MHB Can You Solve These Combinatorial Equations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IHateFactorial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Combinatorics
IHateFactorial
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
*sigh* As the title says, they are the bane of my existence... I'd really appreciate it if you guys could help me with these bloody things.

1. Prove that 3C0 + 3C1 + 3C2 + 3C3 = 23 Generalize the formula for any value of r and n such that 0<=r<=n.

2. Prove that n-1Cr + n-1Cr-1 = nCr

3. i) How many solutions (in non-negative integers) are there of the equation x + y + z = 8?

3. ii) How many solutions (in non-negative integers) are there of the equation x + y + z = 18?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IHateFactorial said:
*sigh* As the title says, they are the bane of my existence... I'd really appreciate it if you guys could help me with these bloody things.

1. Prove that 3C0 + 3C1 + 3C2 + 3C3 = 23 Generalize the formula for any value of r and n such that 0<=r<=n.

2. Prove that n-1Cr + n-1Cr-1 = nCr

3. i) How many solutions (in non-negative integers) are there of the equation x + y + z = 8?

3. ii) How many solutions (in non-negative integers) are there of the equation x + y + z = 18?

Have you tried anything? The first two are just using the choose formula to simplify each...
 
Yes, I have. I do know that the first one simplifies to 1 + 3 + 3 + 1 which is 8, but the generalizing part stumps me.

As for the second, I have absolutely NO idea how to prove Pascal's Identity, aside from putting in the variables into their Combination formula.

Also, thanks for the sarcastic response, appreciate it.
 
IHateFactorial said:
Yes, I have. I do know that the first one simplifies to 1 + 3 + 3 + 1 which is 8, but the generalizing part stumps me.

As for the second, I have absolutely NO idea how to prove Pascal's Identity, aside from putting in the variables into their Combination formula.

Also, thanks for the sarcastic response, appreciate it.

You post a thread which says how much you hate what you are doing, and post four questions without showing that you have made any effort (which is one of the rules of this forum) and you wonder why you get a sarcastic response?

But your idea of putting the variables into the combination formula is a good one, try it!
 
IHateFactorial said:
...Also, thanks for the sarcastic response, appreciate it.

Prove It did not post sarcastically...he was merely following our policy to sincerely ask users who posts questions without any work shown what they have tried. This helps us help you more efficiently, if we know where you are with the material. It is why we have MHB Rule #11 and we also ask in MHB Rule #8 that you post no more than two question in your initial post. When you post more than that, threads can become convoluted as several people might be trying to help with different questions simultaneously in the same thread.

For the first question, try applying the binomial theorem to the expansion of:

$$(1+1)^n$$
 
For #2, you've got $$\dfrac{(n-1)!}{r!(n-1-r)!}+\dfrac{(n-1)!}{(r-1)!(n-r)!}$$

which may be written as

$$(n-1)!\left(\dfrac{(r-1)!(n-r)!+r!(n-1-r)!}{r!(n-1-r)!(r-1)!(n-r)!}\right)$$

Now think of how, using the properties of factorials, you can rewrite the nominator as

$$(r-1)!\cdot(n-1-r)!\cdot n$$.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top