A simple finite combinatorial sum I found, that seems to work, would have good reasons to work, but I can't...
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I was doing a consistency check for some calculations I'm performing for my master thesis (roughly - about a problem in discrete bayesian model selection) - and it turns out that my choice of priors is only consistent if this identity is true:
$$sum_{k=0}^{N}left[ binom{k+j}{j}binom{N-k+j}{j}right] = binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$$
Now, this seems to work for small numbers, but I searched for it a lot in the literature and I can't find it.(I have a physics background so probably my knowledge of proper "literature" is the problem here). Neither I can demonstrate it!
Has anyone of you seen this before? Can this be rewritten equivalently in some more commonly seen way? Can it be proven right...or wrong?
Thanks in advance! :)
combinatorics summation binomial-coefficients
add a comment |
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I was doing a consistency check for some calculations I'm performing for my master thesis (roughly - about a problem in discrete bayesian model selection) - and it turns out that my choice of priors is only consistent if this identity is true:
$$sum_{k=0}^{N}left[ binom{k+j}{j}binom{N-k+j}{j}right] = binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$$
Now, this seems to work for small numbers, but I searched for it a lot in the literature and I can't find it.(I have a physics background so probably my knowledge of proper "literature" is the problem here). Neither I can demonstrate it!
Has anyone of you seen this before? Can this be rewritten equivalently in some more commonly seen way? Can it be proven right...or wrong?
Thanks in advance! :)
combinatorics summation binomial-coefficients
2
For an interpretable explanation of why this identity holds, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/2327556/…
– David Foley
yesterday
4
Just as a remark, any time I've ever needed to find a combinatorial identity, I've looked in Henry Gould's Table of Combinatorial Identities ( available on math.wvu.edu/~gould) and without fail I've either found it or found something that allowed me to prove what I needed. Yours looks like it's doable with what's in Vol 4 Sec 1.10
– user113102
yesterday
@user113102 The index of summation doesn't appear in the right position for 1.10, though.
– chepner
yesterday
Taking $alpha$, $r$ = $j$ and using standard binomial formulas e.g. ${n choose i} = {n choose n-i}$ and you're good, no? I admittedly didn't look too hard.
– user113102
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I was doing a consistency check for some calculations I'm performing for my master thesis (roughly - about a problem in discrete bayesian model selection) - and it turns out that my choice of priors is only consistent if this identity is true:
$$sum_{k=0}^{N}left[ binom{k+j}{j}binom{N-k+j}{j}right] = binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$$
Now, this seems to work for small numbers, but I searched for it a lot in the literature and I can't find it.(I have a physics background so probably my knowledge of proper "literature" is the problem here). Neither I can demonstrate it!
Has anyone of you seen this before? Can this be rewritten equivalently in some more commonly seen way? Can it be proven right...or wrong?
Thanks in advance! :)
combinatorics summation binomial-coefficients
I was doing a consistency check for some calculations I'm performing for my master thesis (roughly - about a problem in discrete bayesian model selection) - and it turns out that my choice of priors is only consistent if this identity is true:
$$sum_{k=0}^{N}left[ binom{k+j}{j}binom{N-k+j}{j}right] = binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$$
Now, this seems to work for small numbers, but I searched for it a lot in the literature and I can't find it.(I have a physics background so probably my knowledge of proper "literature" is the problem here). Neither I can demonstrate it!
Has anyone of you seen this before? Can this be rewritten equivalently in some more commonly seen way? Can it be proven right...or wrong?
Thanks in advance! :)
combinatorics summation binomial-coefficients
combinatorics summation binomial-coefficients
edited yesterday
N. F. Taussig
42.9k93254
42.9k93254
asked yesterday
Rocco
1097
1097
2
For an interpretable explanation of why this identity holds, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/2327556/…
– David Foley
yesterday
4
Just as a remark, any time I've ever needed to find a combinatorial identity, I've looked in Henry Gould's Table of Combinatorial Identities ( available on math.wvu.edu/~gould) and without fail I've either found it or found something that allowed me to prove what I needed. Yours looks like it's doable with what's in Vol 4 Sec 1.10
– user113102
yesterday
@user113102 The index of summation doesn't appear in the right position for 1.10, though.
