Results 1  10
of
9,135
A Simple Proof of the Restricted Isometry Property for Random Matrices
 CONSTR APPROX
, 2008
"... We give a simple technique for verifying the Restricted Isometry Property (as introduced by Candès and Tao) for random matrices that underlies Compressed Sensing. Our approach has two main ingredients: (i) concentration inequalities for random inner products that have recently provided algorithmical ..."
Abstract

Cited by 631 (64 self)
 Add to MetaCart
algorithmically simple proofs of the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma; and (ii) covering numbers for finitedimensional balls in Euclidean space. This leads to an elementary proof of the Restricted Isometry Property and brings out connections between Compressed Sensing and the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma. As a result
simple proof
, 2013
"... 1error estimates on the immersed interface upwind scheme for linear convection equations with piecewise constant coefficients: a ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
1error estimates on the immersed interface upwind scheme for linear convection equations with piecewise constant coefficients: a
. . . : A Simple Proof
"... It is known that if C p (X) is a G subset of R X then X is discrete. We present a simple proof of this. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
It is known that if C p (X) is a G subset of R X then X is discrete. We present a simple proof of this.
Remarks on simple proofs
"... Abstract This note consists of a collection of observations on the notion of simplicity in the setting of proofs. It discusses its properties under formalization and its relation to the length of proofs, showing that in certain settings simplicity and brevity exclude each other. It is argued that w ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
that when simplicity is interpreted as purity of method, different foundational standpoints may affect which proofs are considered to be simple and which are not.
EQUIVALENCEA SIMPLE PROOF
"... The following theorem is due to Edwards and Hastings [1; 3.4.1], but their proof is buried in a considerable amount of machinery, both their own and that of Quillen [3]. For some time I have wanted to see an elementary proof in the literature, both because the theorem is obviously relevant to shape ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
The following theorem is due to Edwards and Hastings [1; 3.4.1], but their proof is buried in a considerable amount of machinery, both their own and that of Quillen [3]. For some time I have wanted to see an elementary proof in the literature, both because the theorem is obviously relevant to shape
Results 1  10
of
9,135