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

You are not logged in. #51 20121104 08:26:14
Re: Pascal's squareHi everyone; Winter is coming. #52 20121104 08:42:08
Re: Pascal's squareHi Mpmath; 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. #53 20121104 08:50:57
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Winter is coming. #54 20121104 08:57:54
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. #56 20121104 09:10:07
Re: Pascal's squareAt least we find an alternative system to obtain square array of Delannoy numbers! Winter is coming. #57 20121104 09:21:47
Re: Pascal's squareYes, I am looking at that right now. It could be of some importance. 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. #58 20121104 09:58:45
Re: Pascal's squareOk. Let me know if you find something interesting. Winter is coming. #59 20121104 10:33:37
Re: Pascal's squareWell, isn't it the same way Delannoy numbers are made, only with graphical representation? 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 #60 20121104 10:35:52
Re: Pascal's squareThere are formulas of course but he is correct. 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. #61 20121104 10:54:15
Re: Pascal's squareWho is correct about what? 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 #62 20121104 10:56:02
Re: Pascal's squareYou are correct in that is how they are generated in a lattice. So therefore of course that works by definition. 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. #63 20121105 08:52:01
Re: Pascal's squareHi bobbym; Winter is coming. #64 20121105 09:33:25
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. #66 20121106 00:31:56
Re: Pascal's squareHi;
I see A152195 and A177992 but they are not the same as your square. 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. #67 20121106 01:16:28
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Winter is coming. #68 20121106 01:19:30
Re: Pascal's squareHe think it does generate the compositions you mentioned. 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 #69 20121106 01:22:11
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. #71 20121106 01:30:50
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. #72 20121106 01:35:07
Re: Pascal's square
In oeis, there is a formula with tthat sequence that matches with a formula for the diagonal sum of the square, so I would say that that is proof enough... 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 #74 20121106 01:39:24
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. 