You are not logged in.
Post a reply
Topic review (newest first)
- Agnishom
- Today 14:56:09
bobbym wrote:
Yes, I see that.
How about the recurrence:
with a(0)=1,a(1)=3
This is for what?
- anonimnystefy
- Today 14:36:25
That looks like something that would please the OP.
By the way, I just though of a twist to the puzzle to make it just a bit harder.
- bobbym
- Today 09:17:38
Hi;
Welcome to the forum, 308 is the correct answer.
- Batman
- Today 08:47:13
What you could do is say the kids got a, b, c, d, d (the twins each got the same) and then seek quadruples satisfiing a+b+c+2d=13 than try each value of d.
d=0: 13 candies 3 kids place dividers in ccccccccccccc (c for CANDY!) and see the number of ways we can put the 3 dividers (3 kids left) so 15 choose 2 = 105
d=1: same, 13 choose 2 = 78
d=2: same logic, 11 choose 2 = 55
d=3: ditto I stop saying same 
9 choose 2 = 36
d=4: 7 choose 2 = 21
d=5: 5 choose 2 = 10
d=6: 3 choose 2 = 3
105+78+55+36+21+10+3=308
I got 308
- bobbym
- 2013-01-09 06:00:14
That is not what I meant. GF's are rather obscure and not taught. He/she will probably expect a solution in terms of ncr's.
- anonimnystefy
- 2013-01-09 05:58:00
We could continue in your thread in Computer Math about diophantine equations.
- bobbym
- 2013-01-09 05:53:39
Hi;
Okay, somehow though I do not think these answers are what the OP will require.
- anonimnystefy
- 2013-01-09 05:42:42
Partial fractions in Maxima and expanding by hand.
- bobbym
- 2013-01-09 04:55:59
Hi;
Did them by maxima?
- anonimnystefy
- 2013-01-09 04:45:54
Partial fractions, then expanding.
- bobbym
- 2013-01-09 04:43:48
Hi;
I know how I got mine, may I ask how you got yours?
- anonimnystefy
- 2013-01-09 04:42:17
I think the two are same... I just put mine in the form above because of the common expression 1+(-1)^n. It is noce to know that that part is 0 when n is odd.
- bobbym
- 2013-01-09 04:21:51
Hi;
Yes, I believe it is. I got,
- anonimnystefy
- 2013-01-09 04:14:29
So my formula in post #9 is correct?
- bobbym
- 2013-01-09 04:11:56
Yes, that is correct.
I meant coming up with an analytical form for the coeffs of the expansion of the polynomial in post #3. But I guess that is not really that important.