Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

September 28, 2025, 07:26:28 am

Author Topic: TT's Maths Thread  (Read 146366 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #210 on: November 28, 2009, 02:28:32 am »
0
Just some beginner combinatorics questions:

1. Prove

2. Which are there more of among the natural numbers between and : Numbers that can be represented as a sum of a perfect square and a (positive) perfect cube or numbers that can not be?

3. Two of the squares of a checkerboard are painted yellow and the rest are painted green. Two color schemes are equivalent if one can be obtained from the other by applying a rotation in the plane of the board. How many inequivalent color schemes are possible?

Many thanks!
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 08:56:06 pm by TrueTears »
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

kamil9876

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Respect: +109
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #211 on: November 28, 2009, 03:02:11 am »
0
1 is a classic.

A purely combinatorial and natural way:

the LHS is calculates how many different combinations of any size you can choose from a set of n objects. To prove this is you do as follows:

let the elements be a1,a2,a3....a_n. We can choose a1, or not; choose a2 or not; choose a3 or not etc. Because we have n choices to make, and for each choice we can pick two options, there are different ways. (you can represent this on a tree diagram to see)

Another way:



now plug in x=1


I'll leave the next two more open ended:

2.) I'm leaning more towards not:

let

Try to look for the "leaps" in the range of f. ie: there may probably big gaps between two consecutive numbers in the range: just like for n^2 the sequence 1,4,9,16.... has leaps 3,5,7 etc. so there are less squares then non-squares. too late for me to think about details but I think this should be a good way :P


3.) Let the middle square have co-ordinates (0,0) and the one just to the right have co-ordinates (1,0) etc. (like a cartesian plane)

Every time you rotate by you generate a new scheme. So each set of equivalent schemes has up to 4 elements, no more. Some have up exactly 4, some less, it is your job to figure out how many etc. (e.g: if the two points are (x,y) and (-x,-y) then they by rotating once, you get a new equivalent scheme, but by rotating again you get the original scheme (since it has been rotated by 180 degrees in total)).
And yeah, similair story on this one cbf anymore.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 03:20:11 pm by kamil9876 »
Voltaire: "There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics ... We repeat, there is far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of Homer."

Ahmad

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
  • *dreamy sigh*
  • Respect: +15
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #212 on: November 28, 2009, 04:02:22 am »
0
The aim of this post isn't exactly for you to understand what I do, but more to get you excited about the idea of generating functions for counting problems, or just generating functions in general since they're one of my favourite objects.  :)

A bit of notation first. If p(x) is a polynomial/taylor series, then [x^k] p(x) means the coefficient of x^k in p(x).

RAMANUJAN, that has 3As, 2Ns, 4 other distinct letters. From which it immediately follows that the answer is

3. The index polynomial is from which it follows that the answer is:



Remark: The first problem is a simple application of this. The second is an application of Polya's Enumeration Theorem (Fundamental Theorem of Combinatorial Enumeration) which is extremely general, but can be solved even faster using a less general result of group theory called Burnside's lemma. Seems kind of abstract on those wiki pages but I assure you applying these results aren't.
Mandark: Please, oh please, set me up on a date with that golden-haired angel who graces our undeserving school with her infinite beauty!

The collage of ideas. The music of reason. The poetry of thought. The canvas of logic.


kamil9876

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Respect: +109
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #213 on: November 28, 2009, 03:23:50 pm »
0
for q2 i thought it said two squares and a cube :uglystupid2:. But the original problem is so much simpler
Voltaire: "There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics ... We repeat, there is far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of Homer."

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #214 on: November 28, 2009, 03:29:47 pm »
0
The aim of this post isn't exactly for you to understand what I do, but more to get you excited about the idea of generating functions for counting problems, or just generating functions in general since they're one of my favourite objects.  :)

A bit of notation first. If p(x) is a polynomial/taylor series, then [x^k] p(x) means the coefficient of x^k in p(x).