– chepner
yesterday
Taking $alpha$, $r$ = $j$ and using standard binomial formulas e.g. ${n choose i} = {n choose n-i}$ and you're good, no? I admittedly didn't look too hard.
– user113102
yesterday
add a comment |
2
For an interpretable explanation of why this identity holds, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/2327556/…
– David Foley
yesterday
4
Just as a remark, any time I've ever needed to find a combinatorial identity, I've looked in Henry Gould's Table of Combinatorial Identities ( available on math.wvu.edu/~gould) and without fail I've either found it or found something that allowed me to prove what I needed. Yours looks like it's doable with what's in Vol 4 Sec 1.10
– user113102
yesterday
@user113102 The index of summation doesn't appear in the right position for 1.10, though.
– chepner
yesterday
Taking $alpha$, $r$ = $j$ and using standard binomial formulas e.g. ${n choose i} = {n choose n-i}$ and you're good, no? I admittedly didn't look too hard.
– user113102
yesterday
2
2
For an interpretable explanation of why this identity holds, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/2327556/…
– David Foley
yesterday
For an interpretable explanation of why this identity holds, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/2327556/…
– David Foley
yesterday
4
4
Just as a remark, any time I've ever needed to find a combinatorial identity, I've looked in Henry Gould's Table of Combinatorial Identities ( available on math.wvu.edu/~gould) and without fail I've either found it or found something that allowed me to prove what I needed. Yours looks like it's doable with what's in Vol 4 Sec 1.10
– user113102
yesterday
Just as a remark, any time I've ever needed to find a combinatorial identity, I've looked in Henry Gould's Table of Combinatorial Identities ( available on math.wvu.edu/~gould) and without fail I've either found it or found something that allowed me to prove what I needed. Yours looks like it's doable with what's in Vol 4 Sec 1.10
– user113102
yesterday
@user113102 The index of summation doesn't appear in the right position for 1.10, though.
– chepner
yesterday
@user113102 The index of summation doesn't appear in the right position for 1.10, though.
– chepner
yesterday
Taking $alpha$, $r$ = $j$ and using standard binomial formulas e.g. ${n choose i} = {n choose n-i}$ and you're good, no? I admittedly didn't look too hard.
– user113102
yesterday
Taking $alpha$, $r$ = $j$ and using standard binomial formulas e.g. ${n choose i} = {n choose n-i}$ and you're good, no? I admittedly didn't look too hard.
– user113102
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
41
down vote
accepted
Your identity is correct. I don't know a reference offhand, but here is a proof.
The right side, $binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$, is the number of bitstrings of length $N+2j+1$ consisting of $N$ zeroes and $2j+1$ ones.
The sum on the left counts the same set of bitstrings. Namely, for $0le kle N$, the term $binom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j$ is the number of those bitstrings in which the middle one, with $j$ ones on either side, is in the $k+j+1^text{st}$ position; i.e., it has $k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the left, $N-k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the right.
P.S. I found your identity in László Lovász, Combinatorial Problems and Exercises, North-Holland, 1979 (the first edition), where it is Exercise 1.42(i) on p. 18, with hint on p. 96 and solution on p. 172. Lovász gives the identity in the following (more general) form:
$$sum_{k=0}^mbinom{u+k}kbinom{v-k}{m-k}=binom{u+v+1}m.$$
If we set $m=N$, $u=j$, $v=N+j$, this becomes
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{j+k}kbinom{N+j-k}{N-k}=binom{N+2j+1}N$$
which is plainly equivalent to your identity
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j=binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}.$$
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
We have
$$sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose j}
= sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose N-k}
\ = sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} [z^{N-k}] (1+z)^{N-k+j}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}.$$
Now we may extend $k$ beyond $N$ as there is no contribution to
$[z^N]$ at the front in this case (we have $z^k (1+z)^{-k} = z^k
+cdots$)
$$[z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{kge 0} {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{1}{(1-z/(1+z))^{j+1}}
\ = [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{(1+z)^{j+1}}{(1+z-z)^{j+1}}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+2j+1} = {N+2j+1choose 2j+1}.$$
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
2
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
41
down vote
accepted
Your identity is correct. I don't know a reference offhand, but here is a proof.
