Timeline for Count of binary matrices that avoids a certain sub-matrix
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2013 at 12:03 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | @quid: Ok, I forgot about that. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 11:54 | comment | added | user9072 | @Dimension10 Hi, it is great you update the links. But please do not do too many at the same time. Better do batches of just 3 or 4. If not there is a burst of edits on te front page and some do not like this. | |
| S Oct 29, 2013 at 11:48 | history | suggested | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
OEIS link updated.
|
| Oct 29, 2013 at 11:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 29, 2013 at 11:48 | |||||
| Jul 4, 2010 at 19:00 | comment | added | Max Alekseyev | Even if submatrices are assumed to be contiguous, A133791 is still not the right sequence. In particular, for $m=n=1$ we have 2 matrices, while A133791(1) gives 1. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 12:53 | comment | added | Douglas S. Stones | The difference here is that submatrices are assumed to be contiguous (I think this is not the standard definition of a submatrix -- but is common enough to cause problems). | |
| Jul 3, 2010 at 14:40 | comment | added | Max Alekseyev | No, it is not the right sequence. The number of $n\times n$ matrices with no $2\times 2$ submatrix of all ones for $n=1,2,3,4,5$ is: 2, 15, 334, 18521, 2293896 This counts match A133791 only for $n=2$. | |
| Jul 3, 2010 at 4:07 | comment | added | Michael Lugo | (It's possible I might have had the wrong notion of "avoid" here, seeing Douglas Stone's answer below.) | |
| Jul 3, 2010 at 4:04 | history | answered | Michael Lugo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |