Prove a formula related to the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of operators
$begingroup$
Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.
Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
$$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
$$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
$$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$
Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.
It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.
According to this answer, we have
If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
$$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.
If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).
How we prove the formula $(1)$?
In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?
linear-algebra functional-analysis operator-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.
Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
$$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
$$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
$$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$
Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.
It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.
According to this answer, we have
If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
$$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.
If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).
How we prove the formula $(1)$?
In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?
linear-algebra functional-analysis operator-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.
Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
$$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
$$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
$$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$
Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.
It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.
According to this answer, we have
If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
$$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.
If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).
How we prove the formula $(1)$?
In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?
linear-algebra functional-analysis operator-theory
$endgroup$
Let $E$ be complex Hilbert space and $mathcal{L}(E)$ be the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $E$.
Definition: Let $T in mathcal{L}(E)$. The Moore-Penrose inverse of $T$, denoted by $T^{+}$, is defined as the unique linear extension of $(bar{T})^{-1}$ in
$$D(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)+mathcal{R}(T)^{perp},$$
with $mathcal{N}(T^{+}) = mathcal{R}(T)^{perp}$ and $bar{T}$ is the isomorphism
$$bar{T}:=T|_{{mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp}}: {mathcal{N}(T)}^{perp} longrightarrow mathcal{R}(T).$$
Moreover, $T^{+}$ is the unique solution of the four ''Moore-Penrose equations'':
$$TXT = T,quad XTX = X,quad XT = P_{N{(T)^{bot}}},,mbox{and},,quad TX = P_{overline{mathcal{R}(T)}}{{|}_{D(T^{+})}}.$$
Here $mathcal{R}(T)$ and $mathcal{N}(T)$ denote respectively the range and the nullspace of $T$. Also $P_{F}$ denote the orthogonal projection onto $F$.
It is well known that $T^{+}$ is bounded if and only if $T$ has a closed range.
According to this answer, we have
If $A$ is selfadjoint matrix, then
$$ A^{+}= lim_{t to 0}(A^2+tI)^{-1} A.;;(1).$$
Note that this limit is with respect to the strong topology.
If $A$ is not selfadjoint, then $A^+=A^*(AA^*)^+$ (which is equal to $(A^*A)^+A^*$).
How we prove the formula $(1)$?
In a general situation .i.e. when $T$ is an operator and not a matrix, it is possible to make sense of (1) as a strong limit on the domain of $T^+$?
linear-algebra functional-analysis operator-theory
linear-algebra functional-analysis operator-theory
edited Dec 22 '18 at 10:50
Student
asked Dec 20 '18 at 9:04
StudentStudent
2,4582524
2,4582524
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.
Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.
Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.
On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.
To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$
EDIT and CORRECTION.
i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.
Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.
Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.
Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.
ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.
In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.
That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.
iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047324%2fprove-a-formula-related-to-the-moore-penrose-pseudo-inverse-of-operators%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.
Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.
Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.
On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.
To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$
EDIT and CORRECTION.
i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.
Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.
Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.
Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.
ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.
In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.
That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.
iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.
Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.
Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.
On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.
To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$
EDIT and CORRECTION.
i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.
Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.
Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.
Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.
ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.
In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.
That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.
iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.
Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.
Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.
On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.
To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$
EDIT and CORRECTION.
i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.
Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.
Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.
Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.
ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.
In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.
That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.
iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.
$endgroup$
Yes, (1) is true for a hermitian matrix $A$ but not for any matrix.
Proof. Up to a change of orthonormal basis, we may assume that $A=diag(0_p,lambda_1,cdots,lambda_q)$ where $lambda_inot=0$ and $p+q=n$.
Then $A^+=diag(0_p,1/lambda_1,cdots,1/lambda_q)$.
On the other hand, if $tnot= 0$ and $tnot=-lambda_i^2$, then $(A^2+tI)^{-1}A=diag(0_p,lambda_1/(lambda_1^2+t),cdots,lambda_q/(lambda_q^2+t))$ and, since there is only a finite number of non-zero eigenvalues, the limit is clearly $A^+$.
To obtain a counter-example for any $A$, choose a random $A$ with rank $<n$. $square$
EDIT and CORRECTION.
i) Practically, we obtain an approximation $B$ of $A^+$, giving a small value $t_0$ to $t$.
Proposition. The error $||B-A^+||$ is $approx t_0/a^3$ where $a=min{|λ|;λin spectrum(A) setminus{{0}}}$.
Proof. Indeed $Delta=1/lambda-lambda/(lambda^2+t)=dfrac{t}{lambda_i(lambda_i^2+t)}sim t/lambda^3$ when $trightarrow 0^+$.
Note also (cf. below) that $(*)$ $Deltasim 1/lambda_i$ when $lambda_irightarrow 0$ and $t$ is fixed.
ii) Now, in a Hilbert, we can consider a bounded, compact, self-adjoint operator $H$ and use the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem in order to diagonalize it. Unfortunately, there is a sequence of non-zero real eigenvalues $lambda_i, i = 1, ..., N$, with $N=rank(A)$, such that $||lambda_i||$ is monotonically non-increasing and, when $N=infty$, $lambda_irightarrow 0$.
In this last case, according to $(*)$, the considered (strong) limit does not exist, even if $trightarrow 0^+$.
That works only if $H$ has a finite number of distinct eigenvalues.
iii) Clearly, when $H$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator, it works even worse.
edited Dec 24 '18 at 13:32
answered Dec 23 '18 at 19:36
loup blancloup blanc
23.4k21851
23.4k21851
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer, please is the formula $(1)$ is well known in the literature? If yes do you know a reference ? because I want to cite it.
$endgroup$
– Student
Dec 24 '18 at 8:32
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
$begingroup$
No, I did not know this formula. Practically, you obtain an approximation of $A^+$, giving a small value to $t$. The error is $approx t/a^3$ where $a=min{|lambda|; lambdain spectrum(A)setminus{0}}$
$endgroup$
– loup blanc
Dec 24 '18 at 10:37
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047324%2fprove-a-formula-related-to-the-moore-penrose-pseudo-inverse-of-operators%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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