Computing S(n,3) Stirling number of 2nd kind

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computing Stirling
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on computing the Stirling number of the second kind, specifically S(n,3). The user applied the recurrence relation S(n,k) = kS(n-1,k) + S(n-1,k-1) and derived the formula S(n,3) = (3^(n-1) + 1)/2 - 2^(n-1). Additionally, the user inquired about a more intuitive method for understanding the distribution of n distinguishable balls into 3 indistinguishable boxes without leaving any box empty. The conversation suggests that reviewing the Wikipedia article on Stirling numbers may provide further insights and visualizations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Stirling numbers of the second kind
  • Familiarity with recurrence relations in combinatorics
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical induction
  • Concept of distinguishable vs. indistinguishable objects
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties and applications of Stirling numbers of the second kind
  • Learn about combinatorial proofs involving recurrence relations
  • Explore the connections between Stirling numbers and binomial coefficients
  • Review visual representations of Stirling numbers, such as triangular tables
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying combinatorics, and anyone interested in advanced counting techniques will benefit from this discussion.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


Compute ##S(n,3)##.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


To compute this I used the fact that ##S(n,2) = 2^{n-1}-1## and used the recurrence relation ##S(n,k) = kS(n-1,k) + S(n-1,k-1)##, and used induction to get that ##S(n,3)=\frac{3^{n-1}+1}{2}-2^{n-1}##.

But is there a quicker way to do this? Is there a way to just see plainly, as in, just counting how many ways we could put ##n## distinguishable balls into ##3## indistinguishable boxes where no box is empty? I tried but it seems difficult.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there a way to just see plainly
For me at least, initially obscure mathematical relationships, that probably would on PF be regarded as part of material of intermediate mathematical difficulty level, are usually, but not always, plain enough after someone else sees them, and after I painstakingly choke through some explanations.

Once in a while I might notice or discover something "on my own", and find out later that it was published only, e.g., 300 years ago, but that's rare, at least for me.

If you haven't already looked at the wikipedia article on Stirling numbers of the second kind, I think you might be likely upon reading it to gain some new-to-you inights on your question. I think you're apparently already pretty close to a reasonably good understanding. If you skip ahead to the triangular table illustration, and read enough of the material to understand how it compares to Pascal's triangle for a binomial distribution, that, and the rest of the article, may help you to arrive at a visualization that you find satisfying.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K