How many integer solutions are there to this equation?
How many nonnegative integer solutions are there to: $x_1 + 2x_2 + x_3 = 10$? I am able to do this when it is simply $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 10$ but by multiplying $x_2$ by 2 has confused me.
combinatorics
|
show 2 more comments
How many nonnegative integer solutions are there to: $x_1 + 2x_2 + x_3 = 10$? I am able to do this when it is simply $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 10$ but by multiplying $x_2$ by 2 has confused me.
combinatorics
1
Did you mean integer solutions (there are infinitely many) or perhaps nonnegative integer solutions?
– hardmath
Dec 2 at 16:09
I assume you mean either positive or non-negative integers? Either way, given how small the values are, easiest is probably to run through the possible values of $x_2$ and work case by case.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 16:09
I meant non negative integers sorry
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:24
@lulu I understand we can go case by case, but I would like to learn how to do it using combinations and permutations as it will help me in other future problems where I wouldn't be able to go case by case.
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:41
1
Problems with this sort of constraint can be very hard to count for large collections. In this case, with only three variables, it is easy since, for any fixed $x_2$ the possible $(x_1,x_3)$ are determined by $x_1$, say. I don't think there is any sort of one-size-fits-all approach to all possible linear constraints, in general.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 17:04
|
show 2 more comments
How many nonnegative integer solutions are there to: $x_1 + 2x_2 + x_3 = 10$? I am able to do this when it is simply $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 10$ but by multiplying $x_2$ by 2 has confused me.
combinatorics
How many nonnegative integer solutions are there to: $x_1 + 2x_2 + x_3 = 10$? I am able to do this when it is simply $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 10$ but by multiplying $x_2$ by 2 has confused me.
combinatorics
combinatorics
edited Dec 3 at 11:38
N. F. Taussig
43.5k93355
43.5k93355
asked Dec 2 at 16:08
Noobcoder
274
274
1
Did you mean integer solutions (there are infinitely many) or perhaps nonnegative integer solutions?
– hardmath
Dec 2 at 16:09
I assume you mean either positive or non-negative integers? Either way, given how small the values are, easiest is probably to run through the possible values of $x_2$ and work case by case.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 16:09
I meant non negative integers sorry
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:24
@lulu I understand we can go case by case, but I would like to learn how to do it using combinations and permutations as it will help me in other future problems where I wouldn't be able to go case by case.
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:41
1
Problems with this sort of constraint can be very hard to count for large collections. In this case, with only three variables, it is easy since, for any fixed $x_2$ the possible $(x_1,x_3)$ are determined by $x_1$, say. I don't think there is any sort of one-size-fits-all approach to all possible linear constraints, in general.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 17:04
|
show 2 more comments
1
Did you mean integer solutions (there are infinitely many) or perhaps nonnegative integer solutions?
– hardmath
Dec 2 at 16:09
I assume you mean either positive or non-negative integers? Either way, given how small the values are, easiest is probably to run through the possible values of $x_2$ and work case by case.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 16:09
I meant non negative integers sorry
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:24
@lulu I understand we can go case by case, but I would like to learn how to do it using combinations and permutations as it will help me in other future problems where I wouldn't be able to go case by case.
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:41
1
Problems with this sort of constraint can be very hard to count for large collections. In this case, with only three variables, it is easy since, for any fixed $x_2$ the possible $(x_1,x_3)$ are determined by $x_1$, say. I don't think there is any sort of one-size-fits-all approach to all possible linear constraints, in general.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 17:04
1
1
Did you mean integer solutions (there are infinitely many) or perhaps nonnegative integer solutions?
– hardmath
Dec 2 at 16:09
Did you mean integer solutions (there are infinitely many) or perhaps nonnegative integer solutions?
– hardmath
Dec 2 at 16:09
I assume you mean either positive or non-negative integers? Either way, given how small the values are, easiest is probably to run through the possible values of $x_2$ and work case by case.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 16:09
I assume you mean either positive or non-negative integers? Either way, given how small the values are, easiest is probably to run through the possible values of $x_2$ and work case by case.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 16:09
I meant non negative integers sorry
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:24
I meant non negative integers sorry
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:24
@lulu I understand we can go case by case, but I would like to learn how to do it using combinations and permutations as it will help me in other future problems where I wouldn't be able to go case by case.
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:41
@lulu I understand we can go case by case, but I would like to learn how to do it using combinations and permutations as it will help me in other future problems where I wouldn't be able to go case by case.
