Why combinatorics is neat
Apr. 9th, 2003 03:14 amBecause it allows you to reason outside of regular mathematical domain.
By extracting the "meaning" of different concepts and combining them, you can derive theorems of arithmetic. I suppose this is not too different from the concepts where all mathematical reasoning came, but here we have a parallel system of reasoning consistent with the existing system.
I suppose it's analogous to reasoning with graphs, diagrams or other visual devices.
CONCEPT : ARITHMETIC EXPRESSION
# of binary strings of length n with 0 "1"s: C(0,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with 1 "1"s: C(1,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with 2 "1"s: C(2,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with 3 "1"s: C(3,n)
+
.
.
.
+
# of binary strings of length n with n-1 "1"s: C(n-1,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with n "1"s: C(n,n)
=
# of binary strings of length n: 2^n
So we have SUM_i(C(i,n)) = 2^n
because we have the concept that the sets with constant numbers of "1"s are a partition of the large set (of size 2^n)
The equation of CONCEPTS entails an equation of ARITHMETIC EXPRESSIONS.
This theorem can be proven using the axioms of arithmetic, or it can be proven using the reasoning I just described.
The point is that there exist "common sense" tools for mathematical reasoning which are not formally axiomatized. Is this related to diagrammatic reasoning?
There are a bunch of examples like this in combinatorics.
For similar examples of combinatorial identities, look at the many properties of Pascal's triangle.
By extracting the "meaning" of different concepts and combining them, you can derive theorems of arithmetic. I suppose this is not too different from the concepts where all mathematical reasoning came, but here we have a parallel system of reasoning consistent with the existing system.
I suppose it's analogous to reasoning with graphs, diagrams or other visual devices.
CONCEPT : ARITHMETIC EXPRESSION
# of binary strings of length n with 0 "1"s: C(0,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with 1 "1"s: C(1,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with 2 "1"s: C(2,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with 3 "1"s: C(3,n)
+
.
.
.
+
# of binary strings of length n with n-1 "1"s: C(n-1,n)
+
# of binary strings of length n with n "1"s: C(n,n)
=
# of binary strings of length n: 2^n
So we have SUM_i(C(i,n)) = 2^n
because we have the concept that the sets with constant numbers of "1"s are a partition of the large set (of size 2^n)
The equation of CONCEPTS entails an equation of ARITHMETIC EXPRESSIONS.
This theorem can be proven using the axioms of arithmetic, or it can be proven using the reasoning I just described.
The point is that there exist "common sense" tools for mathematical reasoning which are not formally axiomatized. Is this related to diagrammatic reasoning?
There are a bunch of examples like this in combinatorics.
For similar examples of combinatorial identities, look at the many properties of Pascal's triangle.