Stuck on the probability of rolling 'p' with 'n' s-sided dice

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the probability of rolling a specific total 'p' with 'n' s-sided dice. Participants are examining the mathematical derivation involving binomial expansions and Taylor series to find the coefficient of the term corresponding to 'x^p'. The focus is on understanding the summation indices and the logic behind the manipulation of these series.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the summation indices and the transition from one form of the equation to another, particularly regarding the limits of summation.
  • Another participant proposes that the condition ##k \leq n## must hold for the indices, leading to specific boundaries for ##l## in terms of ##k##.
  • A later reply suggests rewriting the last summation in terms of ##l##, leading to a new expression for the summation limits based on the relationship between ##k## and ##l##.
  • One participant clarifies that the coefficient of ##x^p## can be factored out, which simplifies the understanding of how the coefficients from two different sums can be combined.
  • Another participant questions the condition under which the binomial coefficient simplifies, specifically when ##p-sk-n > 0##, leading to a further exploration of the implications of this condition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the manipulation of the summation indices and the logic behind the derivation. While some insights are shared, there is no consensus on the clarity of the final steps or the reasoning behind certain transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations in understanding the boundaries of summation and the conditions under which certain mathematical identities hold. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of these conditions without reaching a definitive resolution.

Potatochip911
Messages
317
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Having trouble with math involving two series being multiplied together.
Hi, I've been following the derivation of wolfram mathworld for this problem and I'm running into some trouble regarding the summation indices. Currently I am at the step where we have found that (it's pretty much just binomial expansion and taylor series to get to this point)

$$ f(x) = x^n\left[\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^kx^{sk}\right ]\sum_{l=0}^\infty\binom{n+l-1}{l}x^l $$

Now we're interested in finding the coefficient for the term ##x^p## to find how many possibilities there are to obtain that exponent ##p##. This gives the equality $$p = n + sk + l$$ which we can use to put ##l## in terms of ##k## in the 2nd summation via $$l = p-n-sk$$

This gives

$$x^n\left[\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^kx^{sk}\right ]\sum_k \binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}x^{p-n-sk} $$

For the new summation indices we have ##k = (p-n-l)/s##, plugging in ##l=0## and ##l=\infty## gives lower index ##(p-n)/s## and upper index ##-\infty## which doesn't make sense. On wolfram they are just claiming that the coefficient of ##x^p## is given by

$$c = \sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k\binom{n}{k}\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}$$

I'm having trouble understanding this as they are simply multiplying the coefficients for the two different series together. If we consider as an example:

$$\sum_{k=0}^1\binom{3}{k}x^k\sum_{k=0}^1\binom{2}{k}x^k=(1+3x)(1+2x)=1+(3+2)x+6x^2 = 1+5x+6x^2$$

then multiplying the coefficients together only results in the correct coefficient for their proposed solution when there are no "interfering" (idk the proper math word) terms.

To summarize, I'm having trouble understanding how in their solution they don't change the limits of the sum by plugging in ##l##, and I'm also confused by the logic/math surrounding the coefficient of ##x^p##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let us assume that ##k\leq n## has to hold for possible indices ##l##.

Then ##0\leq k \leq n## and thus ##p-n \leq l=p-n-sk \leq p-n-sn## which gives the claimed boundaries.

Now we check whether they match. Therefore we must check ##l+sk+n = p##.
Our value for ##l## at position ##k## is ##l=p-sk-n## (formula for c), hence ##(p-sk-n)+sk+n=p## holds.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Potatochip911
fresh_42 said:
Let us assume that ##k\leq n## has to hold for possible indices ##l##.

Then ##0\leq k \leq n## and thus ##p-n \leq l=p-n-sk \leq p-n-sn## which gives the claimed boundaries.

I'm still finding this quite confusing. I understand what you're saying here that these are the boundaries for ##l## using ##k##. Then it seems like the last summation can be written as

$$
\sum_{l=p-n}^{p-n-sn}\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}x^{p-sk-n}
$$

but since ##l## has been replaced we also need to replace the summation index now using ##l=p-sk-n## which results in

$$
p-sk-n=p-n\Rightarrow k=0 \mbox{, for the lower bound} \\
p-sk-n=p-n-sn\Rightarrow k=n\mbox{, for the upper bound}
$$

so the last sum can now be rewritten as

$$
\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}x^{p-sk-n}
$$

Returning to the original expression (I accidentally had the first sum going to infinity in the orginal post)

$$
x^n\left [\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^kx^{sk}\right ] \sum_{k=0}^n\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}x^{p-sk-n}
$$

but ##x^p## and ##x^{-n}## are independent of the index ##k## therefore we can pull them out resulting in

$$
x^n\cdot x^{p-n}\left [\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^kx^{sk}\right ] \sum_{k=0}^n\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}x^{-sk} \\

= x^p\left [\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}(-1)^kx^{sk}\right ] \sum_{k=0}^n\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}x^{-sk}
$$

Now I'm still struggling to see why we can just take the coefficients from two different sums.

Edit: Ok I see the key insight now. Since we have ##x^p## factored out on the outside then the only terms that will stay at ##x^p## will be terms with ##x^0## which happens when ##k## in the first sum equals ##k## in the second sum. Now it's clear the coefficient is given by ##\sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^k\binom{n}{k}\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}##

Now I'm just stuck understanding this last step that since ##p-sk-n>0## only when ##k <(p-n)/s## that $$\binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n} = \binom{p-sk-1}{n-1}$$
 
Last edited:
Let's write it this way:
\begin{align*}
f(x)&=\left( \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_kx^{n+sk} \right)\cdot \left( \sum_{l=0}^\infty b_lx^l \right)\\
&= \sum_{k,l = 0}^\infty a_kb_lx^{n+sk+l}\\
&=\sum_{p=0}^\infty \sum_{n+sk+l=p} a_kb_lx^p\\
&=\sum_{p=0}^\infty x^p \left( \sum_{k=0}^n \underbrace{ a_kb_{\underbrace{p-n-sk}_{\text{ former }l}} }_{=c_k} \right)
\end{align*}
Now what's left to calculate is
\begin{align*}
c_k&=a_k \cdot b_{p-n-sk}\\&=(-1)^k\cdot \binom{n}{k} \cdot \binom{n+(p-n-sk)-1}{p-n-sk}\\&=(-1)^k\cdot \binom{n}{k} \cdot \binom{p-sk-1}{p-sk-n}
\end{align*}
and ##c=c_p=\sum_{k=0}^n c_k##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Potatochip911

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K