2 elementary number theory problems [closed]
$begingroup$
So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:
Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$
Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$
I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems
elementary-number-theory
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:
Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$
Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$
I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems
elementary-number-theory
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45
$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46
$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:
Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$
Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$
I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems
elementary-number-theory
$endgroup$
So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:
Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$
Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$
I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems
elementary-number-theory
elementary-number-theory
edited Dec 14 '18 at 4:50
user587054
48011
48011
asked Dec 14 '18 at 3:43
Aurora BorealisAurora Borealis
856414
856414
closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45
$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46
$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45
$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46
$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45
$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45
$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46
$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46
$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48
$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50
$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50
1
1
$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.
Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
$$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
you can model such these equations like this:
first Q2)
suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.
so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9
now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.
one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}
" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6)
that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9
. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3)
is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15
.
so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :
$frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$
Q1)
the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:
$D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$
now let:
$I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$
by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:
$D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$
also:
${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
so the answer is:
$D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.
Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
$$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.
Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
$$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.
Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
$$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.
$endgroup$
These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.
Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
$$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.
answered Dec 14 '18 at 9:02
YiFanYiFan
3,4541425
3,4541425
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
You talking about the simplex algorithm?
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 13:18
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 14:07
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Dec 14 '18 at 14:25
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
$begingroup$
@YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
$endgroup$
– AmbretteOrrisey
Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
you can model such these equations like this:
first Q2)
suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.
so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9
now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.
one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}
" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6)
that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9
. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3)
is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15
.
so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :
$frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$
Q1)
the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:
$D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$
now let:
$I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$
by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:
$D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$
also:
${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
so the answer is:
$D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
you can model such these equations like this:
first Q2)
suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.
so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9
now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.
one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}
" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6)
that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9
. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3)
is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15
.
so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :
$frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$
Q1)
the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:
$D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$
now let:
$I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$
by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:
$D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$
also:
${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
so the answer is:
$D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
you can model such these equations like this:
first Q2)
suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.
so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9
now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.
one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}
" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6)
that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9
. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3)
is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15
.
so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :
$frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$
Q1)
the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:
$D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$
now let:
$I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$
by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:
$D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$
also:
${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
so the answer is:
$D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$
$endgroup$
you can model such these equations like this:
first Q2)
suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.
so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9
now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.
one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}
" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6)
that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9
. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3)
is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15
.
so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :
$frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$
Q1)
the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:
$D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$
now let:
$I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$
by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:
$D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$
also:
${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
so the answer is:
$D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$
edited Dec 14 '18 at 14:00
answered Dec 14 '18 at 13:14
SAEED_ABBSAEED_ABB
112
112
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45
$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46
$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50
1
$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53