35
$\begingroup$

Work in progress. To be updated whenever the opportunity arises.


I take the liberty of compiling a list of questions on Math SE pertaining to theorems, lemmas, examples and exercises from Boyd & Vandenberghe's Convex Optimization. Please consider linking to this list whenever someone posts a new question related to Boyd & Vandenberghe, for it may be a duplicate.


Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Appendices


To be determined

Some questions do not mention chapter, only page number. In these cases, assigning chapter to each question is more time-consuming.


Related


There should plenty more questions. If you find some, please feel free to add them to this list.

$\endgroup$
35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What question did you want to discuss? The discussion tag is used when you propose a particular question or solution, and ask others if they think such a list or suggestion, or question, makes sense. I see no such question in your post. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Apr 6 at 17:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy Where's the question here? I do not object to migrating it to Math SE proper. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 17:28
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy I never posted a question of the form "collection of questions". I figured posting it here would do the least harm. I do not particularly care about other books, especially Baby Rudin (which I dislike). If someone compiles a list of questions on Baby Rudin, I do not object to it. I do not know whether Math Meta SE can be indexed by search engines. This list could be used for internal consumption only — say, to find duplicates. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 17:43
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy I am not dismissing your concerns. It's just that I never asked such a question, and am unaware of what the protocol is. I would not object to the creation of a question on Meta for which all answers would be collections of questions on a certain book. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 17:56
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "This tag [discussion] is used for questions that ask users to discuss an idea, concept, or problem in an abstract way." So, Rodrigo, are you asking users to discuss an idea, concept, or problem in an abstract way? If not, perhaps you could find a better tag for your question than the "discussion" tag. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 22:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson I am open to suggestions. And there's discussion involved. Just take a look at the previous comments. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 22:25
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ So far as I can tell, Rodrigo, the previous comments are almost entirely about your use of the "discussion" tag. I doubt you were asking users to discuss your use of the discussion tag when you posted your question, and I don't think the intention of the discussion tag was to indicate questions where users would discuss the appropriateness of the discussion tag. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 22:29
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Should I post another question on Meta asking how these lists of questions should be handled? At least one of these tags is required - 'bug feature-request discussion support' — which one applies? $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 22:32
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Regarding the tagging, it seems that the purpose is in the same neighbourhood as List of Generalisations of Common Questions which is tagged discussion and faq-proposal $\endgroup$ Apr 7 at 3:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It seems that this question could also be an answer to the question mentioned in Calvin Khor's comment (above this one). With respect to the possibility of making it a Q/A on the Main site, this question seems relevant, but not very recent. $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Apr 7 at 8:35
  • 5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'll mention explicitly that the current question includes more than just solutions to problems; there are also questions about examples and other material $\endgroup$ Apr 8 at 10:49
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I'm beginning to think that it might be easier to list all the questions that aren't from Boyd and Vandenberghe. $\endgroup$ Apr 9 at 21:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I want this idea discussed more widely before see the meta filled with similar threads. The past discussions left me with the impression that calling extra attention to a single book is not welcomed. I cannot quite put my finger on it. None of the threads I found are exact matches (see my next comment), but I cannot shake the feeling that this would lead to skirting on certain suggestions that were judged to not be good ideas. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 at 18:59
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Excellent resource, @RodrigodeAzevedo, thank you for your time spent on this! $\endgroup$
    – Sam OT
    Apr 19 at 13:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .