You are not logged in.
#51 2012-11-04 08:26:14
- Mpmath
- Full Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Hi everyone;
I have carefully studied all Pascal's squares and in some of them I found some interesting successions. In this square, that MathIsFun proposed:
1 1 1 1
1 3 5 7
1 5 13 25
1 7 25 63
The sum of the numbers of every diagonal give Pell numbers (A000129 of OEIS).
1=1
1+1=2
1+3+1=5
1+5+5+1=12
1+7+13+7+1=29
Regarding my Pascal's square:
1 1 2 4 8
1 1 2 4 8
2 2 4 8 16
4 4 8 16 32
8 8 16 32 64
16 16 32 64 128
The sum of the numbers of every diagonal give numbers of 1's in all compositons of n+1 (A045623 of OEIS).
Winter is coming.
#52 2012-11-04 08:42:08
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi Mpmath;
For the Pell number square did you try generating a bigger square and checking that?
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.
#53 2012-11-04 08:50:57
- Mpmath
- Full Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
Yes, I try. Numbers coincide. I notice right now that MathIsFun square is square array of Delannoy numbers (A008288 of OEIS).
Winter is coming.
#54 2012-11-04 08:57:54
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
Okay, I know the Delannoy numbers. Thanks for spotting that.
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.
#56 2012-11-04 09:10:07
- Mpmath
- Full Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
At least we find an alternative system to obtain square array of Delannoy numbers!
Winter is coming.
#57 2012-11-04 09:21:47
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Yes, 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.
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.
#58 2012-11-04 09:58:45
- Mpmath
- Full Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Ok. Let me know if you find something interesting.
Winter is coming.
#59 2012-11-04 10:33:37
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Well, 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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#60 2012-11-04 10:35:52
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
There are formulas of course but he is correct.
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.
#61 2012-11-04 10:54:15
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Who 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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#62 2012-11-04 10:56:02
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
You 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.
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.
#63 2012-11-05 08:52:01
- Mpmath
- Full Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Hi bobbym;
So what are your conclusions?
Winter is coming.
#64 2012-11-05 09:33:25
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
Not a whole lot, but that MIF square does generate Delannoy numbers.
Now on to the next square...
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.
#66 2012-11-06 00:31:56
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
1 1 2 4 8
1 1 2 4 8
2 2 4 8 16
4 4 8 16 32
8 8 16 32 64
16 16 32 64 128
The sum of the numbers of every diagonal give numbers of 1's in all compositons of n+1.
I see A152195 and A177992 but they are not the same as your square.
Does seem to be generating the compositions. That is interesting...
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.
#67 2012-11-06 01:16:28
- Mpmath
- Full Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you say "Does seem to be generating the compositions.
Winter is coming.
#68 2012-11-06 01:19:30
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
He 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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#69 2012-11-06 01:22:11
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
As far as I have gone it does. That does not mean the pattern will continue. To show that it does I need a mathematical proof. So, all I can say right now is that it seems to. I can not be more definite than that.
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.
#71 2012-11-06 01:30:50
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
Still, I like the way you look for patterns in numbers. This type of empirical research although not rigorous enough for mathematical proof is the way discoveries are often made.
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.
#72 2012-11-06 01:35:07
- anonimnystefy
- Real Member
Offline
Re: Pascal's square
bobbym wrote:
Hi;
As far as I have gone it does. That does not mean the pattern will continue. To show that it does I need a mathematical proof. So, all I can say right now is that it seems to. I can not be more definite than that.
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
“A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón
#74 2012-11-06 01:39:24
- bobbym
- Administrator
Online
Re: Pascal's square
Hi;
Matches? In what way? You have a formula for the diagonal sum of that square?
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.