Number of compositions of a positive number n, with factors between 1 and a certain number m
$begingroup$
I'm trying to find the number of compositions of a positive number $n$, with factors between 1 and a certain number $m$.
That is, all the combinations of limited numbers that add up to $n$
$f(n, m)$
For example:
$f(3, 2) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1)| = 3$
$f(3, 3) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1), (3)| = 4$
$f(5, 3) = |(1+1+1+1+1), .... , (3+2), (2+3)| = 13$
Reading online I found this formula for calculating the composition, but it works only in some special cases:
$sum_{k = lceil n/m rceil}^{n} binom{n-1}{k - 1}$
Can someone tell me the general formula?
combinatorics
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to find the number of compositions of a positive number $n$, with factors between 1 and a certain number $m$.
That is, all the combinations of limited numbers that add up to $n$
$f(n, m)$
For example:
$f(3, 2) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1)| = 3$
$f(3, 3) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1), (3)| = 4$
$f(5, 3) = |(1+1+1+1+1), .... , (3+2), (2+3)| = 13$
Reading online I found this formula for calculating the composition, but it works only in some special cases:
$sum_{k = lceil n/m rceil}^{n} binom{n-1}{k - 1}$
Can someone tell me the general formula?
combinatorics
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm trying to find the number of compositions of a positive number $n$, with factors between 1 and a certain number $m$.
That is, all the combinations of limited numbers that add up to $n$
$f(n, m)$
For example:
$f(3, 2) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1)| = 3$
$f(3, 3) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1), (3)| = 4$
$f(5, 3) = |(1+1+1+1+1), .... , (3+2), (2+3)| = 13$
Reading online I found this formula for calculating the composition, but it works only in some special cases:
$sum_{k = lceil n/m rceil}^{n} binom{n-1}{k - 1}$
Can someone tell me the general formula?
combinatorics
$endgroup$
I'm trying to find the number of compositions of a positive number $n$, with factors between 1 and a certain number $m$.
That is, all the combinations of limited numbers that add up to $n$
$f(n, m)$
For example:
$f(3, 2) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1)| = 3$
$f(3, 3) = |(1+1+1), (1+2), (2+1), (3)| = 4$
$f(5, 3) = |(1+1+1+1+1), .... , (3+2), (2+3)| = 13$
Reading online I found this formula for calculating the composition, but it works only in some special cases:
$sum_{k = lceil n/m rceil}^{n} binom{n-1}{k - 1}$
Can someone tell me the general formula?
combinatorics
combinatorics
edited Dec 16 '18 at 8:29
Sik Feng Cheong
1579
1579
asked Dec 16 '18 at 8:07
Gabriele PiccoGabriele Picco
327
327
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is no general formula. In order to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, you can write the recurrence relation as a matrix equation. Let $x_n$ be the vector
$$
x_n=begin{bmatrix}f(n,m)\f(n-1,m)\f(n-2,m)\vdots\f(n-m+1,m)end{bmatrix}
$$
and let $A$ be the $mtimes m$ matrix which has ones just below the diagonal, ones on the top row, and zeroes everywhere else. When $m=4,$
$$
A=begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 0 &0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 end{bmatrix}
$$
You can verify that
$$
x_n=Ax_{n-1}
$$
holds for all $nge 1$. Iterating this, you get
$$
x_n=A^nx_0=A^nbegin{bmatrix}1\0\vdots\0end{bmatrix}
$$
Therefore, to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, it suffices to compute $A^n$ quickly, which can be done in $O(m^3log n)$ time using exponentiation by squaring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was able to callculate $f(m,n)$ quickly by using recurrence:
$$f(n, m)=1quad text{if} quad nin{0,1}$$
$$f(n, m)=0quad text{if} quad n<0$$
$$f(n,m)=sum_{k=1}^m f(n-k,m)$$
...or in Mathematica:
f[n_, m_] := 1 /; n == 0 || n == 1
