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 combinatorial-identities
Search options not deleted
user 23830
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