2 elementary number theory problems [closed]












0












$begingroup$


So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:



Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$



Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$



I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
















  • $begingroup$
    Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:45












  • $begingroup$
    Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:46










  • $begingroup$
    It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:48












  • $begingroup$
    Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
















0












$begingroup$


So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:



Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$



Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$



I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
















  • $begingroup$
    Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:45












  • $begingroup$
    Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:46










  • $begingroup$
    It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:48












  • $begingroup$
    Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:53














0












0








0





$begingroup$


So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:



Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$



Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$



I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




So going back to my old number theory book by I. Niven, An introduction to the theory on numbers, I saw these problems:



Question 1: Find the triplets of number $(x,y,z)$ such that $x+y+z=119,$ and none exceed $59?$



Question 2: Find four integers $(x,y,z,w)$, such that they have the property $xge 0 , yge 1, zge 2, wge 3$, and satisfies $x+y+z+w = 15.$



I would appreciate the indepth explanation to solving these problems







elementary-number-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 14 '18 at 4:50









user587054

59411




59411










asked Dec 14 '18 at 3:43









Aurora BorealisAurora Borealis

866414




866414




closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







closed as off-topic by Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo Dec 14 '18 at 10:19


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Martin R, Brahadeesh, Rebellos, Saad, Cesareo

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • $begingroup$
    Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:45












  • $begingroup$
    Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:46










  • $begingroup$
    It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:48












  • $begingroup$
    Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:53


















  • $begingroup$
    Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:45












  • $begingroup$
    Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:46










  • $begingroup$
    It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:48












  • $begingroup$
    Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Dec 14 '18 at 3:53
















$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45






$begingroup$
Are these just finding one 3- or 4-tuple for each problem, all of them, or what? Finding any one solution seems easy enough: just choose 2 (for Q1) or 3 (for Q2) numbers that meet the necessary properties, find the remaining number, and, if it doesn't exist, tweak as necessary. Just glorified trial-and-error.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:45














$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46




$begingroup$
Also shouldn't Q2 be stated as $x+y+z+w=15$? (instead of $=w=15$)
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:46












$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48






$begingroup$
It says find for 1. 3- tuple and for 2. 4- tuple. I will make the edit Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:48














$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50




$begingroup$
Actually it only says triplets and quadruplets not tuples unless they imply the same thing?
$endgroup$
– Aurora Borealis
Dec 14 '18 at 3:50




1




1




$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53




$begingroup$
"Triplet" and "3-tuple" basically mean the same thing; same for "quadruplet" and "4-tuple." Basically what I was asking, then, is "are you only tasked to find one such triplet/quadruplet". If so, the trial-and-error method I suggested is just as valid as any other. I could see something more "refined" being justified if it was finding all of the triplets/quadruplets, and I find it weird that you'd only be asked for one triplet/quadruplet in a textbook on number theory (but that might be a personal issue).
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
Dec 14 '18 at 3:53










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.



Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
$$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You talking about the simplex algorithm?
    $endgroup$
    – AmbretteOrrisey
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:18












  • $begingroup$
    Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:07










  • $begingroup$
    @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










  • $begingroup$
    @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










  • $begingroup$
    @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
    $endgroup$
    – AmbretteOrrisey
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:32





















1












$begingroup$

you can model such these equations like this:

first Q2)

suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.

so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9

now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.

one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6) that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3) is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15.

so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :




$frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$




Q1)

the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:




$D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$




now let:




$I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
$I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$




by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:




$D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$




also:




${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$




so the answer is:




$D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
    Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.



    Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
    $$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
    If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      You talking about the simplex algorithm?
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 13:18












    • $begingroup$
      Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
      $endgroup$
      – Aurora Borealis
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:07










    • $begingroup$
      @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:32


















    2












    $begingroup$

    These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
    Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.



    Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
    $$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
    If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      You talking about the simplex algorithm?
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 13:18












    • $begingroup$
      Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
      $endgroup$
      – Aurora Borealis
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:07










    • $begingroup$
      @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:32
















    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
    Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.



    Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
    $$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
    If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    These are linear equations for which there is an established algorithm to solve, in terms of paramatrisations. I'll do the first question; see if you can generalise the idea to the second.
    Recall that solving a linear equation in two variables over $mathbb Z$ is done like this: if $ax+by=c$, then find a particular solution $(x_0,y_0)$. Then all the solutions are given by $x=x_0-bt$, $y=y_o+at$, where $t$ ranges over all integral values. (Can you prove this?) Now let's move on to the three-variable case.



    Set $u+v=k$. We have the simultaneous equations
    $$begin{cases}u+v=k,\k+w=119.end{cases}$$
    If we treat $k$ like a constant in the first equation we obtain the paramatrisation $u=k-t_1$, $v=t_1$. Treating $k$ like a variable in the second, we have $k=119-t_2$, $w=t_2$. Now, $u=k-t_1=119-t_1-t_2$. Hence, all the possible integer solutions are given by $(u,v,w)=(119-t_1-t_2,t_1,t_2)$. But none of the three variables exceed $59$, so we have the bounds $119-t_1-t_2leq59$, $t_1leq 59$, $t_2leq 59$. In other words, $t_1,t_2$ are any two integers so that each is not exceeding $59$ and their sum is at least $60$. This provides a complete paramatrisation and hence solution to the problem.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 14 '18 at 9:02









    YiFanYiFan

    5,2332727




    5,2332727












    • $begingroup$
      You talking about the simplex algorithm?
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 13:18












    • $begingroup$
      Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
      $endgroup$
      – Aurora Borealis
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:07










    • $begingroup$
      @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:32




















    • $begingroup$
      You talking about the simplex algorithm?
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 13:18












