I tried this question by using pi denoting method and got a big equation what to do
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
Find coefficient of $x^6$ in
$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2.....(1+x^n)^n$
combinatorics binomial-theorem
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
Find coefficient of $x^6$ in
$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2.....(1+x^n)^n$
combinatorics binomial-theorem
Please clarify what you mean by 'pi denoting method'
– Daniel
Nov 22 at 18:31
1
I would assume that he is referring to how you can write summations with $sum$ you can write products with $prod$ and so he rewrote the above expression as $prod_{k=1}^n(1+x^k)^k$ but couldn't continue.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:32
Yes I did they same but no further step can be done
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:34
1
With the numbers as small as they are, I would probably brute force this, noting that the coefficient is the same for all $ngeq 6$ so you might as well look only at $(1+x)(1+x^2)^2cdots (1+x^6)^6$
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:35
Yes but don't you think some coefficients would be skipped
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:38
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
Find coefficient of $x^6$ in
$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2.....(1+x^n)^n$
combinatorics binomial-theorem
Find coefficient of $x^6$ in
$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2.....(1+x^n)^n$
combinatorics binomial-theorem
combinatorics binomial-theorem
edited Nov 22 at 18:30
Yanko
5,660723
5,660723
asked Nov 22 at 18:29
Noone Noone
11
11
Please clarify what you mean by 'pi denoting method'
– Daniel
Nov 22 at 18:31
1
I would assume that he is referring to how you can write summations with $sum$ you can write products with $prod$ and so he rewrote the above expression as $prod_{k=1}^n(1+x^k)^k$ but couldn't continue.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:32
Yes I did they same but no further step can be done
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:34
1
With the numbers as small as they are, I would probably brute force this, noting that the coefficient is the same for all $ngeq 6$ so you might as well look only at $(1+x)(1+x^2)^2cdots (1+x^6)^6$
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:35
Yes but don't you think some coefficients would be skipped
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:38
|
show 1 more comment
Please clarify what you mean by 'pi denoting method'
– Daniel
Nov 22 at 18:31
1
I would assume that he is referring to how you can write summations with $sum$ you can write products with $prod$ and so he rewrote the above expression as $prod_{k=1}^n(1+x^k)^k$ but couldn't continue.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:32
Yes I did they same but no further step can be done
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:34
1
With the numbers as small as they are, I would probably brute force this, noting that the coefficient is the same for all $ngeq 6$ so you might as well look only at $(1+x)(1+x^2)^2cdots (1+x^6)^6$
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:35
Yes but don't you think some coefficients would be skipped
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:38
Please clarify what you mean by 'pi denoting method'
– Daniel
Nov 22 at 18:31
Please clarify what you mean by 'pi denoting method'
– Daniel
Nov 22 at 18:31
1
1
I would assume that he is referring to how you can write summations with $sum$ you can write products with $prod$ and so he rewrote the above expression as $prod_{k=1}^n(1+x^k)^k$ but couldn't continue.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:32
I would assume that he is referring to how you can write summations with $sum$ you can write products with $prod$ and so he rewrote the above expression as $prod_{k=1}^n(1+x^k)^k$ but couldn't continue.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:32
Yes I did they same but no further step can be done
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:34
Yes I did they same but no further step can be done
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:34
1
1
With the numbers as small as they are, I would probably brute force this, noting that the coefficient is the same for all $ngeq 6$ so you might as well look only at $(1+x)(1+x^2)^2cdots (1+x^6)^6$
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:35
With the numbers as small as they are, I would probably brute force this, noting that the coefficient is the same for all $ngeq 6$ so you might as well look only at $(1+x)(1+x^2)^2cdots (1+x^6)^6$
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:35
Yes but don't you think some coefficients would be skipped
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:38
Yes but don't you think some coefficients would be skipped
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:38
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
A creative approach. $prod_{kgeq 1}(1+x^k)^k$ is the exponential of
$$ sum_{kgeq 1}k log(1+x^k) = sum_{kgeq 1}ksum_{ngeq 1}frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} x^{kn}=sum_{mgeq 1}mx^m sum_{dmid m}frac{(-1)^{d+1}}{d^2} $$
or
$$ x+frac{3 x^2}{2}+frac{10 x^3}{3}+frac{11 x^4}{4}+frac{26 x^5}{5}+5 x^6 + O(x^7).$$
Since $exp(z)=1+z+o(z)$, it is enough to look for the coefficient of $x^6$ in
$$ 1+x+2 x^2+5 x^3+8 x^4+16 x^5+color{red}{28}, x^6 + O(x^7).$$
This coefficient can be found also through numerical integration, since it equals
$$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=varepsilon}expleft[z+frac{3 z^2}{2}+frac{10 z^3}{3}+frac{11 z^4}{4}+frac{26 z^5}{5}+5 z^6right]frac{dz}{z^7} $$
(any numerical approximation of this integral within an error $<frac{1}{2}$ does the job, since we know in advance that the value of this monster is a natural number).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Your function is effectively a generating function for the number of ways you can express a number as a sequence where the sum of the terms in the sequence is equal to our number and within the first $1$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $1$, within the next $2$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $2$, within the next $3$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $3$, etc... on up to the final $n$ terms where all terms are either $0$ or $n$.
