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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,812

Hi bobbym

The formula I got is (n+2)*2^(n-3) for n>=3. The formula there is (n+3)*2^(n-2). We can see that the difference is only in indexing.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

You got that formula how, by curve fitting? That only proves for the values you fit for. It does not mean that formula continues for the next diagonal and the one after that.

**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.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,812

We can prove by induction that a(i,j)=2^(i+j-2) for i,j>1. From there, it is easy proving the formula...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

What does a(i,j)=2^(i+j-2) for i,j>1 generate?

I would have set it up as

**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.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,812

Sorry, I got 0 starting arrays in my head.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

I will leave the inductive proof to you.

**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.**

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,812

Either way, I think we can be certaing that is how the sequence can be generated...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

We can think it all we want. Until we have some proof we ain't gonna convince anybody else of it.

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Hi everyone;

I tried to find a formula to obtain the sum of the numbers of each diagonal and this is the result:

(2^n)*2+(2^n)2*n, then I simplified it and I obtained 2^(n-1)*n + 2^(n+1). The result is Number of 1's in all compositions of n+1 (A045623 of OEIS), because 2^(n-1)*n + 2^(n+1. Generate the same terms of (n+3)*2^(n-2), the formula of A045623, proposed by anonimnystefy.

Winter is coming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

To refresh my memory, this 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

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Yes, this one.

Winter is coming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

What is holding up some sort of proof for the problem is that my expression given in post #79 does not cover the first row or the first column.

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Hi;

So what do you suggest?

*Last edited by Mpmath (2012-11-10 00:11:42)*

Winter is coming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

I am working feverishly on an expression that actually generates that table. Then it should be easier to prove the relation is true.

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Hi;

Ok. Thanks.

Winter is coming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

Nothing yet.

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Hi;

Ok. Keep me informed, thanks.

*Last edited by Mpmath (2012-11-10 11:11:39)*

Winter is coming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

I 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.

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Hi bobbym;

Good job! Can I see the expression?

Winter is coming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Hi;

I did not post it because it is virtually useless.

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.

**Online**

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,812

That is equal to 2^(i-2)*2^(j-2).

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

Aha! You went for the trap. It is incorrect for

It is also incorrect for the whole first column and first row.

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.

**Online**

**Mpmath****Member**- Registered: 2012-10-11
- Posts: 216

Hi;

Well, good job!

Winter is coming.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 14,812

bobbym wrote:

Aha! You went for the trap. It is incorrect for

It is also incorrect for the whole first column and first row.

I still think we could use 2^(i-1) and 2^(j-1) for the first column and row respectively, and 2^(i-1) for the rest.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,435

The only problem is that Mathematica gagged on both those series.

I want to sum along the diagonals but if it takes two functions for every diagonal that is going to make the proof much harder or impossible.

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.

**Online**