MHB The Telephone Numbering Plan in North America: Counting Possible Numbers

bunyonb
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
The Telephone Numbering Plan The North American numbering plan (NANP) specifies the format of telephone numbers in the U.S., Canada, and many other parts of North America. A telephone number in this plan consists of 10 digits, which are split into a three-digit area code, a three-digit office code, and a four-digit station code. Because of signaling considerations, there are certain restrictions on some of these digits. To specify the allowable format, let X denote a digit that can take any of the values 0 through 9, let N denote a digit that can take any of the values 2 through 9, and let Y denote a digit that must be a 0 or a 1. Two numbering plans, which will be called the old plan, and the new plan, will be discussed. (The old plan, in use in the 1960s, has been replaced by the new plan, but the recent rapid growth in demand for new numbers for mobile phones and devices will eventually make even this new plan obsolete. In this example, the letters used to represent digits follow the conventions of the North American Numbering Plan.) As will be shown, the new plan allows the use of more numbers. In the old plan, the formats of the area code, office code, and station code are NYX, NNX, and XXXX, respectively, so that telephone numbers had the form NYX-NNX-XXXX. In the new plan, the formats of these codes are NXX, NXX, and XXXX, respectively, so that telephone numbers have the form
NXX-NXX-XXXX.

How many different North American telephone numbers are possible under the old plan and under the new plan?

MY ATTEMPT at answering this question:


It is said that there are two ways to count the product rule and the sum rule.

The product rule says that procedure can be broken down into a sequence of two
tasks. If there are {n}^{1} ways to do the first task, and for each of these ways of doing the first task, there are {n}^{2} ways to do the second task, then there are {n}^{1}{n}^{2} ways to do the procedure.

Thus, by the product rule there are 8*2*10=160 area codes with format NYX and 8*10*10=800 area codes with format NXX. Similarly, by the product rule, there are 8*8*10=640 office codes with format NNX. The product rule also shows that there are 10*10*10*10. = 10,000 station codes with format XXXX. Consequently, applying the product rule again, it follows that under the old plan there are 160*640*10,000=1,024,000,000. Different numbers available in North America. Under the new plan, there are 800*800*10,000=6,400,000,000 different numbers available. Am I on the right track?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your application of the product rule is correct, and so just to check your math:

Old plan:

$$N_O=2\cdot8^3\cdot10^6=1,024,000,000\quad\checkmark$$

New plan:

$$N_N=8^2\cdot10^8=6,400,000,000\quad\checkmark$$
 
MarkFL said:
Your application of the product rule is correct, and so just to check your math:

Old plan:

$$N_O=2\cdot8^3\cdot10^6=1,024,000,000\quad\checkmark$$

New plan:

$$N_N=8^2\cdot10^8=6,400,000,000\quad\checkmark$$

Thank you. For some reason the Latex format doesn't render for me.
 
bunyonb said:
Thank you. For some reason the Latex format doesn't render for me.

You have to wrap your code in tags, the easiest of which to use are the $$$$ tags, which can be generated by using the $\displaystyle \sum$ button on the toolbar. :)
 
MarkFL said:
You have to wrap your code in tags, the easiest of which to use are the $$$$ tags, which can be generated by using the $\displaystyle \sum$ button on the toolbar. :)

Ah ok thank you for this information.
 
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.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
2
Replies
67
Views
14K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Back
Top