    • $begingroup$
      Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
      $endgroup$
      – Aurora Borealis
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:07










    • $begingroup$
      @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:25










    • $begingroup$
      @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
      $endgroup$
      – AmbretteOrrisey
      Dec 14 '18 at 14:32


















    $begingroup$
    You talking about the simplex algorithm?
    $endgroup$
    – AmbretteOrrisey
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:18






    $begingroup$
    You talking about the simplex algorithm?
    $endgroup$
    – AmbretteOrrisey
    Dec 14 '18 at 13:18














    $begingroup$
    Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:07




    $begingroup$
    Can we solve 2) in a similar way?
    $endgroup$
    – Aurora Borealis
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:07












    $begingroup$
    @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:25




    $begingroup$
    @AmbretteOrrisey I've never heard of that name, so maybe. I never thought this algorithm was complicated enough to deserve a name of its own.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:25












    $begingroup$
    @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:25




    $begingroup$
    @AuroraBorealis Yes, you can.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:25












    $begingroup$
    @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
    $endgroup$
    – AmbretteOrrisey
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:32






    $begingroup$
    @YiFan -- actually ... no it's not the simplex algorithm - that's about optimising problems comprising inequalities of this kind by finding the point at which a hyperplane touches a simplex. I was just browsing & responding a tad over-hastily. I'm not recommending particularly that you go & study the algorithm if it's not in your way anyway ... but if you were to do so you would see the connection.
    $endgroup$
    – AmbretteOrrisey
    Dec 14 '18 at 14:32













    1












    $begingroup$

    you can model such these equations like this:

    first Q2)

    suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.

    so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
    now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9

    now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.

    one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6) that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3) is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15.

    so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :




    $frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$




    Q1)

    the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:




    $D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$




    now let:




    $I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
    $I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
    $I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
    $I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$




    by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:




    $D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
    cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$




    also:




    ${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
    ${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
    ${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
    ${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$




    so the answer is:




    $D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$







    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      you can model such these equations like this:

      first Q2)

      suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.

      so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
      now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9

      now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.

      one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6) that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3) is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15.

      so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :




      $frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$




      Q1)

      the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:




      $D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$




      now let:




      $I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
      $I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
      $I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
      $I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$




      by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:




      $D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
      cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$




      also:




      ${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
      ${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
      ${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
      ${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$




      so the answer is:




      $D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        you can model such these equations like this:

        first Q2)

        suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.

        so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
        now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9

        now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.

        one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6) that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3) is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15.

        so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :




        $frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$




        Q1)

        the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:




        $D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$




        now let:




        $I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
        $I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
        $I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
        $I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$




        by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:




        $D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
        cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$




        also:




        ${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
        ${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
        ${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
        ${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$




        so the answer is:




        $D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$







        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        you can model such these equations like this:

        first Q2)

        suppose we have 15 identical balls and want to put them in 4 different baskets labeled as x, y, z, w such that basket y must has at least 1 ball inside it, basket z must has at least 2 balls inside it and basket w must has 3 balls inside it.

        so we initially satisfy these criterias by just putting 1, 2 and 3 balls in baskets y, z and w respectively.
        now we have 15-(1+2+3)=9 balls left with 3 basket which have no specific criterias: x + y' + z' + w' = 9

        now if we put 3 delimiters between 9 balls to put them into 4 baskets equivalently: sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to baskets x, y, z and w respectively.

        one possible division is as follows: "{} | {OOO} | {} | {OOOOOO}" ("O" represents a ball and "|" represents a delimiter). its corresponding answer is (x, y', z', w') = (0, 3, 0, 6) that satisfies the equation x + y' + z' + w' = 9. so (x, y, z, w) = (0, 3+1, 0+2, 6+3) is a valid answer for main equation x + y + z + w = 15.

        so the problem is to find all the linear permutations of 9 identical balls and 3 identical delimiters. and finally here is the number of valid (x, y, z, w) answers :




        $frac{(9+3)!}{9!3!} = frac{{12}times{11}times{10}}{6} = 220$




        Q1)

        the problem is to find the number of (x, y, z) answers that satisfy the following equation:




        $D sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}leq{59}, {0}leq{y}leq{59}, {0}leq{z}leq{59}}]$




        now let:




        $I sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
        $I_1 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
        $I_2 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}]$
        $I_3 sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}]$




        by inclusion-exclusion-identity we have:




        $D = {bar{I_1}}cap{bar{I_2}}cap{bar{I_3}} = overline{({I_1}cup{I_2}cup{I_3})} = I - (I_1 + I_2 + I_3 - {I_1}
        cap{I_2} - {I_1}cap{I_3} - {I_2}cap{I_3} + {I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3})$




        also:




        ${I_1}cap{I_2} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {0}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
        ${I_1}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {0}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
        ${I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {0}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$
        ${I_1}cap{I_2}cap{I_3} sim [{x + y + z = 119; {60}leq{x}, {60}leq{y}, {60}leq{z}}] rightarrow unsatisfiable$




        so the answer is:




        $D = frac{(119+2)!}{119!2!} - {3}times{frac{(119-60+2)!}{(119-60)!2!}} + {3}times{0} - 0 = frac{{121}times{120}}{2} - {3}times{frac{{61}times{60}}{2}} = 1770$








        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 14 '18 at 14:00

























        answered Dec 14 '18 at 13:14









        SAEED_ABBSAEED_ABB

        112




        112















            Popular posts from this blog

            How to send String Array data to Server using php in android

            Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

            Is anime1.com a legal site for watching anime?