$underbrace{underline{~}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{6's}$
One such sequence might be $underbrace{underline{0}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{3}~underline{0}~underline{3}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}}_{6's}$
I would break down into cases based on the different ways that you can reach a total of $6$ using at most one $1$'s, at most two $2$'s, at most three $3$'s, etc..., where the terms appear in (non-strictly) increasing order, noting that we may stop at $6$ since if we continue past $6$ the sum would be larger than $6$ if we use any of those terms anyways.
The ways you can do this are $1+2+3$, $2+4$, $3+3$, $1+5$, $6$. You can check there are no other ways subject to our constraints.
Now, for each of these, let us figure out the number of ways to select which of the positions in our sequence receive the number in question and which receive the zeroes. For example in the case of $1+2+3$, there is one way to choose where to place the $1$. There are $2$ ways to choose how to place the $2$, and there are $3$ ways to choose how to place the $3$. This gives $1times 2times 3$ ways to have gotten a sum of $6$ using $1$'s, $2$'s and $3$'s and enough other zeroes to fill the spaces in the sequence subject to our constraints.
Similarly there are $2times 4, 1times 5$ and $6$ ways in the other cases respectively. The only one of our cases which doesn't follow this pattern is the case for $3+3$ which instead has $binom{3}{2}=3$ options for how to distribute the $0$'s instead.
This gives a grand total of:
$$1times 2times 3 + 2times 4 + 3 + 1times 5 + 6 = 6+8+3+5+6=28$$
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Notet that the coefficient of $x^6$ is
begin{align}
sumprod_{k=1}^nbinom k{t_k}
end{align}
where the sum is taken over $0leq t_kleq k$ such that $sum_{k=1}^nkt_k=6$.
Note that $t_k=0$ for $k>6$.
The only possible sums $sum_{k=1}^6kt_k=6$ are:
begin{align}
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 1\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 1+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 1+3cdot 0+4cdot 1+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 2+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 1+3cdot 1+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0
end{align}
consequently, the required coefficient is
begin{align}
c
&=binom 10binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 50binom 61\
&+binom 11binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 51binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 21binom 30binom 41binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 20binom 32binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 11binom 21binom 31binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&=6+5+8+3+6\
&=28
end{align}
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Here is my attempt at pitching the answer as simply as possible. Hope it's easy to understand.
If you want a systematic way of multiplying those then remember that the $k^{text{th}}$ row of Pascal's triangle gives $a_{k,r}$, the coefficients of $x^r$ in the expansion of $(1+x)^k$:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1 &&&&\
3 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 &&&\
4 & 1 & 4 & 6 & 4 & 1 &&\
5 & 1 & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1 &\
6 & 1 & 6 & 15 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1end{array}$$
Remember also that each coefficient in row $k$ column $x^r$ is found by adding the coefficients in the previous row (row $k-1$) in columns $x^r$ and $x^{r-1}$. We represent this with the recurrence
$$a_{k,r}=a_{k-1,r}+a_{k-1,r-1}$$
Each row $k$ represents the expansion of $(1+x)times (1+x)^{k-1}$.
In a similar way we can expand your product
$$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2(1+x^3)^3cdots (1+x^k)^k$$
by creating a table of coefficients $b_{k,r}$ in which each row $k$ represents the resulting $x^r$ coefficients $(1+x^k)^k$ multiplied by the polynomial of the previous row.
Our recurrence is now
$$b_{k,r}=a_{k,0}b_{k-1,r}+a_{k,1}b_{k-1,r-k}+a_{k,2}b_{k-1,r-2k}+a_{k,3}b_{k-1,r-3k}+cdots$$
We can produce a table much like with Pascal's recurrence, viz:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 &\
3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 7 & 9\
4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 11 & 17\
5 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 22\
6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 28end{array}$$
Here the recurrence gives each successive row by multiplying the previous row coefficients by the relevant $a_{k,r}$ values and adding the result.
