How to calculate 200C65 (for binomial distribution formula)

socrates_1
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have tried to calculate 200C65 on my calculator but the calculator gives an error. Do u know how to do it?
I also tried to calculate it through the formula with the ! but doesn't give an answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
socrates_1 said:
Hi, I have tried to calculate 200C65 on my calculator but the calculator gives an error. Do u know how to do it?
I also tried to calculate it through the formula with the ! but doesn't give an answer.

I don't know the limit on number size for your calculator, but the simplest brute force solution would be:
(200/65)(199/64)...(136/1)
 
Stirling's formula is a way of approximating large factorials.

Mathman's approach is easy and exact if you have a computer or programmable calculator, but error prone if you are doing it manually. Stirling's approximation is (according to Wikipedia) accurate to about 1% for 65!. [strike]That's fine for your application, since you know that 200!/135!65! must be an integer - just use the approximation, do the division, and round off.[/strike]

Edit: Sorry - it's been a long day. 1% of 200! is a big number; my approach will not do if you need an exact answer. However, it'll tell you right off if your calculator can handle the answer. Also, you can use the upper and lower bound formulae to get a sanity check on your answer.

Off to bed now...
 
Last edited:
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