Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

May 25, 2025, 04:52:40 pm

Author Topic: TT's Maths Thread  (Read 135607 times)  Share 

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #435 on: December 16, 2009, 11:31:38 pm »
0
Haha that is awesome kamil, I hardly think of tree diagrams damn.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 12:19:47 am by TrueTears »
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 #436 on: December 17, 2009, 03:38:27 am »
0
Quote
4. For each , we call a sequence of (s and n)s 'legal' if the parentheses match up. For example, if , the sequence (()()()) is legal, but ()())(() is not. Let denote the number of legal arrangements for the parentheses. Find a recurrence formula for .

Consider the specific case when .

Now imagine we have slots _ _ _ _ _ _

Each slot is distinct and lets name them .

A partition can be done like this: Let be the set containing all possible ways of having a left bracket '' with a correspondent right bracket '' on the slot .

For example, _ _ _ _ _ would be

However _ _ _ _ _ _ would be .

Noticing that

Thus

Now let's take a look at say

_ _ _ _   _ _ _ _
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     20

Now clearly since the slots in between must also contain legal brackets.

Now what about ?

Using the same principle we should get

So clearly

This looks very similar to the Catalan Recurrence.

Now we can generalise.

Imagine now there are pairs which means now there are slots.









Now we have the recurrence formula for the question.

What happens if we evaluate etc?

Let us define









If we continue the sequence we get which is the Catalan sequence!

for
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

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

/0

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4124
  • Respect: +45
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #437 on: December 17, 2009, 04:54:36 am »
0
Very nice TT!

3. Fix positive . Define a sequence of real numbers by . Find a formula for .

I've thought about a really messy possibility



If the closed form is like , we have





So and can be found with binet's formula

For we have



If we write the following equations:



Where is the (i)th Fibonacci number, and we add all the equations up, then we should get

                ()

Now all there is to do is find the closed form for the fibonacci sum....
Not very elegant rofl
« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 10:52:34 am by /0 »

humph

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Respect: +16
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #438 on: December 17, 2009, 05:22:59 am »
0
Where is the (i)th Fibonacci number, and we add all the equations up, then we should get



Now all there is to do is find the closed form for the fibonacci sum....
Not very elegant rofl
By this, the answer comes out quite nicely, and you can write it in a closed form.
VCE 2006
PhB (Hons) (Sc), ANU, 2007-2010
MPhil, ANU, 2011-2012
PhD, Princeton, 2012-2017
Research Associate, University College London, 2017-2020
Assistant Professor, University of Virginia, 2020-

Feel free to ask me about (advanced) mathematics.

Ahmad

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
  • *dreamy sigh*
  • Respect: +15
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #439 on: December 17, 2009, 12:42:42 pm »
0

Once you get to here a simplifying trick is to set , then the recursion becomes with , which means is a shifted Fibonacci sequence, so that .

Well done though :)
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.


/0

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4124
  • Respect: +45
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #440 on: December 17, 2009, 01:03:45 pm »
0

Once you get to here a simplifying trick is to set , then the recursion becomes with , which means is a shifted Fibonacci sequence, so that .

Well done though :)

Ah, that's clever ;p

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #441 on: December 17, 2009, 02:35:37 pm »
0
haha awesome solution /0 ;)

So basically:

and define



« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 06:37:08 pm by TrueTears »
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 #442 on: December 17, 2009, 05:35:01 pm »
0
Challenge question: (Putnam)

Define a selfish set to be a set that has its own cardinality as an element. Find, with proof, the number of subsets of that are minimal selfish sets, that is, selfish sets none of whose proper subsets is selfish.
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 #443 on: December 17, 2009, 06:42:16 pm »
0
i remember doing that one :P it's easier than the previous q's u've been doing IMO
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 #444 on: December 17, 2009, 06:43:47 pm »
0
i remember doing that one :P it's easier than the previous q's u've been doing IMO
lolz yeah I'm having a go now, don't post solution yet :P or put it in white if you are going to post solution, I wanna have some fun too :P
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

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

dcc

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Respect: +55
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #445 on: December 18, 2009, 12:14:11 am »
0
I completely screwed up my first attempt at this, but I realised the trick as I was driving home from a jam :P

Let   be the number of minimal selfish subsets of .  Consider some .  We wish to find all the minimal selfish subsets of of cardinality .

We first note that our minimal selfish subsets cannot contain any element less then , as the existence of such an element allows us to easily construct a selfish subset, which shows that our original subset is not minimal.

Membership in our set is restricted to and elements between and up to (and including) .  Therefore we have elements to choose from to make our minimal selfish subsets from.  In addition, since our set has cardinality , then for each potential subset we must choose numbers to create a full set.

Therefore the number of ways of creating a minimal subset of of cardinality is .  Summing this over all valid lengths, we find that , which is of course a generator of the general Fibonacci sequence.

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #446 on: December 18, 2009, 03:54:02 am »
0
lol I've been at this question for ages, I'm so tempted to look at your solution dcc but I feel that I have almost got it hahaa
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 #447 on: December 18, 2009, 10:44:59 pm »
0
Ok here is what I have come up with after last night's thought.

Consider listing out the minimal selfish subsets of

Let represent a minimal selfish subset.











A few things can be noticed.

is a minimal selfish set if and only if is the smallest element of the set.

Why is this? Consider if there was an element smaller than in the set . Call this element .

Thus there exists subsets of which contains the element which could also be a selfish set.

Therefore, if is the smallest element of the set then is a minimal selfish set.

Consider the specific case when , there are exactly minimal selfish sets.

Partition the minimal selfish subsets of when of the set to those that have and those that don't.

Those that do not have are simply the case which are

Those that do are . Now note that if we have for the case then we have . However these are now no longer minimal selfish conditions as is not the smallest element in the set. So if we add into the subsets we will change them into minimal selfish subsets that contains .

Summing together the partitions we get

Now let's try generalise this.

Looking at the sequence of 's we have we see it resembles the Fibonacci sequence, so I am going to conjecture that it does follow the Fibonacci sequence and try to prove it.

Consider for all , let there be minimal selfish subsets for the set . Let there be minimal selfish subsets for the set

I conjecture that there will be exactly minimal selfish subsets for the set .

Let's split our approach in two ways, those subsets of that contain and those that do not.

Consider the cases where the subsets does not contain .

Let be a minimal selfish subset of . Then must also be a minimal selfish subset of since

There are minimal selfish subsets of without the element

Now let us consider the case where the subsets of that contain .

Let be a minimal selfish subset of .

Let us define

Now notice # # (Although we changed the number of elements in each set, the total number of sets do not change)

is a minimal selfish subset since is the smallest element in .

This produces exactly minimal subsets of which contain the element .

But why does this work? The proof is as follows:

Consider the minimal selfish set P of the set that contains the element .

Now since



is a minimal selfish subsets since ##.





If we define to be the number of the minimal selfish subsets of and respectively.

Then we have

« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 11:45:24 pm by TrueTears »
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

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

zzdfa

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Respect: +4
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #448 on: December 18, 2009, 11:13:21 pm »
0
hey , about 12 lines from the bottom up, let us define p={n+1} U {A+1} 

whats A+1?

TrueTears

  • TT
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 16363
  • Respect: +667
Re: TT's Maths Thread
« Reply #449 on: December 18, 2009, 11:16:39 pm »
0
Sorry I knew that notation was shit, what I mean is: add 1 to every element in A



Also #A means the number of sets that satisfies A.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 11:20:47 pm by TrueTears »
PhD @ MIT (Economics).

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