Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #76 20121106 01:47:15
Re: Pascal's squareHi bobbym The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #77 20121106 01:50:24
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #78 20121106 02:10:45
Re: Pascal's squareWe can prove by induction that a(i,j)=2^(i+j2) for i,j>1. From there, it is easy proving the formula... The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #79 20121106 02:15:32
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #80 20121106 02:32:16
Re: Pascal's squareSorry, I got 0 starting arrays in my head. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #81 20121106 02:38:28
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #82 20121106 02:50:35
Re: Pascal's squareEither way, I think we can be certaing that is how the sequence can be generated... The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #83 20121106 02:59:30
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #84 20121110 20:05:55
Re: Pascal's squareHi everyone; Winter is coming. #85 20121110 20:21:26
Re: Pascal's squareHi;
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #87 20121110 22:37:09
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #88 20121110 23:00:11
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Last edited by Mpmath (20121110 23:11:42) Winter is coming. #89 20121110 23:17:01
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #91 20121111 09:38:24
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #92 20121111 10:10:57
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Last edited by Mpmath (20121111 10:11:39) Winter is coming. #93 20121111 12:17:22
Re: Pascal's squareI finally got an expression that will generate the table but it is too complicated for me to understand. At least we can see more of the table. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #94 20121111 21:20:35
Re: Pascal's squareHi bobbym; Winter is coming. #95 20121111 21:34:03
Re: Pascal's squareHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #96 20121111 21:48:12
Re: Pascal's squareThat is equal to 2^(i2)*2^(j2). The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #97 20121111 21:51:54
Re: Pascal's squareAha! You went for the trap. It is incorrect for It is also incorrect for the whole first column and first row. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #99 20121111 22:02:46
Re: Pascal's square
I still think we could use 2^(i1) and 2^(j1) for the first column and row respectively, and 2^(i1) for the rest. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #100 20121111 22:20:05
Re: Pascal's squareThe only problem is that Mathematica gagged on both those series. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 