What is wrong with my summation formula?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DerekZ10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Summation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding a general formula for the number of onto (surjective) functions from a set M to a set N. The user is attempting to verify their formula against a problem from Chegg but is encountering discrepancies. They realize that a critical error in their equation involves mislabeling variables, specifically confusing (m-k) with (n-k). After correcting this mistake, they confirm that their non-iterative equation was accurate. The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful variable management in mathematical formulations.
DerekZ10
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Im trying to find a general formula I can store in my calculator that can find the number of onto (surjective) functions exists for a relation of when M is mapped to N.

I can't seem to find a nice formula for it, but based on the below material I will show you what I have developed.

From: Discrete Mathemeatics and Its Applications 7th Edition Rosen pg. 561
46rbw7h.png
From: Discrete Mathemeatics and Its Applications 7th Edition Rosen pg. 512
UY3OIud.png


Random Chegg Problem from Google Search I'm using to verify with:
wJUOwNS.png
Here is what I've formed, written out:
NqrU3l3.jpg


In the TI nSpire CX CAS, it's written like this:
iwIkElK.jpg


And as you can see, the chegg problem I'm trying to verify it with doesn't match!
But I think it should! If I manually iterate the function like so:

gyDYmtH.jpg
The values are correct and what Chegg is showing. What have I done wrong in my equation?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Did you check that your summation formula matches the version that doesn't use sigma notation? i.e are all your ##m##s and ##n##s where they're supposed to be?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Wow, good call! I don't know how I constantly was missing that the (m-k) portion that should have been (n-k). And I even had it right in the non iterative equation.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K