The right side, $binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$, is the number of bitstrings of length $N+2j+1$ consisting of $N$ zeroes and $2j+1$ ones.
The sum on the left counts the same set of bitstrings. Namely, for $0le kle N$, the term $binom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j$ is the number of those bitstrings in which the middle one, with $j$ ones on either side, is in the $k+j+1^text{st}$ position; i.e., it has $k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the left, $N-k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the right.
P.S. I found your identity in László Lovász, Combinatorial Problems and Exercises, North-Holland, 1979 (the first edition), where it is Exercise 1.42(i) on p. 18, with hint on p. 96 and solution on p. 172. Lovász gives the identity in the following (more general) form:
$$sum_{k=0}^mbinom{u+k}kbinom{v-k}{m-k}=binom{u+v+1}m.$$
If we set $m=N$, $u=j$, $v=N+j$, this becomes
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{j+k}kbinom{N+j-k}{N-k}=binom{N+2j+1}N$$
which is plainly equivalent to your identity
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j=binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}.$$
add a comment |
up vote
41
down vote
accepted
Your identity is correct. I don't know a reference offhand, but here is a proof.
The right side, $binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$, is the number of bitstrings of length $N+2j+1$ consisting of $N$ zeroes and $2j+1$ ones.
The sum on the left counts the same set of bitstrings. Namely, for $0le kle N$, the term $binom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j$ is the number of those bitstrings in which the middle one, with $j$ ones on either side, is in the $k+j+1^text{st}$ position; i.e., it has $k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the left, $N-k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the right.
P.S. I found your identity in László Lovász, Combinatorial Problems and Exercises, North-Holland, 1979 (the first edition), where it is Exercise 1.42(i) on p. 18, with hint on p. 96 and solution on p. 172. Lovász gives the identity in the following (more general) form:
$$sum_{k=0}^mbinom{u+k}kbinom{v-k}{m-k}=binom{u+v+1}m.$$
If we set $m=N$, $u=j$, $v=N+j$, this becomes
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{j+k}kbinom{N+j-k}{N-k}=binom{N+2j+1}N$$
which is plainly equivalent to your identity
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j=binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}.$$
add a comment |
up vote
41
down vote
accepted
up vote
41
down vote
accepted
Your identity is correct. I don't know a reference offhand, but here is a proof.
The right side, $binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$, is the number of bitstrings of length $N+2j+1$ consisting of $N$ zeroes and $2j+1$ ones.
The sum on the left counts the same set of bitstrings. Namely, for $0le kle N$, the term $binom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j$ is the number of those bitstrings in which the middle one, with $j$ ones on either side, is in the $k+j+1^text{st}$ position; i.e., it has $k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the left, $N-k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the right.
P.S. I found your identity in László Lovász, Combinatorial Problems and Exercises, North-Holland, 1979 (the first edition), where it is Exercise 1.42(i) on p. 18, with hint on p. 96 and solution on p. 172. Lovász gives the identity in the following (more general) form:
$$sum_{k=0}^mbinom{u+k}kbinom{v-k}{m-k}=binom{u+v+1}m.$$
If we set $m=N$, $u=j$, $v=N+j$, this becomes
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{j+k}kbinom{N+j-k}{N-k}=binom{N+2j+1}N$$
which is plainly equivalent to your identity
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j=binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}.$$
Your identity is correct. I don't know a reference offhand, but here is a proof.
The right side, $binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}$, is the number of bitstrings of length $N+2j+1$ consisting of $N$ zeroes and $2j+1$ ones.
The sum on the left counts the same set of bitstrings. Namely, for $0le kle N$, the term $binom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j$ is the number of those bitstrings in which the middle one, with $j$ ones on either side, is in the $k+j+1^text{st}$ position; i.e., it has $k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the left, $N-k$ zeroes and $j$ ones to the right.
