Talk:Heavy traffic approximation

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heavy traffic approximation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 27 August 2012 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs).

math notation

I found two instances of

lim_{t\to \infty }\,

and changed them to:

\lim _{t\to \infty }\,

Just change the code from lim_{t\to\infty} to \lim_{t\to\infty}. Just one backslash.

I also did a bunch of other similar TeX corrections. See WP:MOS and standard LaTeX manuals. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an error here?

\beta =(1-\rho ){\sqrt {s}}

with ρ representing the traffic intensity and s the number of servers. Traffic intensity and the number of servers are increased to infinity and the limiting process is a hybrid of the above results.

Since utilization rate is supposed to be below 1, I don't see how this could be taken in the limit to infinity. Checking the relevant equation in 2.2 of the Halfin and Whitt paper, it looks like the limit is in `s' (there in `n') only, not `s' and rho. It could be the limit as rho goes to 1 and `s' goes to infinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.200.132.105 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]