Anonymous user
Talk:9 billion names of God the integer: Difference between revisions
Talk:9 billion names of God the integer (view source)
Revision as of 01:57, 3 May 2013
, 11 years ago→task clarification: symmetry is overrated
(==generating function for P(n)== clarifying if C's (shown) generating function is Euler's (is it possibly missing a ½ multiplier?) -- ~~~~) |
(→task clarification: symmetry is overrated) |
||
Line 2:
I presume from the task requirement that the output is to more-or-less look like the (partial) number triangle shown, that is, a symmetric isosceles triangle in the manner of Pascal's triangle. Producing a left-justified triangle doesn't look or feel right. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:That's really kinda silly, y'know? And you can't do it perfectly symmetrical anyway unless you can half-space. In any case, it's arguably <em>not</em> a symmetrical triangle after row 4... --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 01:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The 2nd part of the task's requirement states that the ''integer partition function'' ('''IPF''') is the same as the sum of the ''n''-th row of the number triangle (constructed above), and furthermore, this is to be demonstrated. None of the examples (so far) has shown the last line of any of the ''P''(23), ''P''(123), ''P''(1234), and ''P''(12345) for this purpose. Indeed, it's doable, but the last line of the bigger number triangles would be huge. Are the program examples supposed to sum the last row of the number triangle ''and'' verify via calculating the '''IPF''' via formulaic means? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
| |||