f[n_, m_] := 0 /; n < 0
f[n_, m_] := f[n, m] = Sum[f[n - k, m], {k, 1, m}]
This gives accurate results for all your examples and calculates the number of combinations for bigger values of $n,m$ fairly quickly. For example:
$$f(5,3)=13$$
$$f(20,10)=521472$$
$$f(100,20)=633800819629853453628932292608$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f3042357%2fnumber-of-compositions-of-a-positive-number-n-with-factors-between-1-and-a-cert%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is no general formula. In order to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, you can write the recurrence relation as a matrix equation. Let $x_n$ be the vector
$$
x_n=begin{bmatrix}f(n,m)\f(n-1,m)\f(n-2,m)\vdots\f(n-m+1,m)end{bmatrix}
$$
and let $A$ be the $mtimes m$ matrix which has ones just below the diagonal, ones on the top row, and zeroes everywhere else. When $m=4,$
$$
A=begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 0 &0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 end{bmatrix}
$$
You can verify that
$$
x_n=Ax_{n-1}
$$
holds for all $nge 1$. Iterating this, you get
$$
x_n=A^nx_0=A^nbegin{bmatrix}1\0\vdots\0end{bmatrix}
$$
Therefore, to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, it suffices to compute $A^n$ quickly, which can be done in $O(m^3log n)$ time using exponentiation by squaring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is no general formula. In order to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, you can write the recurrence relation as a matrix equation. Let $x_n$ be the vector
$$
x_n=begin{bmatrix}f(n,m)\f(n-1,m)\f(n-2,m)\vdots\f(n-m+1,m)end{bmatrix}
$$
and let $A$ be the $mtimes m$ matrix which has ones just below the diagonal, ones on the top row, and zeroes everywhere else. When $m=4,$
$$
A=begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 0 &0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 end{bmatrix}
$$
You can verify that
$$
x_n=Ax_{n-1}
$$
holds for all $nge 1$. Iterating this, you get
$$
x_n=A^nx_0=A^nbegin{bmatrix}1\0\vdots\0end{bmatrix}
$$
Therefore, to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, it suffices to compute $A^n$ quickly, which can be done in $O(m^3log n)$ time using exponentiation by squaring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is no general formula. In order to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, you can write the recurrence relation as a matrix equation. Let $x_n$ be the vector
$$
x_n=begin{bmatrix}f(n,m)\f(n-1,m)\f(n-2,m)\vdots\f(n-m+1,m)end{bmatrix}
$$
and let $A$ be the $mtimes m$ matrix which has ones just below the diagonal, ones on the top row, and zeroes everywhere else. When $m=4,$
$$
A=begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 0 &0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 end{bmatrix}
$$
You can verify that
$$
x_n=Ax_{n-1}
$$
holds for all $nge 1$. Iterating this, you get
$$
x_n=A^nx_0=A^nbegin{bmatrix}1\0\vdots\0end{bmatrix}
$$
Therefore, to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, it suffices to compute $A^n$ quickly, which can be done in $O(m^3log n)$ time using exponentiation by squaring.
$endgroup$
There is no general formula. In order to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, you can write the recurrence relation as a matrix equation. Let $x_n$ be the vector
$$
x_n=begin{bmatrix}f(n,m)\f(n-1,m)\f(n-2,m)\vdots\f(n-m+1,m)end{bmatrix}
$$
and let $A$ be the $mtimes m$ matrix which has ones just below the diagonal, ones on the top row, and zeroes everywhere else. When $m=4,$
$$
A=begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ 1 & 0 & 0 &0 \ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 end{bmatrix}
$$
You can verify that
$$
x_n=Ax_{n-1}
$$
holds for all $nge 1$. Iterating this, you get
$$
x_n=A^nx_0=A^nbegin{bmatrix}1\0\vdots\0end{bmatrix}
$$
Therefore, to compute $f(n,m)$ quickly, it suffices to compute $A^n$ quickly, which can be done in $O(m^3log n)$ time using exponentiation by squaring.
