You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**heath****Guest**

Math has never come easy to me so please bare with me. i'm trying to find out if i'm on the right track or not with this.

i have four 3 digit numbers which run from a value of 0-475

so say at there highest values they would look like this

475-475-475-475

what i want to do is mathematically find out all the different permutations[?] of those numbers, if that makes sense. permutations is what i've been looking at for this but it doesn't appear to handle multi digit values it sort of sticks to things like 123

123

132

213

231

312

321

etc

what i want is all the possible combinations of those combined.

from

0-333-421-55

to

175-22-345-402

to

etc

one thing i noticed with permutation was that if i was to use that and say just use my seperate four 3 digit numbers in one large number 475475475475 i would first have to list those out (BTW this is for a computer program but as i need the math type to work it out i figured the best place would be here) like 475475475475, 475475475474, 475475475473, 475475475472 etc which is well you get the point. and two how do i restrict the value of the digits to the value limit as in the first digits value is max 4 and the second is max 7 etc. anyway that's probably nothing to do with math.

to sum up i'm just looking for a formula like permutation that can work for what i need.

thanks in advance

**mathsyperson****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-22
- Posts: 4,900

It might take a while, there are over fifty thousand million different combinations.

Why did the vector cross the road?

It wanted to be normal.

Offline

**MathsIsFun****Administrator**- Registered: 2005-01-21
- Posts: 7,535

heath wrote:

i have four 3 digit numbers which run from a value of 0-475

Wouldn't that just be 476×476×476×476 ?

As mathsy said ... 51,336,683,776 of them

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

**heath****Guest**

i was struggling as i was trying to work it out from a programming point of view but all it is, is addition like in this excerpt (it has a name but i can't remember what it's called)

0 0 472

0 0 473

0 0 475

0 0 475

0 1 0

0 1 1

0 1 2

0 1 3

0 1 4

0 1 5

0 1 6

but i have a new problem which i'll post here and see if anyone can offer a point in the direction of a style of maths used to work something like this out

say i have one table 3 columns wide by 51,366 etc etc rows in length and i have another table 1000 columns wide and 800 rows in length

in the second table each cell is assigned a row of numbers from the first table, is there a formula to work out all the different possible assignments of rows?

**heath****Member**- Registered: 2007-10-22
- Posts: 1

can't edit my above post sorry i've registered now so that don't happen again. i realized i answered my above problem already. all i need to do is use the same formula i used for the 475 combinations just on a much larger scale and instead of it being 475 it would be the total number of rows which is a bit nuts but thems the breaks.

if anyone can offer another way or some further reading material that would be appreciated.

cheers.

*Last edited by heath (2007-10-22 03:01:43)*

Offline

**swwroadrat63****Member**- Registered: 2007-10-22
- Posts: 0

How would I figure 2/3 of an amount like $17,657.25. Thanks.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,183

Hi;

Sorry I was late with this one:

Now do the division.

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.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,181

Wow, that's really late!

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

**Online**

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,183

I came on it while looking for something else.

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.

Offline

Pages: **1**