Real integral using residue theorem - why doesn't this work? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMistake with using residue theory for calculating $int_-infty^inftyfracsin(x)xdx$Evaluating Integral with Residue TheoremReal Pole Residue theoremSolving this complicated integral using the Residue TheoremIntegrating secans over the imaginary axis using the residue theoremWhy doesn't this residue method work for calculating $sum_k=1^k=infty fraccos(k x)k^2$Compute integral using residue theoremEvaluating a real definite integral using residue theoremCalculating this integral using Residue TheoremCalculating integrals using the residue theoremsolving integral with real exponent and real pole with residue theorem

If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?

Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?

What benefits would be gained by using human laborers instead of drones in deep sea mining?

Written every which way

WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?

Which tube will fit a -(700 x 25c) wheel?

Is "for causing autism in X" grammatical?

Why do airplanes bank sharply to the right after air-to-air refueling?

What is "(CFMCC)" on an ILS approach chart?

How do scammers retract money, while you can’t?

How does the mv command work with external drives?

I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin

Which kind of appliances can one connect to electric sockets located in an airplane's toilet?

What exact does MIB represent in SNMP? How is it different from OID?

Received an invoice from my ex-employer billing me for training; how to handle?

How do I go from 300 unfinished/half written blog posts, to published posts?

How do I reset passwords on multiple websites easily?

What is the purpose of the Evocation wizard's Potent Cantrip feature?

To not tell, not take, and not want

How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?

If/When UK leaves the EU, can a future goverment conduct a referendum to join the EU?

Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?

What is the result of assigning to std::vector<T>::begin()?

How to safely derail a train during transit?



Real integral using residue theorem - why doesn't this work?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMistake with using residue theory for calculating $int_-infty^inftyfracsin(x)xdx$Evaluating Integral with Residue TheoremReal Pole Residue theoremSolving this complicated integral using the Residue TheoremIntegrating secans over the imaginary axis using the residue theoremWhy doesn't this residue method work for calculating $sum_k=1^k=infty fraccos(k x)k^2$Compute integral using residue theoremEvaluating a real definite integral using residue theoremCalculating this integral using Residue TheoremCalculating integrals using the residue theoremsolving integral with real exponent and real pole with residue theorem










2












$begingroup$


Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ixx$$



Using the $textSi(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ix-2ix = -2i int_0^infty dx fracsinxx = -2i lim_x to infty textSi(x) = -2i left(fracpi2right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrmSi(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.



However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_0^infty dx frace^-ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx = colorred-int_-infty^0 dx frace^ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx
= -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx $$

Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx-ivarepsilon$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_x to +iinfty frace^ixx-ivarepsilon = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , textRes_x_0 left( frace^ixx-ivarepsilonright) = -2 pi i left( frace^ix1 right)Biggrvert_x=x_0=ivarepsilon=-2 pi i , e^-varepsilon.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ left( -2 pi i , e^-varepsilon right) = -2pi i.$$



However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
    $endgroup$
    – Count Iblis
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan V.
    5 hours ago















2












$begingroup$


Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ixx$$



Using the $textSi(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ix-2ix = -2i int_0^infty dx fracsinxx = -2i lim_x to infty textSi(x) = -2i left(fracpi2right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrmSi(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.



However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_0^infty dx frace^-ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx = colorred-int_-infty^0 dx frace^ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx
= -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx $$

Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx-ivarepsilon$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_x to +iinfty frace^ixx-ivarepsilon = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , textRes_x_0 left( frace^ixx-ivarepsilonright) = -2 pi i left( frace^ix1 right)Biggrvert_x=x_0=ivarepsilon=-2 pi i , e^-varepsilon.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ left( -2 pi i , e^-varepsilon right) = -2pi i.$$



However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
    $endgroup$
    – Count Iblis
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan V.
    5 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ixx$$



Using the $textSi(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ix-2ix = -2i int_0^infty dx fracsinxx = -2i lim_x to infty textSi(x) = -2i left(fracpi2right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrmSi(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.