Since we only want $x^6$ there is no need to expand past row $6$ column $6$. We find that calculation gets easier with each successive row due to the recurrence ignoring $b_{k-1,r-s}$ terms where $s$ is not a multiple of $k$.
So our answer is, for all $k$
begin{array}{c|c}k & b_{k,6}\hline
0 & 0\
1 &0\
2 & 0\
3 &9\
4 &17\
5 &22\
6 &28\
7 &28\
vdots &vdots\end{array}
clearly the answer stays at $28$ for all $kge 6$.
Note: I've used $k$ instead of $n$.
add a comment |
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',
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%2f3009479%2fi-tried-this-question-by-using-pi-denoting-method-and-got-a-big-equation-what-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
A creative approach. $prod_{kgeq 1}(1+x^k)^k$ is the exponential of
$$ sum_{kgeq 1}k log(1+x^k) = sum_{kgeq 1}ksum_{ngeq 1}frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} x^{kn}=sum_{mgeq 1}mx^m sum_{dmid m}frac{(-1)^{d+1}}{d^2} $$
or
$$ x+frac{3 x^2}{2}+frac{10 x^3}{3}+frac{11 x^4}{4}+frac{26 x^5}{5}+5 x^6 + O(x^7).$$
Since $exp(z)=1+z+o(z)$, it is enough to look for the coefficient of $x^6$ in
$$ 1+x+2 x^2+5 x^3+8 x^4+16 x^5+color{red}{28}, x^6 + O(x^7).$$
This coefficient can be found also through numerical integration, since it equals
$$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=varepsilon}expleft[z+frac{3 z^2}{2}+frac{10 z^3}{3}+frac{11 z^4}{4}+frac{26 z^5}{5}+5 z^6right]frac{dz}{z^7} $$
(any numerical approximation of this integral within an error $<frac{1}{2}$ does the job, since we know in advance that the value of this monster is a natural number).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
A creative approach. $prod_{kgeq 1}(1+x^k)^k$ is the exponential of
$$ sum_{kgeq 1}k log(1+x^k) = sum_{kgeq 1}ksum_{ngeq 1}frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} x^{kn}=sum_{mgeq 1}mx^m sum_{dmid m}frac{(-1)^{d+1}}{d^2} $$
or
$$ x+frac{3 x^2}{2}+frac{10 x^3}{3}+frac{11 x^4}{4}+frac{26 x^5}{5}+5 x^6 + O(x^7).$$
Since $exp(z)=1+z+o(z)$, it is enough to look for the coefficient of $x^6$ in
$$ 1+x+2 x^2+5 x^3+8 x^4+16 x^5+color{red}{28}, x^6 + O(x^7).$$
This coefficient can be found also through numerical integration, since it equals
$$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=varepsilon}expleft[z+frac{3 z^2}{2}+frac{10 z^3}{3}+frac{11 z^4}{4}+frac{26 z^5}{5}+5 z^6right]frac{dz}{z^7} $$
(any numerical approximation of this integral within an error $<frac{1}{2}$ does the job, since we know in advance that the value of this monster is a natural number).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
A creative approach. $prod_{kgeq 1}(1+x^k)^k$ is the exponential of
$$ sum_{kgeq 1}k log(1+x^k) = sum_{kgeq 1}ksum_{ngeq 1}frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} x^{kn}=sum_{mgeq 1}mx^m sum_{dmid m}frac{(-1)^{d+1}}{d^2} $$
or
$$ x+frac{3 x^2}{2}+frac{10 x^3}{3}+frac{11 x^4}{4}+frac{26 x^5}{5}+5 x^6 + O(x^7).$$
Since $exp(z)=1+z+o(z)$, it is enough to look for the coefficient of $x^6$ in
$$ 1+x+2 x^2+5 x^3+8 x^4+16 x^5+color{red}{28}, x^6 + O(x^7).$$
This coefficient can be found also through numerical integration, since it equals
$$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=varepsilon}expleft[z+frac{3 z^2}{2}+frac{10 z^3}{3}+frac{11 z^4}{4}+frac{26 z^5}{5}+5 z^6right]frac{dz}{z^7} $$
(any numerical approximation of this integral within an error $<frac{1}{2}$ does the job, since we know in advance that the value of this monster is a natural number).
