Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

## #1 2012-05-01 17:35:06

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Normal Probability Integration

Last edited by George,Y (2012-05-01 17:36:56)

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #2 2013-11-29 03:35:06

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Hi;

I do not think there are closed forms for either of those. But if you could put some bounds on some of the constants an asymptotic form might be possible.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #3 2013-12-15 14:59:14

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

There actually is closed form, but through a different integration.

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #4 2013-12-15 18:14:54

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

A different integration?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #5 2013-12-16 14:25:05

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

#### bobbym wrote:

A different integration?

I have found a way to integrate this directly, but it is very tricky.

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #6 2013-12-16 17:24:47

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

I doubt that.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #7 2013-12-16 21:41:00

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

I would say it is unlikely to but the whole question could be answered by posting the solution. Then it can be checked.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #8 2013-12-17 07:43:56

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=inte … =0&y=0

Last edited by anonimnystefy (2013-12-18 00:29:39)

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #9 2013-12-17 11:39:34

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Hi;

That is not his integral.

But even if it were, that is not in closed form.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #10 2013-12-17 16:46:47

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

It is not his integral, but his can be manipulated into that one with substitutions and manipulations. The point is that Alpha says there's no closed form...

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #11 2013-12-17 23:45:51

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Hi;

Have you looked at the integral you sent to Alpha in post #8?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #12 2013-12-18 00:20:11

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Yes, I have.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #13 2013-12-18 00:20:39

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Then you know it is not and can never be his integral.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #14 2013-12-18 00:29:50

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Fixed.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #15 2013-12-18 00:40:56

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Brings us back to post #7. The fact that both M's can not do the integral does mean there is a high probability that it is intractable. But they are not infallible, so I think if George would post his answer the whole thing can resolved quickly.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #16 2013-12-18 00:59:33

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Do you think some progress can be made using DUIT?

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #17 2013-12-18 01:11:30

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

I have not tried but it sure does respond well to numerical integration for any T.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #18 2013-12-30 00:11:53

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Sorry guys, I made a mistake, the question should be:

Last edited by George,Y (2013-12-30 00:12:55)

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #19 2013-12-30 01:22:56

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

That does not change much.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #20 2013-12-30 02:29:00

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Hi George,Y;

That does not change much.

Yes, I think it is time to show your solution. I am willing to bet 21% of my bankroll, a whopping \$1.16 that the solution is wrong.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #21 2013-12-31 21:09:00

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Last edited by George,Y (2013-12-31 21:11:21)

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #22 2013-12-31 21:16:50

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

Hi;

What is d?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #23 2013-12-31 21:16:59

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

After this change of variable, I think now the question is easier.

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #24 2013-12-31 21:21:05

George,Y
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

#### bobbym wrote:

Hi;

What is d?

d is the differential operator

X'(y-Xβ)=0

## #25 2013-12-31 21:22:51

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Normal Probability Integration

What is the new integral?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.