Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °
| |
|
|
You are not logged in. #1 2011-05-05 18:01:38
Generating recurrences from generating functions.Hi Into a recurrence. One that would allow us to find the coefficients without expanding. The act of taking the log of g(x) and then differentiating it would result in linearizing the gf. I can no longer remember what my method was but I do still have the program that does it for me. The next best thing is a general formula for this type problem. Let us run a few test cases and in the best use of experimental math, see if we can spot a pattern. Proof comes later. yields the recurrence: yields the recurrence: yields the recurrence: yields the recurrence: Seems like a pattern has developed. yields the recurrence: So doing the simple: From the above formula: Filling in for the variables: In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. #2 2011-05-05 19:18:48
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #3 2011-05-05 19:23:45
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Hi gAr; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. #4 2011-05-05 19:42:30
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Okay, I'll remember. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #5 2011-05-06 04:26:10
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #6 2011-05-06 12:30:13
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Hi gAr; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. #7 2011-05-06 12:53:41
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #8 2011-05-06 13:01:42
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.The method is useful at times. Sometimes even a package has trouble getting them. For instance: If you needed something like the coefficient of x^224 519, a recursion is convenient. Using expand is package abuse. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. #9 2011-05-06 13:10:51
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Yes, that's true! "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #10 2011-05-06 13:19:47
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Even better at times is an asymptotic answer. These require a bit more math but save a ton of computation. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. #11 2011-05-06 13:33:57
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Okay, but I have never used an asymptotic approximations. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #12 2011-05-06 13:55:10
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.I will bet you have. Ever used Stirlings formula or the Hardy-Ramanujan formula? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. #13 2011-05-06 14:07:41
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.Yes, I have used. I actually wanted to say I never derived any. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #14 2011-05-06 15:03:58
Re: Generating recurrences from generating functions.They are pretty tough. It is a big field all by itself. I can do a little bit of it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. Probability is the most important concept in modern science, especially as nobody has the slightest notion what it means. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. |