A creative approach. $prod_{kgeq 1}(1+x^k)^k$ is the exponential of
$$ sum_{kgeq 1}k log(1+x^k) = sum_{kgeq 1}ksum_{ngeq 1}frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} x^{kn}=sum_{mgeq 1}mx^m sum_{dmid m}frac{(-1)^{d+1}}{d^2} $$
or
$$ x+frac{3 x^2}{2}+frac{10 x^3}{3}+frac{11 x^4}{4}+frac{26 x^5}{5}+5 x^6 + O(x^7).$$
Since $exp(z)=1+z+o(z)$, it is enough to look for the coefficient of $x^6$ in
$$ 1+x+2 x^2+5 x^3+8 x^4+16 x^5+color{red}{28}, x^6 + O(x^7).$$
This coefficient can be found also through numerical integration, since it equals
$$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=varepsilon}expleft[z+frac{3 z^2}{2}+frac{10 z^3}{3}+frac{11 z^4}{4}+frac{26 z^5}{5}+5 z^6right]frac{dz}{z^7} $$
(any numerical approximation of this integral within an error $<frac{1}{2}$ does the job, since we know in advance that the value of this monster is a natural number).
edited Nov 22 at 20:17
answered Nov 22 at 19:37
Jack D'Aurizio
285k33275654
285k33275654
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Your function is effectively a generating function for the number of ways you can express a number as a sequence where the sum of the terms in the sequence is equal to our number and within the first $1$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $1$, within the next $2$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $2$, within the next $3$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $3$, etc... on up to the final $n$ terms where all terms are either $0$ or $n$.
$underbrace{underline{~}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{6's}$
One such sequence might be $underbrace{underline{0}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{3}~underline{0}~underline{3}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}}_{6's}$
I would break down into cases based on the different ways that you can reach a total of $6$ using at most one $1$'s, at most two $2$'s, at most three $3$'s, etc..., where the terms appear in (non-strictly) increasing order, noting that we may stop at $6$ since if we continue past $6$ the sum would be larger than $6$ if we use any of those terms anyways.
The ways you can do this are $1+2+3$, $2+4$, $3+3$, $1+5$, $6$. You can check there are no other ways subject to our constraints.
Now, for each of these, let us figure out the number of ways to select which of the positions in our sequence receive the number in question and which receive the zeroes. For example in the case of $1+2+3$, there is one way to choose where to place the $1$. There are $2$ ways to choose how to place the $2$, and there are $3$ ways to choose how to place the $3$. This gives $1times 2times 3$ ways to have gotten a sum of $6$ using $1$'s, $2$'s and $3$'s and enough other zeroes to fill the spaces in the sequence subject to our constraints.
Similarly there are $2times 4, 1times 5$ and $6$ ways in the other cases respectively. The only one of our cases which doesn't follow this pattern is the case for $3+3$ which instead has $binom{3}{2}=3$ options for how to distribute the $0$'s instead.
This gives a grand total of:
$$1times 2times 3 + 2times 4 + 3 + 1times 5 + 6 = 6+8+3+5+6=28$$
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Your function is effectively a generating function for the number of ways you can express a number as a sequence where the sum of the terms in the sequence is equal to our number and within the first $1$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $1$, within the next $2$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $2$, within the next $3$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $3$, etc... on up to the final $n$ terms where all terms are either $0$ or $n$.
$underbrace{underline{~}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{6's}$
One such sequence might be $underbrace{underline{0}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{3}~underline{0}~underline{3}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}}_{6's}$
I would break down into cases based on the different ways that you can reach a total of $6$ using at most one $1$'s, at most two $2$'s, at most three $3$'s, etc..., where the terms appear in (non-strictly) increasing order, noting that we may stop at $6$ since if we continue past $6$ the sum would be larger than $6$ if we use any of those terms anyways.
The ways you can do this are $1+2+3$, $2+4$, $3+3$, $1+5$, $6$. You can check there are no other ways subject to our constraints.
Now, for each of these, let us figure out the number of ways to select which of the positions in our sequence receive the number in question and which receive the zeroes. For example in the case of $1+2+3$, there is one way to choose where to place the $1$. There are $2$ ways to choose how to place the $2$, and there are $3$ ways to choose how to place the $3$. This gives $1times 2times 3$ ways to have gotten a sum of $6$ using $1$'s, $2$'s and $3$'s and enough other zeroes to fill the spaces in the sequence subject to our constraints.
Similarly there are $2times 4, 1times 5$ and $6$ ways in the other cases respectively. The only one of our cases which doesn't follow this pattern is the case for $3+3$ which instead has $binom{3}{2}=3$ options for how to distribute the $0$'s instead.
