on nothing but its degrees of freedom, so it goes into the intercept — unless the degrees of freedom alternate with the design, which is exactly what a block-randomised trial makes them do.

3 figures · Width, part 7

The shape a dependence has

Estimating a covariance rather than naming it was priced on errors that really were a first-order autoregression, where generality can only cost. Here are four laws with the same first lag and nothing else in common: a moving average that stops, a memory that does not, a break in the middle. The cost of generality where it is not needed and the benefit of it where it is turn out to be the same size — and against a covariance that changes with position rather than with gap, one number, a window and an order are worth exactly the same as each other. Both tuning parameters are then chosen from the sample, and every criterion available for choosing them is aimed at something else.

Four dependences a single parameter cannot tell apart. Every law here is standardised to a lag-one autocorrelation of 0.8, so a rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression finds the same number in all four and has no way of seeing what separates them. The geometric decay is the world in which estimating a covariance rather than naming it was priced, and found to cost. The five-period moving average has 0.200 at the fourth lag and exactly nothing past it, where the geometric law says 0.328 at the fifth. Long memory at d = 4/9 is still at 0.576 by the twentieth lag, where the geometric law has reached 0.012. The break has no autocorrelation function at all: what is drawn for it is the average over the pairs at each gap, which is what a stationary estimate converges to.

A dependence with a shape

Four ways for errors to repeat, all with the same first lag and nothing else in common. A rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression finds the same number in all four, and is right about one of them.

4 figures · Dependence, part 6 Generality in the wrong direction buys nothing. Regret on a sample whose persistence changes from 0.95 to 0.65 at row 60, over 200 draws. The three stationary rules — told one number, told a window, told an order — are within 0.4 standard errors of each other, and all three stop in the same place: they are general in the lag direction, and the departure is in the other one. Letting the model change once, at a point estimated from the same residuals, is worth 0.05021 more at 4.5 paired standard errors — about as much again as the whole of the first repair. Being told where the break is adds 0.01926, and being told the entire covariance adds 0.02465.

Where the generality runs out

A covariance that changes half way through a sample is not one a window can estimate. One number, a window and an order are worth the same as each other on it — and letting the model change once, at a point nobody can locate, is worth as much again as all three.

4 figures · Dependence, part 7 The window a whitening wants is not the memory of the errors. Regret under a five-period moving average as the tapered estimate is given more lags, over 120 draws at n = 120. The best window is L = 30; the automatic bandwidth is 4 and the error model's own likelihood chooses 9.7 on average. Both land in the same place and both are short, and the reason is the taper: a Bartlett weight at lag k is 1 − k/(L + 1), so a window of 8 keeps 0.556 of whatever the fourth lag carries and a window of 30 keeps 0.871. A window has to be several times the memory before it stops removing the memory. The dashed line is the rule told the errors are a first-order autoregression, which needs no window at all.

The window a whitening wants

Every law here is best whitened by a window several times longer than its own memory, including the one whose memory ends at the fourth lag. The three ways of choosing it from the sample all land in the same place, and it is the wrong one.

3 figures · Order selection, part 6 Four sequences, and the rule only ever sees the last one. Under long memory at d = 4/9, four things that are all called the dependence. The law itself is the top line. What a sample of 120 rows reports on average is the second, computed exactly: subtracting a sample mean takes the first lag from 0.800 to 0.538. What a candidate's residuals report is the third, lower again at 0.472, because a fit removes dependence along with signal. The autoregressions are fitted to that third sequence and reproduce it exactly out to their own order — the Yule–Walker equations are solved to make it so — so everything they say past that is extrapolation. At the twentieth lag the law has 0.576, the residuals report 0.006, and an AR(8) extrapolates 0.028.

The order the tail is drawn at

A fitted autoregression reproduces the sample exactly at the lags it was fitted on, so everything it says past them is extrapolation — and the order is the dial that decides how much of it there is.