P.S. I found your identity in László Lovász, Combinatorial Problems and Exercises, North-Holland, 1979 (the first edition), where it is Exercise 1.42(i) on p. 18, with hint on p. 96 and solution on p. 172. Lovász gives the identity in the following (more general) form:
$$sum_{k=0}^mbinom{u+k}kbinom{v-k}{m-k}=binom{u+v+1}m.$$
If we set $m=N$, $u=j$, $v=N+j$, this becomes
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{j+k}kbinom{N+j-k}{N-k}=binom{N+2j+1}N$$
which is plainly equivalent to your identity
$$sum_{k=0}^Nbinom{k+j}jbinom{N-k+j}j=binom{N+2j+1}{2j+1}.$$
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
bof
49.5k455117
49.5k455117
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
We have
$$sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose j}
= sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose N-k}
\ = sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} [z^{N-k}] (1+z)^{N-k+j}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}.$$
Now we may extend $k$ beyond $N$ as there is no contribution to
$[z^N]$ at the front in this case (we have $z^k (1+z)^{-k} = z^k
+cdots$)
$$[z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{kge 0} {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{1}{(1-z/(1+z))^{j+1}}
\ = [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{(1+z)^{j+1}}{(1+z-z)^{j+1}}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+2j+1} = {N+2j+1choose 2j+1}.$$
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
2
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
We have
$$sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose j}
= sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose N-k}
\ = sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} [z^{N-k}] (1+z)^{N-k+j}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}.$$
Now we may extend $k$ beyond $N$ as there is no contribution to
$[z^N]$ at the front in this case (we have $z^k (1+z)^{-k} = z^k
+cdots$)
$$[z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{kge 0} {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{1}{(1-z/(1+z))^{j+1}}
\ = [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{(1+z)^{j+1}}{(1+z-z)^{j+1}}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+2j+1} = {N+2j+1choose 2j+1}.$$
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
2
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
We have
$$sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose j}
= sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose N-k}
\ = sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} [z^{N-k}] (1+z)^{N-k+j}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}.$$
Now we may extend $k$ beyond $N$ as there is no contribution to
$[z^N]$ at the front in this case (we have $z^k (1+z)^{-k} = z^k
+cdots$)
$$[z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{kge 0} {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{1}{(1-z/(1+z))^{j+1}}
\ = [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{(1+z)^{j+1}}{(1+z-z)^{j+1}}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+2j+1} = {N+2j+1choose 2j+1}.$$
We have
$$sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose j}
= sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} {N-k+jchoose N-k}
\ = sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} [z^{N-k}] (1+z)^{N-k+j}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{k=0}^N {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}.$$
Now we may extend $k$ beyond $N$ as there is no contribution to
$[z^N]$ at the front in this case (we have $z^k (1+z)^{-k} = z^k
+cdots$)
$$[z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} sum_{kge 0} {k+jchoose j} z^k (1+z)^{-k}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{1}{(1-z/(1+z))^{j+1}}
\ = [z^N] (1+z)^{N+j} frac{(1+z)^{j+1}}{(1+z-z)^{j+1}}
= [z^N] (1+z)^{N+2j+1} = {N+2j+1choose 2j+1}.$$
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Marko Riedel
38.6k339106
38.6k339106
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
2
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
2
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with these kind of manipulations and/or notation. What's the definition of the object $[z^n]$? I mean, even though it's sort of self explanatory from what you did...it's an interesting notation that, with my tiny experience, I have never seen. Do you have any reference I can read to get a grasp on it? Thanks!
– Rocco
18 hours ago
2
2
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
There is this at Wikipedia on formal power series.
– Marko Riedel
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028345%2fa-simple-finite-combinatorial-sum-i-found-that-seems-to-work-would-have-good-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
For an interpretable explanation of why this identity holds, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/2327556/…
– David Foley
yesterday
4
Just as a remark, any time I've ever needed to find a combinatorial identity, I've looked in Henry Gould's Table of Combinatorial Identities ( available on math.wvu.edu/~gould) and without fail I've either found it or found something that allowed me to prove what I needed. Yours looks like it's doable with what's in Vol 4 Sec 1.10
– user113102
yesterday
@user113102 The index of summation doesn't appear in the right position for 1.10, though.
– chepner
yesterday
Taking $alpha$, $r$ = $j$ and using standard binomial formulas e.g. ${n choose i} = {n choose n-i}$ and you're good, no? I admittedly didn't look too hard.
– user113102
yesterday