Talk:Arg max

message: The LaTeX in this article needs to be improved (as noted in the second section of the article itself). Currently it seems that the MediaWiki software doesn't support enough LaTeX or TeX to be able to improve it, though. The TeX way doesn't work:
:\mathop{\rm argmax}\limits_x f(x)
:\mathop{\rm argmax}\limits_x f(x)
The LaTeX solution given in the article doesn't work, either:
:\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_x f(x)
:\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_x f(x)
—Bkell (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LaTeX 

message: We need to remove the section on how to use argmax in LaTeX from the enrty. OliAtlason (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia not a guide to LaTeX 

message: There should be an "=" symbol not an \in one in equation one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.134.177 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  = not \in 

message: I think this article should be merged with Mathematical optimization#Notation. Any opposite views? Isheden (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, Arg max is too large to be merged. In Mathematical optimization#Notation there is a summary of Arg max, in a section which refers to Arg max as the main article. That's the best way to make sure that the readers who do not want details are given only the most interesting information, while those who want details can get it from the main article. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text: If you mean to remove this article, I disagree.   Arg max isn't just about optimization.   I have three coefficients, h_1, h_2, h_3 .  Which one has the greatest value?   Coefficient index \arg \max_i h_i does.   This isn't about optimization per se, just a little step inside a bigger algorithm that needs to know the largest coefficient. Arg max is convenient notation to do that.  Comfortably Paranoid (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[mathematical optimization]]

message: How about merging with argument of a function? Isheden (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[argument of a function]]

message: A discussion of the empty set (and conventions about positive or negative infinity for unattained values) is needed.
The article overloads arg max. An explicit type conversion from singletons to points is needed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Empty set and singletons

message: The two expressions:
\underset{x}{\operatorname{arg\,max}} f(x)
\underset{x\in \mathbb{R}}{\operatorname{arg\,max}} f(x)
cannot both work. In the first, the subexpression x ocurring as parameter to argmax is a variable. In the second, the parameter is the predicate x\in \mathbb{R}, something completely different. Moreover, the second expression is unclear as to what is to be optimised, it could as well be \mathbb{R} or the membership of x in \mathbb{R}.
I would suggest a clearer definition for instance:
\underset{x: x\in \mathbb{R}}{\operatorname{arg\,max}} f(x)
with the intended meaning that x is the parameter for optimisation, and x\in \mathbb{R} a predicate that must be satisfied for any considered value of x.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.64.31 (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the inconsistency. It is a standard convention that the domain x\in \mathbb{R} of the function max is written below, not just the argument x. This means that the function is maximized over the argument x which can be any real number. In the first example however, it is actually not needed to specify x since f(x) has only one argument. Isheden (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Definition