4 figures · Order selection, part 7 What the two-regime residue was made of, persistent first. Under a break in the persistence at row 60 of 120 (0.95 then 0.65), the selection regret of six whitenings over 200 draws: restart, unscaled, residual persistences 0.04043; restart, unscaled, persistences given 0.03488; restart, unscaled, fitted with the line 0.03466; the law's recursion, residual persistences 0.03856; the law's recursion, fitted with the line 0.01640; the law's own covariance 0.01579. The whitening that restarts at the break and does not rescale its two regimes gives up 0.01910 against the oracle even when it is given the true persistences; the law's recursion, which divides each row by its regime's innovation scale and continues across the break, is the oracle when given them and within 0.00061 of it when they are fitted with the regression.

The residue was the weights

A regression whose errors change persistence at a known row was whitened as two autoregressions and still gave up 0.0246 against the law's own covariance. That residue was put down to estimating the two persistences from residuals, and the repair named was to fit them with the line. Fitting them with the line moves the persistent regime's estimate from 0.81 to 0.89 and recovers a fifth of the residue — exactly what being told the true persistences recovers. The rest was the transform: it never divided the two regimes by their own innovation scales, which differ sixfold. The law's own recursion, told the persistences, is the oracle to machine precision; fitted with the line, it estimates the persistent one at 0.945 and comes within 0.0006 of the oracle.

3 figures · Dependence, part 8

A block, weighted inside itself

Every resampling in this collection attenuates the dependence it is trying to keep, and until now every one of those attenuations was inherited rather than chosen. The construction the long-run-variance literature actually uses weights the residuals down towards each block's own ends — and what that buys turns out to be exactly the squared value of the window at the two ends and nothing else about its shape. It is an asymptotic gain that has not arrived at any block length a hundred and twenty rows can afford, and at the lengths that are available a tapered block is very nearly a shorter plain one.

Four blocks, and only the ends matter. The weights a block carries, normalised so that the resample keeps the residuals' variance and only their covariances are attenuated. What separates these shapes, for everything that follows, is the value at the two ends and nothing about the middle: the first-order attenuation is −(w(0)² + w(1)²)/(2∫w²), which is -1.0000 for the rectangle, -0.3896 for the trapezoid cut off at half height, and exactly zero for both windows that reach the axis. The half-height trapezoid is in the table to be the case that separates a shape from a boundary value: it is smooth, it is tapered, and it buys none of the order the other two buy.

A block weighted inside itself

The triangle every block resample attenuates by is not a fact about blocks. It is the self-convolution of a rectangle, and a block weighted down towards its own ends has a different one — whose leading term is the squared value at the two ends and nothing else about the shape.

5 figures · Bootstrap, part 10 How far each reference distribution's 95% point falls short. Seven constructions on rows that repeat each other, at a block length of 5 and 200 draws, against the statistic's own 95% point of 3.0224 computed from three thousand draws of the same world. Reading down: a multiplier on every row keeps no dependence at all and is 44% short; a multiplier shared along a block keeps the triangle; a fixed block keeps the same triangle and is 8% closer, which is the pair that says a taper is not what decides this; the stationary bootstrap; the two tapered blocks, both further short than the untapered one at this block length; and errors generated from a fitted model, which is the only construction here not bounded by what the residuals report.

A taper and a critical value

Two constructions whose tapers visibly differ give the same critical value, and two that share a taper exactly do not. Adding a construction whose taper is a decision rather than an accident says which half of that is true.

4 figures · Reference, part 10 One t interval with its scale read three ways, 120 rows in blocks of 32. What a 95% t interval for the mean of a first-order autoregression at 0.7 covers, and how wide it is, when its block-means scale is read from the 3 disjoint blocks of 32 rows, from a block at every one of the 89 starting rows, and from those overlapping blocks tapered — over 8,000 draws. Disjoint: 94.4% at a width of 1.560, with a multiplier of 4.30. Every starting row: 94.8% at 1.054, multiplier 2.74. Tapered: 95.0% at 1.020, multiplier 2.57.

