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

You are not logged in. #26 20130729 22:43:35
Re: Probability problem.Have you ever seen anonimnystefy's problem that he posed a while back? 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. #27 20130729 22:45:24
Re: Probability problem.Which problem is that? "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #28 20130729 22:48:49
Re: Probability problem.http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic … 00#p243200 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. #29 20130729 23:54:10
Re: Probability problem.Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #30 20130730 02:42:51
Re: Probability problem.Hi gAr; 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. #31 20130730 11:55:10
Re: Probability problem.
looks like a nice upper bound to start with.
Last edited by anonimnystefy (20130730 11:55:32) 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 #32 20130730 13:33:56
Re: Probability problem.Hi; 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. #33 20130731 16:21:06
Re: Probability problem.Hello, #34 20130731 16:26:25
Re: Probability problem.Hi; 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. #35 20130924 01:11:29
Re: Probability problem.Hello: #36 20130924 01:16:04
Re: Probability problem.Hi; 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. #37 20130926 03:16:22
Re: Probability problem.Hello m: #38 20130926 03:21:41
Re: Probability problem.I do not always call it that. Sometimes it is Asthmatica as well as some more colorful names. 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. #40 20130926 03:26:41
Re: Probability problem.Lectures on Generating Functions by Lando, it is a book. I thought you had read it. 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. #41 20130926 03:29:04
Re: Probability problem.I have that one. #42 20130926 03:34:15
Re: Probability problem.
Yes I know. I gave it to you. You might try reading it. 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. #43 20130926 03:56:09
Re: Probability problem.Oooh yes, I am sorry. It didn't work for me at first. The integral comes from complex analysis? From getting a0 of the Laurent series? #44 20130926 03:56:11
Re: Probability problem.Hi, I got the first two answers using the g.f "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #45 20130926 04:05:17
Re: Probability problem.It is straight out of the book. It does get the right answer. The derivation is a bit too tough for me. 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. #46 20130926 04:23:45
Re: Probability problem.nCr answer is derived from the g.f: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #47 20130926 04:28:13
Re: Probability problem.Hello gAr; #48 20130926 04:29:20
Re: Probability problem.Hi; 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. #49 20130926 04:36:03
Re: Probability problem.Hi ElainaVW, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #50 20130926 05:05:44
Re: Probability problem.That is the way I feel about it too. I have a done a few of them but prefer generating functions. 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. 