The discussion revolves around deriving the lattice growth formula, specifically L(n) = n^2 (n + 1)^2 / 4. Participants explore the counting of squares and rectangles in n x n matrices, seeking to understand the derivation process and the historical context of the formula.
One participant, MG, expresses interest in understanding the derivation of the lattice growth formula and shares initial observations from counting squares and rectangles in 2x2 and 3x3 matrices.
Another participant questions the clarity of what the lattice growth formula is counting, indicating a lack of information available online.
MG clarifies that L(2) and L(3) represent the total number of squares and rectangles in 2x2 and 3x3 matrices, respectively.
A participant outlines a systematic approach to counting rectangles by fixing the bottom-left corner and determining the possible positions for the top-right corner, leading to a formulaic representation.
There is a discussion about the mathematical representation of the counting process, including the use of summation symbols and pseudo-code to describe the algorithm for counting rectangles.
One participant points out a potential typo in the mathematical expressions, suggesting that the summation should yield n-i instead of n-1, which is acknowledged as a mistake by another participant.
Further clarification is provided on how to evaluate the summation expressions, including detailed steps to derive the final form of the expression related to the counting process.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally engage in clarifying and refining the mathematical expressions and counting methods, but there is no consensus on the historical derivation of the formula or its broader implications.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include potential typos in mathematical expressions and the need for clearer definitions of terms used in the discussion. The derivation process relies on specific assumptions about counting methods and matrix configurations.
#1
musicgold
303
19
Hi,
I am trying to understand how one can derive the lattice growth formula of
L (n) = n^2 ( n + 1)^2 / 4
I looked at 2x2 and 3x3 matrices and could count the squares and rectangles in the figure.
L (2) = 9, L (3) =36 and so on.
However, I am more interested in finding out how the first person who derived this formula would have gone about doing it. Any ideas or pointers are much appreciated.
What exactly is that supposed to be counting? I tried googling lattice growth formula and your post is the only place it's mentioned on the internet
#3
musicgold
303
19
Office_Shredder said:
What exactly is that supposed to be counting?
Sorry about the confusion, maybe I should have been more clear. All the possible squares and rectangles in a 2x2 matrix are represented as L(2) and there are 9 such squares / rectangles. Please see the attached doc. Similarly L(3) represents all possible squares and rectangles in a 3x3 matrix.
Attachments
2x2 matrix - Copy.doc
24 KB
· Views: 280
#4
Edgardo
707
17
- Take for example the 2x2 square (case n=2). Mark the nodes in the grid such that you
have a total of 9 nodes. We also introduce a cartesian coordinate system such that
we can identify each node via its coordinates (see attachment).
- The question is how do you systematically search for rectangles?
We first notice that a rectangle is completely determined by its bottom-left corner and top-right corner.
- Let's leave the bottom-left corner fixed. How many rectangles are there with
the bottom-left corner fixed at (0,0)?
To answer this question we let the top-right corner move to all allowed positions:
We now have to find a formula for the general case.
Our tactic is to move the bottom-left corner and count the number
of possible positions for the right-top corner.
A pseudo-code for a function that calculates the number
of rectangles is given below:
I remember having encountered this problem in the excellent book "Thinking mathematically" by John Mason.
Attachments
lattice.png
12.8 KB
· Views: 501
#5
musicgold
303
19
Edgardo,
First of all, thanks from the bottom of my heart. That is really helpful.
I understood the most of your solution except two points.
\sum_{x=i+1}^n 1 = n-(i+1)+1 = n-1
I feel that this should be n-i
Also in the following equation,
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)(n-j)= ... = (n-j) \cdot \left( n\cdot \frac{(n+1)}{2} \right)
I am not sure how you got the second part of the answer. I think
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} 1= (n-i)
#6
Edgardo
707
17
musicgold said:
Edgardo,
First of all, thanks from the bottom of my heart. That is really helpful.
I understood the most of your solution except two points.
\sum_{x=i+1}^n 1 = n-(i+1)+1 = n-1
I feel that this should be n-i
Oops, you are right, that's a typo. It should indeed be n-i .
musicgold said:
Also in the following equation,
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)(n-j)= ... = (n-j) \cdot \left( n\cdot \frac{(n+1)}{2} \right)
I am not sure how you got the second part of the answer. I think
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} 1= (n-i)
Let's examine the expression
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)(n-j)
Since we sum over the index i we can pull things that are independent of i
in front of the summation symbol. We see that (n-j) is independent of i:
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)(n-j) = (n-j) \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)
Let's concentrate on the sub-expression
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)
The sum is applied to n and to (-i) and we get:
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} n - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i
These sums are evaluated:
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} n = n \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} 1 = n \cdot n = n^2
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = \frac{(n-1)n}{2}
For the last evaluation I've used http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math101/notes/integration/sums.html".
We get for the sub-expression:
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} n - \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} i = n^2 - \frac{(n-1)n}{2} = n^2 - \frac{n^2-n}{2} = \frac{n^2+n}{2}= \left( n\cdot \frac{(n+1)}{2} \right)
Plugging this sub-expression into the expression yields:
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i)(n-j) = (n-j) \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (n-i) = (n-j) \left( n\cdot \frac{(n+1)}{2} \right)
Last edited by a moderator:
#7
musicgold
303
19
Edgardo,
Now it is clear to me. Thank you very much. Appreciate your efforts.