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

You are not logged in. #1 20121117 11:58:27
Question on squaresI just want to to know how to solve this problem: #2 20121117 12:21:50
Re: Question on squaresHi;
With replacement or without? 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. #4 20121117 12:45:03
Re: Question on squaresHi; 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. #5 20121117 12:50:55
Re: Question on squaresActually, the number of divisors that 2012^2 has is (2+1)^4, the problem is to find the sum of the numerator+denomerator of the probability of the chance that only ONE of the two divisors is a perfect square, the number of divisors that 2012 has is (1+1)^4 and this is also the number of perfect square divisors 2012^2 has, I'm very bad at probability and can't figure what is the probability of only one of the divisors being a perfect square. #6 20121117 12:55:19
Re: Question on squaresHi; 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. #7 20121117 13:13:04
Re: Question on squaresI can't list them all, let's see.....: 1,2,4,16,253009,1012036, 2024072,4048144, these are only the half of the perfect square factors of 2012^2, there are 8 more of them, how to solve the problem goes like this: (2+1)^4 is the number of factors that 2012^2 has and (1+1)^4 is the number of factors that 2012^2 has that are perfect squares, so the probability is [2*2^4*(3^42^4)]/[3^4(3^41)=26/81 so the answer is 26+81=107, which is m+n, this looks more like a bunch of random numbers placed together and I personally think that knowing the answer with knowing how to do it is useless, so I just need an explanation of this, you are only given 12 minutes to do this, I don't think listing out all the positive divisors of 2012^2 is a efficient idea! #8 20121117 13:15:47
Re: Question on squaresI am not claiming it is an efficient idea but I have to know the sample space before we can get the probability. I am getting only 15 divisors of 2012^2 not 81. That is why I am asking for your list. 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. #9 20121117 13:31:55
Re: Question on squaresIt does look weird that 2012^2 has that many factors, but 2012 has a prime factorization of 2*3*5*67, so 2012^2 has a prime factorization of 2^2*3^2*5^2*67^2 and that leads to the fact that (2+1)^4 is the number of factors that 2012^2 has, though only 16 of them are perfect squares, so the question is simplified to what is the probability of getting only 1 perfect square out of 2 if the probability of getting a square is 16/81. I also doubt that 2012^2 has 81 factors, but that's what the formula calculates, but I think I get the question now, but anyways, sorry to bother you with all these random things I said above, the only reason why I want to have the answer to this problem is because it fascinates me and is a really good probability problem for me. #10 20121117 13:37:51
Re: Question on squaresHi;
You have factored 2012^2 incorrectly. 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. #11 20121117 13:46:07
Re: Question on squaresOHNO, sorry! I got the whole problem wrong! It's suppose be 2010, not 2012 and 2010^2 has 81 factors, I can't believe that just a difference of 2 can make such a huge difference, now I hope that this problem is much more clear! I actually though that 5 was a factor of 2012! #12 20121117 13:47:22
Re: Question on squaresHi; 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. #14 20121117 13:56:25
Re: Question on squaresI am getting 26 / 81 as the probability one of the numbers is a 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. 