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:41
1
1
Problems with this sort of constraint can be very hard to count for large collections. In this case, with only three variables, it is easy since, for any fixed $x_2$ the possible $(x_1,x_3)$ are determined by $x_1$, say. I don't think there is any sort of one-size-fits-all approach to all possible linear constraints, in general.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 17:04
Problems with this sort of constraint can be very hard to count for large collections. In this case, with only three variables, it is easy since, for any fixed $x_2$ the possible $(x_1,x_3)$ are determined by $x_1$, say. I don't think there is any sort of one-size-fits-all approach to all possible linear constraints, in general.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 17:04
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Like mentioned in the comments, this sort of problems must be solved pretty much case by case, but let's try to solve at least a little bit more general problem than the particular one asked, namely how many non-negative integer solutions does the equation
$$x_1 + tx_2 + x_3 = n$$
have, where $t, ninmathbb{N}$.
This can be done by letting $x_1$ run through $1, 2, dots, n$ and checking how many values the variable $x_2$ can take, so that $x_1+tx_2 leq n$. The third variable $x_3$ will then always be forced and the solution will work (this happens because the coefficient of $x_3$ is $1$, otherwise $n-x_1-tx_2$ would need to be a multiple of the coefficient of $x_3$ to get an integer solution).
Ok, so if $x_1 = j$, for $n-j-tx_2$ to remain nonnegative, we must have
$$x_2 leq frac{n-j}{t}$$
and $x_2$ can take the values $0, 1, dots, lfloor frac{n-j}{t} rfloor$. Therefore the number of solutions is
$$sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{n-j}{t} rightrfloor right)
= sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor right)
$$
$$
=n+1 + sum_{j=0}^n leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor
$$
(Above we just flipped the sum, i.e change of index $jto n-j$ for a nicer looking formula).
For the particular case $t=2$, we can simplify this by considering cases $n$ even and $n$ odd, splitting the sum to even and odd parts and using the fact that $sum_{k=0}^r k= frac{r(r+1)}{2}$ to
$$n+1 + left lfloor frac{n^2}{4} right rfloor$$
and for $n=10$ we get $36$ solutions.
add a comment |
$x_2$ may be $0...5$. $x_1$ may be $0.. ,10-2x_2$ and $x_3$ is fixed at $10-2x_2 - x_1$
So there are
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{10-2x_2} 1$
Which may be reindexed as
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=10; -1}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 (2x+1) = $
$6^2 = 36$
add a comment |
Perhaps the hope for any general methods was too hastily discarded. We can use generating functions.
If $a_n$ denotes the number of solutions to
$$c_1x_1 + c_2x_2+dots + c_kx_k = n$$
$$x_j geq 0$$
Then the generating function $A(z) = sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_nz^n$ is given by
$$A(z) = frac{1}{(1-z^{c_1})(1-z^{c_2})dots(1-z^{c_k})}$$
This comes from the fact that compositions of $n$ into $k$ parts corresponds to a integer-sequence of length $k$. Now, you can use a size-function $xmapsto c_jx$ for each class of integers $cal{I}_j$ in the product $cal{I}_1 times cal{I}_2 dots times cal{I}_k$, so you have the correct equation. The generating function of the class $cal{I}_j$ is $frac{1}{1-z^{c_j}}$ because ${cal{I}}_j = text{SEQ}({ Z })$ and the element $Z$ has size $c_j$.
I don't know if this actually helps, maybe you can do partial fraction expansion of $A(z)$.
By the way, notice how in the case when all $c_j=1$ this amounts to the usual compositions:
$$A(z) = left( frac{1}{1-z} right)^k = (1-z)^{-k} = sum_{j=0}^infty {{-k}choose{j}} (-z)^{j}$$
so $a_j = {{-k}choose{j}} (-1)^{j} = {{k+j-1}choose{k-1}}$.
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022817%2fhow-many-integer-solutions-are-there-to-this-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Like mentioned in the comments, this sort of problems must be solved pretty much case by case, but let's try to solve at least a little bit more general problem than the particular one asked, namely how many non-negative integer solutions does the equation
$$x_1 + tx_2 + x_3 = n$$
have, where $t, ninmathbb{N}$.
This can be done by letting $x_1$ run through $1, 2, dots, n$ and checking how many values the variable $x_2$ can take, so that $x_1+tx_2 leq n$. The third variable $x_3$ will then always be forced and the solution will work (this happens because the coefficient of $x_3$ is $1$, otherwise $n-x_1-tx_2$ would need to be a multiple of the coefficient of $x_3$ to get an integer solution).