RAMANUJAN, that has 3As, 2Ns, 4 other distinct letters. From which it immediately follows that the answer is

3. The index polynomial is from which it follows that the answer is:



Remark: The first problem is a simple application of this. The second is an application of Polya's Enumeration Theorem (Fundamental Theorem of Combinatorial Enumeration) which is extremely general, but can be solved even faster using a less general result of group theory called Burnside's lemma. Seems kind of abstract on those wiki pages but I assure you applying these results aren't.
Looks really interesting, especially how powerful generating functions are heh

1 is a classic.

A purely combinatorial and natural way:

the LHS is calculates how many different combinations of any size you can choose from a set of n objects. To prove this is you do as follows:

let the elements be a1,a2,a3....a_n. We can choose a1, or not; choose a2 or not; choose a3 or not etc. Because we have n choices to make, and for each choice we can pick two options, there are different ways. (you can represent this on a tree diagram to see)

Another way:



now plug in x=1


I'll leave the next two more open ended:

2.) I'm leaning more towards not:

let

Try to look for the "leaps" in the range of f. ie: there may probably big gaps between two consecutive numbers in the range: just like for n^2 the sequence 1,4,9,16.... has leaps 3,5,7 etc. so there are less squares then non-squares. too late for me to think about details but I think this should be a good way :P


3.) Let the middle square have co-ordinates (0,0) and the one just to the right have co-ordinates (1,0) etc. (like a cartesian plane)

Every time you rotate by you generate a new scheme. So each set of equivalent schemes has up to 4 elements, no more. Some have up exactly 4, some less, it is your job to figure out how many etc. (e.g: if the two points are (x,y) and (-x,-y) then they by rotating once, you get a new equivalent scheme, but by rotating again you get the original scheme (since it has been rotated by 180 degrees in total)).
And yeah, similair story on this one cbf anymore.
Thanks kamil I understand 1. now.

So for 2. I'm thinking there are squares between 1 and inclusive and cubes between 1 and inclusive, so how do you find how many can be represented as a sum of a square and a cube?
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

kamil9876

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Respect: +109
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #215 on: November 28, 2009, 03:32:34 pm »
0
Remember, you don't need to know how many, just need to know whether there are less than or greater than . So try find some upper or lower bound ;)
Voltaire: "There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics ... We repeat, there is far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of Homer."

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #216 on: November 28, 2009, 04:40:23 pm »
0
Right thanks! I think I got it!
































PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #217 on: November 28, 2009, 08:26:03 pm »
0
So for a checkerboard there are ways of painting squares yellow. [In other words there are pairs of yellow squares]

Assume the squares which are painted are not symmetrical around the centre of the checkerboard then the starting position of the 'pair' of yellow squares can be rotated times degrees. Thus this one pair produces four equivalent color schemes.

Now what if the starting pair of yellow squares is symmetrical around the centre of the checkerboard? Then you can first rotate it degrees to produce a new pair but if you spin it degrees you get the same as the starting pair. Therefore if the starting pair of yellow squares is symmetrical around the centre then it produces only equivalent color schemes.

So how many pairs are symmetrical around the centre? Well any single square has a corresponding symmetrical square (excluding the centre square).

pairs of symmetrical yellow squares.

Thus there are pairs of unsymmetrical yellow squares.

Now I'm a bit stuck I don't quite know how to link what I've got with finding "how many inequivalent color schemes are possible?"

PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

Ahmad

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
  • *dreamy sigh*
  • Respect: +15
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #218 on: November 28, 2009, 08:36:58 pm »
0
You're really close. 24 symmetrical pairs -> what is the size of each equivalence class, and what does this tell you about the number of equivalence classes if you know there are 24 pairs. Same goes with the other scenario. Finally, what is the total number of equivalence classes? :)
Mandark: Please, oh please, set me up on a date with that golden-haired angel who graces our undeserving school with her infinite beauty!

The collage of ideas. The music of reason. The poetry of thought. The canvas of logic.


TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #219 on: November 28, 2009, 08:53:11 pm »
0
Oh finally I get it!

