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

You are not logged in. #101 20121112 08:50:06
Re: Pascal's squareHi bobbym; Last edited by Mpmath (20121112 08:50:28) Winter is coming. #102 20121112 09:50:15
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. #103 20121112 16:55:25
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Last edited by Mpmath (20121112 17:47:10) Winter is coming. #104 20121112 20:02:33
Re: Pascal's squareIf you can prove what I said in post #99 then the proof is not far from it. 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 #105 20121112 20:35:55
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Winter is coming. #106 20121113 00:07:36
Re: Pascal's squareHi;
No one said it was incorrect. I have been trying to come at the problem from another side that gets that formula.
Isn't that what we are trying to prove. 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. #107 20121113 00:52:57
Re: Pascal's squareHi bobbym; Winter is coming. #108 20121113 01:14:43
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. #109 20121113 02:18:08
Re: Pascal's squareHi; Winter is coming. #110 20121113 03:11:15
Re: Pascal's squareHi Mpmath; this is anonimnystefy's formula with a index adjustment by me. Then the sum of every diagonal including the first one is: this can be summed to be Where dn is the nth diagonal. If we now take the formula for the compositions of n+1 (Paul Barry's) we can see that the (n+1)th diagonal is equal to the (n+1)th composition. This provides a proof of your statement. anonimnystefy's formula can be proven using induction 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. #111 20121113 04:05:56
Re: Pascal's squareHi bobbym; Winter is coming. #112 20121113 09:42:20
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. #113 20121113 19:33:37 