However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_0^infty dx frace^-ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx = colorred-int_-infty^0 dx frace^ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx
= -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx $$

Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx-ivarepsilon$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_x to +iinfty frace^ixx-ivarepsilon = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , textRes_x_0 left( frace^ixx-ivarepsilonright) = -2 pi i left( frace^ix1 right)Biggrvert_x=x_0=ivarepsilon=-2 pi i , e^-varepsilon.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ left( -2 pi i , e^-varepsilon right) = -2pi i.$$



However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ixx$$



Using the $textSi(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_0^infty dx frace^-ix - e^ix-2ix = -2i int_0^infty dx fracsinxx = -2i lim_x to infty textSi(x) = -2i left(fracpi2right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrmSi(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.



However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_0^infty dx frace^-ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx = colorred-int_-infty^0 dx frace^ixx - int_0^infty dx frac e^ixx
= -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx $$

Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_-infty^infty dx frace^ixx-ivarepsilon$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_x to +iinfty frace^ixx-ivarepsilon = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , textRes_x_0 left( frace^ixx-ivarepsilonright) = -2 pi i left( frace^ix1 right)Biggrvert_x=x_0=ivarepsilon=-2 pi i , e^-varepsilon.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_varepsilon to 0^+ left( -2 pi i , e^-varepsilon right) = -2pi i.$$



However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?







integration residue-calculus






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 6 hours ago









Ivan V.Ivan V.

811216




811216







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
    $endgroup$
    – Count Iblis
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan V.
    5 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
    $endgroup$
    – Count Iblis
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan V.
    5 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi x - mathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ and $int_0^infty fracmathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)



Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrmi$, not $pm 2 pi mathrmi$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan V.
    5 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$

You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!



The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3167734%2freal-integral-using-residue-theorem-why-doesnt-this-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi x - mathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ and $int_0^infty fracmathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)



      Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrmi$, not $pm 2 pi mathrmi$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
        $endgroup$
        – Ivan V.
        5 hours ago















      3












      $begingroup$

      You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi x - mathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ and $int_0^infty fracmathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)



      Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrmi$, not $pm 2 pi mathrmi$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
        $endgroup$
        – Ivan V.
        5 hours ago













      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$

      You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi x - mathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ and $int_0^infty fracmathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)



      Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrmi$, not $pm 2 pi mathrmi$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi x - mathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty fracmathrme^-mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$ and $int_0^infty fracmathrme^mathrmi xx ,mathrmdx$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)



      Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrmi$, not $pm 2 pi mathrmi$.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered 5 hours ago









      Eric TowersEric Towers

      33.3k22370




      33.3k22370











      • $begingroup$
        Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
        $endgroup$
        – Ivan V.
        5 hours ago
















      • $begingroup$
        Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
        $endgroup$
        – Ivan V.
        5 hours ago















      $begingroup$
      Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
      $endgroup$
      – Ivan V.
      5 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
      $endgroup$
      – Ivan V.
      5 hours ago











      2












      $begingroup$

      You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!



      The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        2












        $begingroup$

        You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!



        The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!



          The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!



          The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 5 hours ago

























          answered 5 hours ago









          useruser

          6,09811031




          6,09811031





















              0












              $begingroup$

              There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 5 hours ago









                  Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

                  71.1k53170




                  71.1k53170



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3167734%2freal-integral-using-residue-theorem-why-doesnt-this-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

                      Partai Komunis Tiongkok Daftar isi Kepemimpinan | Pranala luar | Referensi | Menu navigasidiperiksa1 perubahan tertundacpc.people.com.cnSitus resmiSurat kabar resmi"Why the Communist Party is alive, well and flourishing in China"0307-1235"Full text of Constitution of Communist Party of China"smengembangkannyas

                      ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result