This gives a grand total of:
$$1times 2times 3 + 2times 4 + 3 + 1times 5 + 6 = 6+8+3+5+6=28$$
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Your function is effectively a generating function for the number of ways you can express a number as a sequence where the sum of the terms in the sequence is equal to our number and within the first $1$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $1$, within the next $2$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $2$, within the next $3$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $3$, etc... on up to the final $n$ terms where all terms are either $0$ or $n$.
$underbrace{underline{~}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{6's}$
One such sequence might be $underbrace{underline{0}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{3}~underline{0}~underline{3}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}}_{6's}$
I would break down into cases based on the different ways that you can reach a total of $6$ using at most one $1$'s, at most two $2$'s, at most three $3$'s, etc..., where the terms appear in (non-strictly) increasing order, noting that we may stop at $6$ since if we continue past $6$ the sum would be larger than $6$ if we use any of those terms anyways.
The ways you can do this are $1+2+3$, $2+4$, $3+3$, $1+5$, $6$. You can check there are no other ways subject to our constraints.
Now, for each of these, let us figure out the number of ways to select which of the positions in our sequence receive the number in question and which receive the zeroes. For example in the case of $1+2+3$, there is one way to choose where to place the $1$. There are $2$ ways to choose how to place the $2$, and there are $3$ ways to choose how to place the $3$. This gives $1times 2times 3$ ways to have gotten a sum of $6$ using $1$'s, $2$'s and $3$'s and enough other zeroes to fill the spaces in the sequence subject to our constraints.
Similarly there are $2times 4, 1times 5$ and $6$ ways in the other cases respectively. The only one of our cases which doesn't follow this pattern is the case for $3+3$ which instead has $binom{3}{2}=3$ options for how to distribute the $0$'s instead.
This gives a grand total of:
$$1times 2times 3 + 2times 4 + 3 + 1times 5 + 6 = 6+8+3+5+6=28$$
Your function is effectively a generating function for the number of ways you can express a number as a sequence where the sum of the terms in the sequence is equal to our number and within the first $1$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $1$, within the next $2$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $2$, within the next $3$ terms all terms are either $0$ or $3$, etc... on up to the final $n$ terms where all terms are either $0$ or $n$.
$underbrace{underline{~}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}~underline{~}}_{6's}$
One such sequence might be $underbrace{underline{0}}_{1's}underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}}_{2's}underbrace{underline{3}~underline{0}~underline{3}}_{3's}cdots underbrace{underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}~underline{0}}_{6's}$
I would break down into cases based on the different ways that you can reach a total of $6$ using at most one $1$'s, at most two $2$'s, at most three $3$'s, etc..., where the terms appear in (non-strictly) increasing order, noting that we may stop at $6$ since if we continue past $6$ the sum would be larger than $6$ if we use any of those terms anyways.
The ways you can do this are $1+2+3$, $2+4$, $3+3$, $1+5$, $6$. You can check there are no other ways subject to our constraints.
Now, for each of these, let us figure out the number of ways to select which of the positions in our sequence receive the number in question and which receive the zeroes. For example in the case of $1+2+3$, there is one way to choose where to place the $1$. There are $2$ ways to choose how to place the $2$, and there are $3$ ways to choose how to place the $3$. This gives $1times 2times 3$ ways to have gotten a sum of $6$ using $1$'s, $2$'s and $3$'s and enough other zeroes to fill the spaces in the sequence subject to our constraints.
Similarly there are $2times 4, 1times 5$ and $6$ ways in the other cases respectively. The only one of our cases which doesn't follow this pattern is the case for $3+3$ which instead has $binom{3}{2}=3$ options for how to distribute the $0$'s instead.
This gives a grand total of:
$$1times 2times 3 + 2times 4 + 3 + 1times 5 + 6 = 6+8+3+5+6=28$$
answered Nov 22 at 18:52
JMoravitz
46.2k33784
46.2k33784
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
add a comment |
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
Actually I am 10 std student so is there a simpler method
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 19:02
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
If by "simpler" you mean "simpler" in terms of theory, yes, you can just expand your product fully... That seems like a terrible idea and waste of time to me though. You can save a bit more time by totally ignoring every term in the expansion and partial expansions where the exponent is larger than $6$ already. Even with that simplification though, this seems incredibly tedious and prone to error.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
In terms of simplest in terms of arithmetic, I doubt it gets any easier than what I did above.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 19:23
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Notet that the coefficient of $x^6$ is
begin{align}
sumprod_{k=1}^nbinom k{t_k}
end{align}
where the sum is taken over $0leq t_kleq k$ such that $sum_{k=1}^nkt_k=6$.