A block at every starting row

The t interval on the block count reads its scale from the disjoint blocks, three of them when 120 rows are cut into blocks of thirty-two, and throws away the other eighty-six blocks the series contains. Reading a block at every starting row leaves the scale's attenuation where it was — the two expectations agree to within a hundredth at every cell — and nearly doubles the degrees of freedom it realises, so the interval loses a third of its width at the same coverage. Where the interval falls short, at short blocks, it falls short by the same amount however the blocks are read.

5 figures · Bootstrap, part 25 Coverage against block length, 120 rows. The coverage of the t interval for the mean of a first-order autoregression at 0.7 on 120 rows, at every block length on a fine grid, with its scale read from the disjoint blocks and from a block at every starting row, over 8,000 draws. The squared-error length for disjoint blocks at the true persistence is 13.9 rows, and the same algebra for the overlapping scale gives 16.0, marked. The overlapping interval first reaches 95% — to within a tenth of a point — at blocks of 32 rows, where it covers 94.9% at a width of 1.056; at the overlapping squared-error length it covers about 92.5%.

A length chosen for the interval

The squared-error rule for a block length weighs the scale's bias against its variance. Rebuilt for a block at every starting row, whose variance is two thirds as large, it asks for blocks fourteen per cent longer and buys four tenths of a point of coverage. A t interval has already paid for the scale's variance in its multiplier, so its own coverage is predicted by the bias alone — within seven tenths of a point up to blocks of twenty-eight rows — and a rule that chooses the shortest length that prediction says will cover asks for blocks two and a half to three times longer and lands within about a point of 95% at 120, 240 and 480 rows. The price is width, and it is paid where the series is short.

5 figures · Bootstrap, part 26 What four length rules cover, 120 rows. The coverage of the t interval on the overlapping scale at 120 rows, when the block length is the shortest one predicted to reach 94.5% under each of four readings of the share, over 4,000 draws of each law. AR(1) at 0.7: geometric 96.2%, read to the chosen lag 93.2%, read to lag 6 93.7%, known 96.5%. a five-period moving average: geometric 96.5%, read to the chosen lag 93.5%, read to lag 6 94.5%, known 95.3%. a break, 0.95 then 0.65: geometric 95.1%, read to the chosen lag 93.0%, read to lag 6 92.5%, known 95.2%. the break turned over: geometric 94.8%, read to the chosen lag 92.5%, read to lag 6 92.2%, known 95.0%.

A share read off the sample

A block length chosen for an interval's coverage needs the share of the mean's variance the scale will find, and the published rule reads it from a first-order autoregression at the sample's lag-one value. Reading it from the sample's own autocovariances instead was supposed to survive series nobody had modelled. At 120 rows it covers 92.5% to 93.5% on all four laws — worse than the wrong shape on every one — because a centred series' autocovariances sum to exactly zero and the share they imply is too generous; read to lag forty it covers 84%. The assumed shape costs width, not coverage: 17% too wide where dependence stops at lag four, and nothing visible under a break, where the interval covers for a reason the share knows nothing about.

6 figures · Bootstrap, part 27 The cut-off lag, before and after the correction. Coverage at 120 rows when the block length is chosen from a share read off the sample's autocovariances to a stated lag, as read and corrected for the centring. first-order autoregression, as read: 93.9% at lag 6, 93.3% at lag 12, 88.7% at lag 24, 84.5% at lag 40. the same, corrected: 94.0% at lag 6, 94.5% at lag 12, 91.9% at lag 24, 89.2% at lag 40. moving average, as read: 94.5% at lag 6, 92.3% at lag 12, 88.7% at lag 24, 85.0% at lag 40. the same, corrected: 94.7% at lag 6, 93.7% at lag 12, 91.7% at lag 24, 89.8% at lag 40. a break, as read: 92.1% at lag 6, 93.1% at lag 12, 90.1% at lag 24, 83.5% at lag 40. the same, corrected: 92.2% at lag 6, 93.8% at lag 12, 92.2% at lag 24, 89.7% at lag 40.

