Timeline for Simultaneous lcms
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2015 at 19:42 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 17:36 | history | edited | Stijn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 103 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | Stijn | Yeah, the elements of each tuple have to multiply to the number, not exceed the number. It comes out of some sieve-theoretic inclusion-exclusion thing. I'll look into the Latin square connection. I've also come up with the germ of a matrix-based argument which seems similar. | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 16:16 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | It looks like latin squares and a generalization of such arrays when d has k distinct prime factors and one has k tuples. | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 16:10 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | Is it because 1*2*6 > 6? | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 16:08 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | Why doesn't (1,2,6)(6,3,1) work as a solution for r=2? | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 15:52 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 6, 2015 at 3:01 | |||||
| Jul 1, 2015 at 15:19 | history | edited | Stijn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2015 at 15:19 | comment | added | Stijn | But I think it simplifies to a balls in boxes argument, although I can't quite see to the end of it. | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 15:18 | comment | added | Stijn | Yeah, silly mistake but just throwing numbers together. It doesn't really affect the statement of the problem. | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 14:59 | comment | added | user13113 | Each prime factor works independently here, and thus can be treated independently, right? the problem can be greatly simplified. Also, 90 isn't squarefree. | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 13:19 | answer | added | Max Alekseyev | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 7:33 | history | asked | Stijn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |