Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with co.combinatorics
Search options not deleted
user 23830
Enumerative combinatorics, graph theory, order theory, posets, matroids, designs and other discrete structures. It also includes algebraic, analytic and probabilistic combinatorics.
1
vote
2
answers
820
views
Converting a recursive definition to an explicit one
Is there an explicit form for $a_x$ (whole numbers x) given that $a_x = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{x-1} \binom{x-1}{i} a_i$?
I've listed out the first few terms:
for $x=0,1,2,3,4,5,6, 7$
we have $a_x …
- 111