I agree with you. I think it should be s to 0.
Hi all, reading a paper i struggled over the following formula:
then they claim changing the order or integration should result in
What I dont get is why the first inner integral marked by * goes from s to and not from s to 0. Can someone explain this to me? thx in advance.
thanks a lot. ... so there seems to some hope ;-)
so in the follow up they go on that
,
i.e. the correct formula (i assume it was a typo) can be rewritten as
where
I struggle with deriving this formula too. Doing the inner integrations, both read
so the entire integral then is
from there i can't see how the solution is derived. There are some things which just seem strange, e.g. in the solution,
the second term in the braces is not multiplied by . How is this possible if the entire integral is basically multiplied by ? any help or hints are greatly appreciated ;-) thx in advance
btw. the paper is can be downloaded here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf, relevant equations: 13,14 and 15