Note that $t_k=0$ for $k>6$.
The only possible sums $sum_{k=1}^6kt_k=6$ are:
begin{align}
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 1\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 1+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 1+3cdot 0+4cdot 1+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 2+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 1+3cdot 1+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0
end{align}
consequently, the required coefficient is
begin{align}
c
&=binom 10binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 50binom 61\
&+binom 11binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 51binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 21binom 30binom 41binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 20binom 32binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 11binom 21binom 31binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&=6+5+8+3+6\
&=28
end{align}
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Notet that the coefficient of $x^6$ is
begin{align}
sumprod_{k=1}^nbinom k{t_k}
end{align}
where the sum is taken over $0leq t_kleq k$ such that $sum_{k=1}^nkt_k=6$.
Note that $t_k=0$ for $k>6$.
The only possible sums $sum_{k=1}^6kt_k=6$ are:
begin{align}
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 1\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 1+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 1+3cdot 0+4cdot 1+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 2+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 1+3cdot 1+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0
end{align}
consequently, the required coefficient is
begin{align}
c
&=binom 10binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 50binom 61\
&+binom 11binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 51binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 21binom 30binom 41binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 20binom 32binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 11binom 21binom 31binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&=6+5+8+3+6\
&=28
end{align}
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Notet that the coefficient of $x^6$ is
begin{align}
sumprod_{k=1}^nbinom k{t_k}
end{align}
where the sum is taken over $0leq t_kleq k$ such that $sum_{k=1}^nkt_k=6$.
Note that $t_k=0$ for $k>6$.
The only possible sums $sum_{k=1}^6kt_k=6$ are:
begin{align}
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 1\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 1+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 1+3cdot 0+4cdot 1+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 2+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 1+3cdot 1+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0
end{align}
consequently, the required coefficient is
begin{align}
c
&=binom 10binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 50binom 61\
&+binom 11binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 51binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 21binom 30binom 41binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 20binom 32binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 11binom 21binom 31binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&=6+5+8+3+6\
&=28
end{align}
Notet that the coefficient of $x^6$ is
begin{align}
sumprod_{k=1}^nbinom k{t_k}
end{align}
where the sum is taken over $0leq t_kleq k$ such that $sum_{k=1}^nkt_k=6$.
Note that $t_k=0$ for $k>6$.
The only possible sums $sum_{k=1}^6kt_k=6$ are:
begin{align}
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 1\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 0+3cdot 0+4cdot 0+5cdot 1+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 1+3cdot 0+4cdot 1+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 0+2cdot 0+3cdot 2+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0\
6=1cdot 1+2cdot 1+3cdot 1+4cdot 0+5cdot 0+6cdot 0
end{align}
consequently, the required coefficient is
begin{align}
c
&=binom 10binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 50binom 61\
&+binom 11binom 20binom 30binom 40binom 51binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 21binom 30binom 41binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 10binom 20binom 32binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&+binom 11binom 21binom 31binom 40binom 50binom 60\
&=6+5+8+3+6\
&=28
end{align}
answered Nov 23 at 10:08
Fabio Lucchini
7,82311326
7,82311326
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Here is my attempt at pitching the answer as simply as possible. Hope it's easy to understand.
If you want a systematic way of multiplying those then remember that the $k^{text{th}}$ row of Pascal's triangle gives $a_{k,r}$, the coefficients of $x^r$ in the expansion of $(1+x)^k$:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1 &&&&\
3 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 &&&\
4 & 1 & 4 & 6 & 4 & 1 &&\
5 & 1 & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1 &\
6 & 1 & 6 & 15 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1end{array}$$
Remember also that each coefficient in row $k$ column $x^r$ is found by adding the coefficients in the previous row (row $k-1$) in columns $x^r$ and $x^{r-1}$. We represent this with the recurrence
$$a_{k,r}=a_{k-1,r}+a_{k-1,r-1}$$
Each row $k$ represents the expansion of $(1+x)times (1+x)^{k-1}$.
In a similar way we can expand your product
$$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2(1+x^3)^3cdots (1+x^k)^k$$
by creating a table of coefficients $b_{k,r}$ in which each row $k$ represents the resulting $x^r$ coefficients $(1+x^k)^k$ multiplied by the polynomial of the previous row.
