• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle








  • Try (100,100,100,100,100,101) or 50 ones and a two, should result in 102 and 4 as a max respectively. I tried using less numbers, but the less numbers you use, the higher the values (to be exact less off a deviation(%-difference) between the values, resulting in higher numbers) have to be and wolframAlpha does not like 10^100 values so I stopped trying.


  • thanks for looking it up:).

    I do think the upper bound on that page is wrong thought. Incedentally in the article itself only the lower bound is prooven, but in its sources this paper prooves what I did in my comment before as well:

    for the upper bound it has max +log(n) . (Section 2, eq 4) This lets us construct an example (see reply to your other comment) to disproove the notion about beeing able to calculate the max for many integers.


  • to be fair it does seem to work for any two numbers where one is >1. As lim x,y–> inf ln(ex+ey) <= lim x,y --> inf ln(2 e^(max(x,y))) = max(x,y) + ln(2).

    I think is cool because works for any number of variables

    using the same proof as before we can see that: lim,x_i -->inf ln(sum_i/in I} e^(x_i)) <= ln(I|) +max{x_i | i /in I.

    So it would only work for at most [base of your log, so e<3 for ln] variables.