## #math - Sun 1 Apr 2007 between 16:34 and 16:53

### NY Lost Funds

 tapas you men the corresponding curves {x| g1(x) = 0} etc.. eigenburak (i'm trying to add constraints to a linear combination of vectors, and defining my constraints too conservatively, i'm afraid, will leave me with no solution)yes, that is what i mean tapas i think it depensd on the dimensionality of your space. in 20 dimensions, having two constraints might leave a 18 dimensional solution space iirc eigenburak yeah, that's trueunfortunately my constraint is that i want the x for which i'm solving to have x1>x2>x3>...etc tapas hmm, this inequality stuff is interesting. *gets out pen and paper* eigenburak yeah, the way it's used is actually very cooli'm just annoyed because i can't take advantage with my constraints, arghor, rather, my constraints shouldn't be my constraints tapas :) eigenburak for the lagrangian L=f(x)+lambda*g(x), if you're solving for a minimum, you just say lambda has to be positive and make it so that g(x)<=0no waityes tapas hmm sexcopter i have an integral from notes that reads http://www.mathbin.net/9659 and am really not convinced how this result is got. is there a particular technique used? Any hints or pages i can read? daYZman i got a simple questino about SVMs. why is w in w.x + b = 0 is perpendicular to the separating hyperplanes. sexcopter hah, just having typed it, i think the penny dropped tapas daYZman: rephrase question eigenburak yeah, sexcopter try defining max() has a piecewise in terms of x and a and see that penny in the bankdaYZman: it's perpendicular because you define it to be perpendicular sexcopter eigenburak: i was trying to picture two distinct scenarios, one where a>x and other where a