Our recurrence is now
$$b_{k,r}=a_{k,0}b_{k-1,r}+a_{k,1}b_{k-1,r-k}+a_{k,2}b_{k-1,r-2k}+a_{k,3}b_{k-1,r-3k}+cdots$$
We can produce a table much like with Pascal's recurrence, viz:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 &\
3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 7 & 9\
4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 11 & 17\
5 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 22\
6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 28end{array}$$
Here the recurrence gives each successive row by multiplying the previous row coefficients by the relevant $a_{k,r}$ values and adding the result.
Since we only want $x^6$ there is no need to expand past row $6$ column $6$. We find that calculation gets easier with each successive row due to the recurrence ignoring $b_{k-1,r-s}$ terms where $s$ is not a multiple of $k$.
So our answer is, for all $k$
begin{array}{c|c}k & b_{k,6}\hline
0 & 0\
1 &0\
2 & 0\
3 &9\
4 &17\
5 &22\
6 &28\
7 &28\
vdots &vdots\end{array}
clearly the answer stays at $28$ for all $kge 6$.
Note: I've used $k$ instead of $n$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Here is my attempt at pitching the answer as simply as possible. Hope it's easy to understand.
If you want a systematic way of multiplying those then remember that the $k^{text{th}}$ row of Pascal's triangle gives $a_{k,r}$, the coefficients of $x^r$ in the expansion of $(1+x)^k$:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1 &&&&\
3 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 &&&\
4 & 1 & 4 & 6 & 4 & 1 &&\
5 & 1 & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1 &\
6 & 1 & 6 & 15 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1end{array}$$
Remember also that each coefficient in row $k$ column $x^r$ is found by adding the coefficients in the previous row (row $k-1$) in columns $x^r$ and $x^{r-1}$. We represent this with the recurrence
$$a_{k,r}=a_{k-1,r}+a_{k-1,r-1}$$
Each row $k$ represents the expansion of $(1+x)times (1+x)^{k-1}$.
In a similar way we can expand your product
$$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2(1+x^3)^3cdots (1+x^k)^k$$
by creating a table of coefficients $b_{k,r}$ in which each row $k$ represents the resulting $x^r$ coefficients $(1+x^k)^k$ multiplied by the polynomial of the previous row.
Our recurrence is now
$$b_{k,r}=a_{k,0}b_{k-1,r}+a_{k,1}b_{k-1,r-k}+a_{k,2}b_{k-1,r-2k}+a_{k,3}b_{k-1,r-3k}+cdots$$
We can produce a table much like with Pascal's recurrence, viz:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 &\
3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 7 & 9\
4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 11 & 17\
5 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 22\
6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 28end{array}$$
Here the recurrence gives each successive row by multiplying the previous row coefficients by the relevant $a_{k,r}$ values and adding the result.
Since we only want $x^6$ there is no need to expand past row $6$ column $6$. We find that calculation gets easier with each successive row due to the recurrence ignoring $b_{k-1,r-s}$ terms where $s$ is not a multiple of $k$.
So our answer is, for all $k$
begin{array}{c|c}k & b_{k,6}\hline
0 & 0\
1 &0\
2 & 0\
3 &9\
4 &17\
5 &22\
6 &28\
7 &28\
vdots &vdots\end{array}
clearly the answer stays at $28$ for all $kge 6$.
Note: I've used $k$ instead of $n$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Here is my attempt at pitching the answer as simply as possible. Hope it's easy to understand.
If you want a systematic way of multiplying those then remember that the $k^{text{th}}$ row of Pascal's triangle gives $a_{k,r}$, the coefficients of $x^r$ in the expansion of $(1+x)^k$:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1 &&&&\
3 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 &&&\
4 & 1 & 4 & 6 & 4 & 1 &&\
5 & 1 & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1 &\
6 & 1 & 6 & 15 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1end{array}$$
Remember also that each coefficient in row $k$ column $x^r$ is found by adding the coefficients in the previous row (row $k-1$) in columns $x^r$ and $x^{r-1}$. We represent this with the recurrence
$$a_{k,r}=a_{k-1,r}+a_{k-1,r-1}$$
Each row $k$ represents the expansion of $(1+x)times (1+x)^{k-1}$.
In a similar way we can expand your product
$$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2(1+x^3)^3cdots (1+x^k)^k$$
by creating a table of coefficients $b_{k,r}$ in which each row $k$ represents the resulting $x^r$ coefficients $(1+x^k)^k$ multiplied by the polynomial of the previous row.