Ok, so if $x_1 = j$, for $n-j-tx_2$ to remain nonnegative, we must have
$$x_2 leq frac{n-j}{t}$$
and $x_2$ can take the values $0, 1, dots, lfloor frac{n-j}{t} rfloor$. Therefore the number of solutions is
$$sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{n-j}{t} rightrfloor right)
= sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor right)
$$
$$
=n+1 + sum_{j=0}^n leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor
$$
(Above we just flipped the sum, i.e change of index $jto n-j$ for a nicer looking formula).
For the particular case $t=2$, we can simplify this by considering cases $n$ even and $n$ odd, splitting the sum to even and odd parts and using the fact that $sum_{k=0}^r k= frac{r(r+1)}{2}$ to
$$n+1 + left lfloor frac{n^2}{4} right rfloor$$
and for $n=10$ we get $36$ solutions.
add a comment |
Like mentioned in the comments, this sort of problems must be solved pretty much case by case, but let's try to solve at least a little bit more general problem than the particular one asked, namely how many non-negative integer solutions does the equation
$$x_1 + tx_2 + x_3 = n$$
have, where $t, ninmathbb{N}$.
This can be done by letting $x_1$ run through $1, 2, dots, n$ and checking how many values the variable $x_2$ can take, so that $x_1+tx_2 leq n$. The third variable $x_3$ will then always be forced and the solution will work (this happens because the coefficient of $x_3$ is $1$, otherwise $n-x_1-tx_2$ would need to be a multiple of the coefficient of $x_3$ to get an integer solution).
Ok, so if $x_1 = j$, for $n-j-tx_2$ to remain nonnegative, we must have
$$x_2 leq frac{n-j}{t}$$
and $x_2$ can take the values $0, 1, dots, lfloor frac{n-j}{t} rfloor$. Therefore the number of solutions is
$$sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{n-j}{t} rightrfloor right)
= sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor right)
$$
$$
=n+1 + sum_{j=0}^n leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor
$$
(Above we just flipped the sum, i.e change of index $jto n-j$ for a nicer looking formula).
For the particular case $t=2$, we can simplify this by considering cases $n$ even and $n$ odd, splitting the sum to even and odd parts and using the fact that $sum_{k=0}^r k= frac{r(r+1)}{2}$ to
$$n+1 + left lfloor frac{n^2}{4} right rfloor$$
and for $n=10$ we get $36$ solutions.
add a comment |
Like mentioned in the comments, this sort of problems must be solved pretty much case by case, but let's try to solve at least a little bit more general problem than the particular one asked, namely how many non-negative integer solutions does the equation
$$x_1 + tx_2 + x_3 = n$$
have, where $t, ninmathbb{N}$.
This can be done by letting $x_1$ run through $1, 2, dots, n$ and checking how many values the variable $x_2$ can take, so that $x_1+tx_2 leq n$. The third variable $x_3$ will then always be forced and the solution will work (this happens because the coefficient of $x_3$ is $1$, otherwise $n-x_1-tx_2$ would need to be a multiple of the coefficient of $x_3$ to get an integer solution).
Ok, so if $x_1 = j$, for $n-j-tx_2$ to remain nonnegative, we must have
$$x_2 leq frac{n-j}{t}$$
and $x_2$ can take the values $0, 1, dots, lfloor frac{n-j}{t} rfloor$. Therefore the number of solutions is
$$sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{n-j}{t} rightrfloor right)
= sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor right)
$$
$$
=n+1 + sum_{j=0}^n leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor
$$
(Above we just flipped the sum, i.e change of index $jto n-j$ for a nicer looking formula).
For the particular case $t=2$, we can simplify this by considering cases $n$ even and $n$ odd, splitting the sum to even and odd parts and using the fact that $sum_{k=0}^r k= frac{r(r+1)}{2}$ to
$$n+1 + left lfloor frac{n^2}{4} right rfloor$$
and for $n=10$ we get $36$ solutions.
Like mentioned in the comments, this sort of problems must be solved pretty much case by case, but let's try to solve at least a little bit more general problem than the particular one asked, namely how many non-negative integer solutions does the equation
$$x_1 + tx_2 + x_3 = n$$
have, where $t, ninmathbb{N}$.
This can be done by letting $x_1$ run through $1, 2, dots, n$ and checking how many values the variable $x_2$ can take, so that $x_1+tx_2 leq n$. The third variable $x_3$ will then always be forced and the solution will work (this happens because the coefficient of $x_3$ is $1$, otherwise $n-x_1-tx_2$ would need to be a multiple of the coefficient of $x_3$ to get an integer solution).