answered Dec 16 '18 at 19:23
Mike EarnestMike Earnest
22.6k12051
22.6k12051
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I just think the last line of $ x_ {n} $ should be $ f (n-m, m) $
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 18 '18 at 9:10
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was able to callculate $f(m,n)$ quickly by using recurrence:
$$f(n, m)=1quad text{if} quad nin{0,1}$$
$$f(n, m)=0quad text{if} quad n<0$$
$$f(n,m)=sum_{k=1}^m f(n-k,m)$$
...or in Mathematica:
f[n_, m_] := 1 /; n == 0 || n == 1
f[n_, m_] := 0 /; n < 0
f[n_, m_] := f[n, m] = Sum[f[n - k, m], {k, 1, m}]
This gives accurate results for all your examples and calculates the number of combinations for bigger values of $n,m$ fairly quickly. For example:
$$f(5,3)=13$$
$$f(20,10)=521472$$
$$f(100,20)=633800819629853453628932292608$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I was able to callculate $f(m,n)$ quickly by using recurrence:
$$f(n, m)=1quad text{if} quad nin{0,1}$$
$$f(n, m)=0quad text{if} quad n<0$$
$$f(n,m)=sum_{k=1}^m f(n-k,m)$$
...or in Mathematica:
f[n_, m_] := 1 /; n == 0 || n == 1
f[n_, m_] := 0 /; n < 0
f[n_, m_] := f[n, m] = Sum[f[n - k, m], {k, 1, m}]
This gives accurate results for all your examples and calculates the number of combinations for bigger values of $n,m$ fairly quickly. For example:
$$f(5,3)=13$$
$$f(20,10)=521472$$
$$f(100,20)=633800819629853453628932292608$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I was able to callculate $f(m,n)$ quickly by using recurrence:
$$f(n, m)=1quad text{if} quad nin{0,1}$$
$$f(n, m)=0quad text{if} quad n<0$$
$$f(n,m)=sum_{k=1}^m f(n-k,m)$$
...or in Mathematica:
f[n_, m_] := 1 /; n == 0 || n == 1
f[n_, m_] := 0 /; n < 0
f[n_, m_] := f[n, m] = Sum[f[n - k, m], {k, 1, m}]
This gives accurate results for all your examples and calculates the number of combinations for bigger values of $n,m$ fairly quickly. For example:
$$f(5,3)=13$$
$$f(20,10)=521472$$
$$f(100,20)=633800819629853453628932292608$$
$endgroup$
I was able to callculate $f(m,n)$ quickly by using recurrence:
$$f(n, m)=1quad text{if} quad nin{0,1}$$
$$f(n, m)=0quad text{if} quad n<0$$
$$f(n,m)=sum_{k=1}^m f(n-k,m)$$
...or in Mathematica:
f[n_, m_] := 1 /; n == 0 || n == 1
f[n_, m_] := 0 /; n < 0
f[n_, m_] := f[n, m] = Sum[f[n - k, m], {k, 1, m}]
This gives accurate results for all your examples and calculates the number of combinations for bigger values of $n,m$ fairly quickly. For example:
$$f(5,3)=13$$
$$f(20,10)=521472$$
$$f(100,20)=633800819629853453628932292608$$
answered Dec 16 '18 at 8:55
OldboyOldboy
8,1751936
8,1751936
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
Fantastic solution! I implemented it in Python, unfortunately in some cases it fails to compute it and generates the error: maximum recursion depth exceeded in comparison. For example: $f(99999, 3)$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:04
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
I'm trying to optimize it or find a closed formula that allows me to calculate it even for large numbers
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:12
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
@GabrielePicco If you like the solution, please upvote it :) With my approach the recursion depth is equal to $n$ so in your example Python will have to do 99999 recursive calls which will cause the stack to overflow. Even if it had not, the result would have been a number of epic proportions :)
$endgroup$
– Oldboy
Dec 16 '18 at 10:15
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
Yes you are right. The number of recursions is $ n$ x $m $ right? in the example $ f (99999,3) $ should be 99999 x 3 recursion.
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:27
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
$begingroup$
if I know that I will have to apply a module to the result of the function, can I somehow simplify the calculation?
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Picco
Dec 16 '18 at 10:28
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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%2f3042357%2fnumber-of-compositions-of-a-positive-number-n-with-factors-between-1-and-a-cert%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