A sequence that knows it was centred

A block length read off a sample's own autocovariances gets worse the further out it reads, because a centred series' autocovariances sum to exactly zero. To first order every lag loses the same amount, about the long-run variance over the sample size, and that can be added back. Corrected, a reading to lag forty goes from 84.5% to 89.2%, and to lag twelve from 93.3% to 94.5%. But the correction overshoots on the long lags, and on the rule that picks its own cut-off, which is short, it moves coverage by three tenths of a point. The identity was the reason the lag mattered. It was not the reason the rule falls short.

3 figures · Bootstrap, part 28

What a dictionary buys and what it costs

A balancing rule is a list of functions, and the list decides two things that pull against each other. What it protects against is decided by parity: an interaction between two odd functions is even, an odd function is orthogonal to an even one at every correlation, and the two things every trial balances — a mean and a median split — are both odd, so their worst case is exactly zero however many of them are held. What it costs is the assignments it leaves, and past a certain thinness those stop being one set: the admissible assignments split into an arrangement and its mirror image, no sequence of admissible single swaps joins them, and the walk that samples them is uniform on half the reference distribution for ever.

The rule is parity, and it runs both ways. At a correlation of 0.5, four combinations of a dictionary and an outcome shape. The joint sign flip (X, Y) → (−X, −Y) leaves the bivariate normal alone at every correlation, so a function that changes sign under it is orthogonal to one that does not. A product of two odd functions is even; a product of an odd and an even one is odd. So an odd dictionary removes exactly none of the first and something of the second, and an even dictionary does the reverse — which it does, to machine precision, in both of the two rows that should be zero. This is one rule where there had been two: that a median split's square is constant, and that a polynomial dictionary contains the products a correlation generates.

A dictionary that is neither

A rule handed two median splits removes none of their interaction; a rule handed two covariates removes none of their product. Those were two results with two explanations, and they are one result with one — and finding it corrected the number underneath both.

3 figures · Criterion, part 11 What the worst case is worth, one function at a time. The smallest share each dictionary removes, over seven outcome shapes, at a correlation of 0.5. A rule balancing the mean of each covariate has a worst case of exactly zero — against the square, and against both products. Adding a median split to it, which is the second thing every trial balances, leaves the worst case at exactly zero, because a median split is odd and so is a mean. Adding the square instead moves it to 6.8%, and the extra functions after that move it to 7.4%. The worst case is decided by which parities the dictionary contains rather than by how many functions are in it.

What the extra function buys

A rule balancing the mean of each covariate has a worst case of exactly zero. Adding the median split — the other thing every trial balances — leaves it at exactly zero, and one square moves it.

3 figures · Criterion, part 12 Whichever dial made the set thin, the crossing is at the same thinness. Each curve is one dictionary, swept over eight tolerances at two hundred units; a point above the line is a set thin enough that walking beats hunting. The curves lie nearly on top of one another, which is the answer to whether the crossing is a fact about the tolerance or about the thinness it produces: the crossings sit between one admissible assignment in 176 and one in 268 for dictionaries of 3 to 6 functions. The mechanism is that a hunt costs exactly 1/p and a walk costs almost the same everywhere — between 82 and 394 evaluations per usable draw across the whole table — so the crossing is wherever 1/p reaches a number that does not move.

The set a dictionary leaves

A rule constrained on six functions at a loose tolerance leaves a set as thin as one constrained on three at a tight one. Both sampling methods cross over at the same thinness, and the tolerance where that happens moves by a factor of three.

3 figures · Assignment, part 11

FieldsThreadsSeriesConceptsFigure librarySearch