Ok, so if $x_1 = j$, for $n-j-tx_2$ to remain nonnegative, we must have
$$x_2 leq frac{n-j}{t}$$
and $x_2$ can take the values $0, 1, dots, lfloor frac{n-j}{t} rfloor$. Therefore the number of solutions is
$$sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{n-j}{t} rightrfloor right)
= sum_{j=0}^n left( 1 + leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor right)
$$
$$
=n+1 + sum_{j=0}^n leftlfloor frac{j}{t} rightrfloor
$$
(Above we just flipped the sum, i.e change of index $jto n-j$ for a nicer looking formula).
For the particular case $t=2$, we can simplify this by considering cases $n$ even and $n$ odd, splitting the sum to even and odd parts and using the fact that $sum_{k=0}^r k= frac{r(r+1)}{2}$ to
$$n+1 + left lfloor frac{n^2}{4} right rfloor$$
and for $n=10$ we get $36$ solutions.
edited Dec 3 at 15:24
answered Dec 3 at 15:17
ploosu2
4,5771023
4,5771023
add a comment |
add a comment |
$x_2$ may be $0...5$. $x_1$ may be $0.. ,10-2x_2$ and $x_3$ is fixed at $10-2x_2 - x_1$
So there are
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{10-2x_2} 1$
Which may be reindexed as
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=10; -1}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 (2x+1) = $
$6^2 = 36$
add a comment |
$x_2$ may be $0...5$. $x_1$ may be $0.. ,10-2x_2$ and $x_3$ is fixed at $10-2x_2 - x_1$
So there are
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{10-2x_2} 1$
Which may be reindexed as
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=10; -1}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 (2x+1) = $
$6^2 = 36$
add a comment |
$x_2$ may be $0...5$. $x_1$ may be $0.. ,10-2x_2$ and $x_3$ is fixed at $10-2x_2 - x_1$
So there are
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{10-2x_2} 1$
Which may be reindexed as
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=10; -1}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 (2x+1) = $
$6^2 = 36$
$x_2$ may be $0...5$. $x_1$ may be $0.. ,10-2x_2$ and $x_3$ is fixed at $10-2x_2 - x_1$
So there are
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{10-2x_2} 1$
Which may be reindexed as
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=10; -1}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 sumlimits_{x_1=0}^{2x_2} 1=$
$sumlimits_{x_2=0}^5 (2x+1) = $
$6^2 = 36$
answered Dec 3 at 16:04
fleablood
68.1k22684
68.1k22684
add a comment |
add a comment |
Perhaps the hope for any general methods was too hastily discarded. We can use generating functions.
If $a_n$ denotes the number of solutions to
$$c_1x_1 + c_2x_2+dots + c_kx_k = n$$
$$x_j geq 0$$
Then the generating function $A(z) = sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_nz^n$ is given by
$$A(z) = frac{1}{(1-z^{c_1})(1-z^{c_2})dots(1-z^{c_k})}$$
This comes from the fact that compositions of $n$ into $k$ parts corresponds to a integer-sequence of length $k$. Now, you can use a size-function $xmapsto c_jx$ for each class of integers $cal{I}_j$ in the product $cal{I}_1 times cal{I}_2 dots times cal{I}_k$, so you have the correct equation. The generating function of the class $cal{I}_j$ is $frac{1}{1-z^{c_j}}$ because ${cal{I}}_j = text{SEQ}({ Z })$ and the element $Z$ has size $c_j$.
I don't know if this actually helps, maybe you can do partial fraction expansion of $A(z)$.
By the way, notice how in the case when all $c_j=1$ this amounts to the usual compositions:
$$A(z) = left( frac{1}{1-z} right)^k = (1-z)^{-k} = sum_{j=0}^infty {{-k}choose{j}} (-z)^{j}$$
so $a_j = {{-k}choose{j}} (-1)^{j} = {{k+j-1}choose{k-1}}$.
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
add a comment |
Perhaps the hope for any general methods was too hastily discarded. We can use generating functions.
If $a_n$ denotes the number of solutions to
$$c_1x_1 + c_2x_2+dots + c_kx_k = n$$
$$x_j geq 0$$
Then the generating function $A(z) = sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_nz^n$ is given by
$$A(z) = frac{1}{(1-z^{c_1})(1-z^{c_2})dots(1-z^{c_k})}$$
This comes from the fact that compositions of $n$ into $k$ parts corresponds to a integer-sequence of length $k$. Now, you can use a size-function $xmapsto c_jx$ for each class of integers $cal{I}_j$ in the product $cal{I}_1 times cal{I}_2 dots times cal{I}_k$, so you have the correct equation. The generating function of the class $cal{I}_j$ is $frac{1}{1-z^{c_j}}$ because ${cal{I}}_j = text{SEQ}({ Z })$ and the element $Z$ has size $c_j$.
I don't know if this actually helps, maybe you can do partial fraction expansion of $A(z)$.
By the way, notice how in the case when all $c_j=1$ this amounts to the usual compositions:
$$A(z) = left( frac{1}{1-z} right)^k = (1-z)^{-k} = sum_{j=0}^infty {{-k}choose{j}} (-z)^{j}$$
so $a_j = {{-k}choose{j}} (-1)^{j} = {{k+j-1}choose{k-1}}$.
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
add a comment |
Perhaps the hope for any general methods was too hastily discarded. We can use generating functions.
If $a_n$ denotes the number of solutions to
$$c_1x_1 + c_2x_2+dots + c_kx_k = n$$
$$x_j geq 0$$
Then the generating function $A(z) = sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_nz^n$ is given by
$$A(z) = frac{1}{(1-z^{c_1})(1-z^{c_2})dots(1-z^{c_k})}$$
This comes from the fact that compositions of $n$ into $k$ parts corresponds to a integer-sequence of length $k$. Now, you can use a size-function $xmapsto c_jx$ for each class of integers $cal{I}_j$ in the product $cal{I}_1 times cal{I}_2 dots times cal{I}_k$, so you have the correct equation. The generating function of the class $cal{I}_j$ is $frac{1}{1-z^{c_j}}$ because ${cal{I}}_j = text{SEQ}({ Z })$ and the element $Z$ has size $c_j$.
I don't know if this actually helps, maybe you can do partial fraction expansion of $A(z)$.
By the way, notice how in the case when all $c_j=1$ this amounts to the usual compositions:
$$A(z) = left( frac{1}{1-z} right)^k = (1-z)^{-k} = sum_{j=0}^infty {{-k}choose{j}} (-z)^{j}$$
so $a_j = {{-k}choose{j}} (-1)^{j} = {{k+j-1}choose{k-1}}$.
Perhaps the hope for any general methods was too hastily discarded. We can use generating functions.
If $a_n$ denotes the number of solutions to
$$c_1x_1 + c_2x_2+dots + c_kx_k = n$$
$$x_j geq 0$$
Then the generating function $A(z) = sum_{n=0}^{infty} a_nz^n$ is given by
$$A(z) = frac{1}{(1-z^{c_1})(1-z^{c_2})dots(1-z^{c_k})}$$
This comes from the fact that compositions of $n$ into $k$ parts corresponds to a integer-sequence of length $k$. Now, you can use a size-function $xmapsto c_jx$ for each class of integers $cal{I}_j$ in the product $cal{I}_1 times cal{I}_2 dots times cal{I}_k$, so you have the correct equation. The generating function of the class $cal{I}_j$ is $frac{1}{1-z^{c_j}}$ because ${cal{I}}_j = text{SEQ}({ Z })$ and the element $Z$ has size $c_j$.
I don't know if this actually helps, maybe you can do partial fraction expansion of $A(z)$.
By the way, notice how in the case when all $c_j=1$ this amounts to the usual compositions:
$$A(z) = left( frac{1}{1-z} right)^k = (1-z)^{-k} = sum_{j=0}^infty {{-k}choose{j}} (-z)^{j}$$
so $a_j = {{-k}choose{j}} (-1)^{j} = {{k+j-1}choose{k-1}}$.
answered Dec 10 at 13:48
ploosu2
4,5771023
4,5771023
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
add a comment |
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
I realized this when reading 1.17 (on page 46) of algo.inria.fr/flajolet/Publications/book.pdf There inequality constraints between the variables are considered but similarly we can adjust the coefficients in when considering how the combinatorial class in question is constructed.
– ploosu2
Dec 10 at 13:55
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022817%2fhow-many-integer-solutions-are-there-to-this-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Did you mean integer solutions (there are infinitely many) or perhaps nonnegative integer solutions?
– hardmath
Dec 2 at 16:09
I assume you mean either positive or non-negative integers? Either way, given how small the values are, easiest is probably to run through the possible values of $x_2$ and work case by case.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 16:09
I meant non negative integers sorry
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:24
@lulu I understand we can go case by case, but I would like to learn how to do it using combinations and permutations as it will help me in other future problems where I wouldn't be able to go case by case.
– Noobcoder
Dec 2 at 16:41
1
Problems with this sort of constraint can be very hard to count for large collections. In this case, with only three variables, it is easy since, for any fixed $x_2$ the possible $(x_1,x_3)$ are determined by $x_1$, say. I don't think there is any sort of one-size-fits-all approach to all possible linear constraints, in general.
– lulu
Dec 2 at 17:04