You are not logged in.
Pages: 1 2
#26 2013-02-21 07:03:25
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
Where does what come from?
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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#27 2013-02-21 07:03:53
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
Hmmmm, the recurrence of course.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#28 2013-02-21 07:04:59
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
I found it using some simple casework.
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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#29 2013-02-21 07:12:55
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
Casework is never simple and you must always be thinking of the form of your solution. Most math types are notorioulsy bad problem solvers. Just take a look at all those equations that they think are beautiful and are not worth a dime computationally.
What if this solution takes 1.2 million years to run?
Last edited by bobbym (2013-02-21 07:15:40)
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#30 2013-02-21 07:18:43
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
I hope it doesn't. I don't have much time. We have some tests next week.
I proposed that recurrence as a pathway to an analytic solution, not for computation.
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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#31 2013-02-21 07:24:34
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
I proposed that recurrence as a pathway to an analytic solution, not for computation
It is not going to be easy to solve that recurrence.
Last edited by bobbym (2013-02-21 09:21:28)
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
#32 2013-02-21 10:11:47
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
I think a multivariate GF can be found for A(n,k) from the recurrence.
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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#33 2013-02-21 11:39:37
- bobbym
- Administrator
Offline
Re: Combinations 6 of 49 without the results with numbers in sequence
You will have to do it by hand but why would you? Why do all that work when you do not even know whether it works or not.
I stress my approach of first having the answer. The experimental way. I have not convinced you of this yet and the remnants of your math education you are tenaciously holding on to.
Last edited by bobbym (2013-02-22 02:48:55)
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics.
I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.
Pages: 1 2