Since there are symmetrical pairs but every pairs are equivalent it means there are different starting positions for each pair. Thus there are 12 inequivalent symmetrical pairs.

For the pairs which are not symmetrical each pair has equivalent pairs thus there are different starting positions meaning there are inequivalent unsymmetrical pairs.

In total we have inequivalent pairs!
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

kenhung123

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3373
  • Respect: +7
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #220 on: November 28, 2009, 11:13:10 pm »
0
Whats the significance of the equation in your siggy?

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #221 on: November 28, 2009, 11:22:29 pm »
0
It is a minimal counter-example to Euler's conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_sum_of_powers_conjecture
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #222 on: November 29, 2009, 01:33:35 am »
0
As an exercise I've been trying to do a combinatorial proof of the multinomial theorem which is where the binomial theorem comes from. The 'proof' has some weird notation that I've 'made' up but hopefully someone can change it into something nice heh.

So we basically want to find a generalised 'formula' for (Where as the binomial theorem is just for , ie when )

So let's start off by doing some experimentation. Let's look at . How do we expand this? Let's consider the first 2 brackets, namely:



Now leaving them unsimplified we can see that the 2 brackets expanded into 9 'unsimplified' terms. Which is expected since we have 3 choices from the first bracket and another 3 choices from the 2nd bracket.

This means that if we expanded all 7 brackets we would get a total of unsimplified terms since there are 7 brackets and each bracket has 3 'choices'.

Now let's assume we have expanded all 7 brackets and we want to find the coefficient of the term.

We notice a few things: the powers all add up to 7 and we realise that this is just a direct application of the Mississippi 'formula'.

Just imagine we have a lot terms lying around to be collected as like terms after the expansion of the 7 brackets. However each would have a different permutation.

As we list some:

Thus the total 'amount' of terms lying around would be .

Let's try another experiment, let's say we want to find how many of terms are lying around uncollected after the expansion of the 7 brackets.

We realise after undergoing the same process as before we get terms are lying around.

A pattern can be seen: The numerator is always 7! (As we expect since there are always 7 terms to permute).

The denominator's factorials are correspondent to the power of each term.

Therefore we can generalise this a bit and say the coefficient of any term in the expansion of is where denotes the power of respectively of the term.

Now that we have generalised the result for working out the coefficients of any term we need to generalise what will be expanded into.

Let's try work out how many terms when all like terms are collected.

However seems too tedious to work with, so let's try an easier example

To work out how many different like-terms there are in total when is expanded let's consider what we discovered before with the exponents. We found that the exponent must add up to . So all exponents of the terms of when expanded must add up to 3.

How many different combinations can we get? Certainly there can be all the different permutations of , and .

Thus the total number of terms we should expect should be Which when we expand we certainly do get 10 terms!

Now we can try to find a more general formula for the expansion of



What exactly does this mean?

Basically it means that we take the summation of all permutations of non-negative integer indices through to such that









Now we are ready to play around with our general statement

Using the same format:

Which basically means that we take the summation of all permutations of positive integer indices through to such that



Not a very rigorous proof, purely based on combinatorics essentially. So is this actually the multinomial theorem? And is that the right way to expand it? TBH the multinomial theorem seems rather 'useless' for expanding things but the multinomial coefficient I can see is very handy...
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

Interested in asset pricing, econometrics, and social choice theory.

kamil9876

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
  • Respect: +109
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #223 on: November 29, 2009, 01:38:39 am »
0
yeah I wouldn't want to be calculating stuff with that anyway :P but still good, also good if you're interested in just a particular coefficient etc. plus good way to practice elementary combinatorics
Voltaire: "There is an astonishing imagination even in the science of mathematics ... We repeat, there is far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of Homer."

zzdfa

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Respect: +4
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #224 on: November 29, 2009, 09:38:17 am »
0
yep that's correct. you can use it to prove fermat's little theorem: for prime p and any integer a,
by considering the multinomial expansion of .