The Bayesian Choice: A Decision-Theoretic Motivation.

1996 ◽  
Vol 91 (433) ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
Malay Ghosh ◽  
Christian P. Robert
Keyword(s):  
Theoretic Motivation

scholarly journals The Blum-Hanson Property

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-105
Author(s):  
Sophie Grivaux
Keyword(s):  
Banach Space ◽  
Hilbert Spaces ◽  
Separable Banach Space ◽  
Metric Spaces ◽  
Compact Metric Spaces ◽  
Theoretic Motivation

AbstractGiven a (real or complex, separable) Banach space, and a contraction T on X, we say that T has the Blum-Hanson property if whenever x, y ∈ X are such that Tnx tends weakly to y in X as n tends to infinity, the means{1 \over N}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^N {{T^{{n_k}}}x} tend to y in norm for every strictly increasing sequence (nk) k≥1 of integers. The space X itself has the Blum-Hanson property if every contraction on X has the Blum-Hanson property. We explain the ergodic-theoretic motivation for the Blum-Hanson property, prove that Hilbert spaces have the Blum-Hanson property, and then present a recent criterion of a geometric flavor, due to Lefèvre-Matheron-Primot, which allows to retrieve essentially all the known examples of spaces with the Blum-Hanson property. Lastly, following Lefèvre-Matheron, we characterize the compact metric spaces K such that the space C(K) has the Blum-Hanson property.

A Schensted Algorithm Which Models Tensor Representations of the Orthogonal Group

1990 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Representation Theory ◽  
Orthogonal Group ◽  
The Body ◽  
Orthogonal Groups ◽  
Tensor Representations ◽  
Combinatorial Construction ◽  
Theoretic Motivation

This paper is concerned with a combinatorial construction which mysteriously “mimics” or “models” the decomposition of certain reducible representations of orthogonal groups. Although no knowledge of representation theory is needed to understand the body of this paper, a little familiarity is necessary to understand the representation theoretic motivation given in the introduction. Details of the proofs will most easily be understood by people who have had some exposure to Schensted's algorithm or jeu de tacquin.

scholarly journals Uniform upper bounds on ideals of turing degrees

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold T. Hodes
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Hierarchy Theory ◽  
Countable Ordinal ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
Theoretic Motivation ◽  
Increasing Function

Given I, a reasonable countable set of Turing degrees, can we find some sort of canonical strict upper bound on I? If I = {a ∣ a ≤ b}, the upper bound on I which springs to mind is b′. But what if I is closed under jump? This question arises naturally out of the question which motivates a large part of hierarchy theory: Is there a canonical increasing function from a countable ordinal, preferably a large one, into D, the set of Turing degrees? If d is to be such a function, it is natural to require that d(α + 1) = d(α)′; but how should d(λ) depend on d ↾ λ, where λ is a limit ordinal?For any I ⊆ D, let MI, = ⋃I. Towards making the above questions precise, we introduce ideals of Turing degrees.Definition 1. I ⊆ D is an ideal iff I is closed under jump and join, and I is downward-closed, i.e., if a ≤ b & b ϵ I then a ϵ I.The following definition reflects the hierarchy-theoretic motivation for this paper.Definition 2. For I ⊆ D and A ⊆ ω, I is an A-hierarchy ideal iff for some countable ordinal α, MI = Lα[A]∩ ωω.All hierarchy ideals are ideals, but not conversely.Early in the game Spector knocked out the best sort of canonicity for upper bounds on ideals, proving that no set of degrees closed under jump has a least upper bound.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document