Our recurrence is now
$$b_{k,r}=a_{k,0}b_{k-1,r}+a_{k,1}b_{k-1,r-k}+a_{k,2}b_{k-1,r-2k}+a_{k,3}b_{k-1,r-3k}+cdots$$
We can produce a table much like with Pascal's recurrence, viz:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 &\
3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 7 & 9\
4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 11 & 17\
5 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 22\
6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 28end{array}$$
Here the recurrence gives each successive row by multiplying the previous row coefficients by the relevant $a_{k,r}$ values and adding the result.
Since we only want $x^6$ there is no need to expand past row $6$ column $6$. We find that calculation gets easier with each successive row due to the recurrence ignoring $b_{k-1,r-s}$ terms where $s$ is not a multiple of $k$.
So our answer is, for all $k$
begin{array}{c|c}k & b_{k,6}\hline
0 & 0\
1 &0\
2 & 0\
3 &9\
4 &17\
5 &22\
6 &28\
7 &28\
vdots &vdots\end{array}
clearly the answer stays at $28$ for all $kge 6$.
Note: I've used $k$ instead of $n$.
Here is my attempt at pitching the answer as simply as possible. Hope it's easy to understand.
If you want a systematic way of multiplying those then remember that the $k^{text{th}}$ row of Pascal's triangle gives $a_{k,r}$, the coefficients of $x^r$ in the expansion of $(1+x)^k$:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 2 & 1 &&&&\
3 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 &&&\
4 & 1 & 4 & 6 & 4 & 1 &&\
5 & 1 & 5 & 10 & 10 & 5 & 1 &\
6 & 1 & 6 & 15 & 20 & 15 & 6 & 1end{array}$$
Remember also that each coefficient in row $k$ column $x^r$ is found by adding the coefficients in the previous row (row $k-1$) in columns $x^r$ and $x^{r-1}$. We represent this with the recurrence
$$a_{k,r}=a_{k-1,r}+a_{k-1,r-1}$$
Each row $k$ represents the expansion of $(1+x)times (1+x)^{k-1}$.
In a similar way we can expand your product
$$(1+x)(1+x^2)^2(1+x^3)^3cdots (1+x^k)^k$$
by creating a table of coefficients $b_{k,r}$ in which each row $k$ represents the resulting $x^r$ coefficients $(1+x^k)^k$ multiplied by the polynomial of the previous row.
Our recurrence is now
$$b_{k,r}=a_{k,0}b_{k-1,r}+a_{k,1}b_{k-1,r-k}+a_{k,2}b_{k-1,r-2k}+a_{k,3}b_{k-1,r-3k}+cdots$$
We can produce a table much like with Pascal's recurrence, viz:
$$begin{array}{c|cccccccc}
kbackslash r& x^0 & x^1 & x^2& x^3& x^4& x^5& x^6\hline
0 & 1 &&&&&&\
1 & 1 & 1 &&&&&\
2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 &\
3 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 7 & 9\
4 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 11 & 17\
5 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 22\
6 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 16 & 28end{array}$$
Here the recurrence gives each successive row by multiplying the previous row coefficients by the relevant $a_{k,r}$ values and adding the result.
Since we only want $x^6$ there is no need to expand past row $6$ column $6$. We find that calculation gets easier with each successive row due to the recurrence ignoring $b_{k-1,r-s}$ terms where $s$ is not a multiple of $k$.
So our answer is, for all $k$
begin{array}{c|c}k & b_{k,6}\hline
0 & 0\
1 &0\
2 & 0\
3 &9\
4 &17\
5 &22\
6 &28\
7 &28\
vdots &vdots\end{array}
clearly the answer stays at $28$ for all $kge 6$.
Note: I've used $k$ instead of $n$.
answered Nov 23 at 17:28
N. Shales
3,2431816
3,2431816
add a comment |
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%2f3009479%2fi-tried-this-question-by-using-pi-denoting-method-and-got-a-big-equation-what-to%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
Please clarify what you mean by 'pi denoting method'
– Daniel
Nov 22 at 18:31
1
I would assume that he is referring to how you can write summations with $sum$ you can write products with $prod$ and so he rewrote the above expression as $prod_{k=1}^n(1+x^k)^k$ but couldn't continue.
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:32
Yes I did they same but no further step can be done
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:34
1
With the numbers as small as they are, I would probably brute force this, noting that the coefficient is the same for all $ngeq 6$ so you might as well look only at $(1+x)(1+x^2)^2cdots (1+x^6)^6$
– JMoravitz
Nov 22 at 18:35
Yes but don't you think some coefficients would be skipped
– Noone Noone
Nov 22 at 18:38