axiom-developer
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

## [Axiom-developer] patch for binomial coefficient / bug 336

 From: Martin Rubey Subject: [Axiom-developer] patch for binomial coefficient / bug 336 Date: 28 Mar 2007 10:38:13 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4

I just did svn up, many thanks for including the patches. However, for some
reason the documentation I provided for iibinom was not included. I take the
oportunity to elaborate, here is the documentation patch:

Martin

Index: combfunc.spad.pamphlet
===================================================================
--- combfunc.spad.pamphlet      (Revision 470)
+++ combfunc.spad.pamphlet      (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
\documentclass{article}
-\usepackage{axiom}
+\usepackage{axiom, amsmath, amsfonts}
\begin{document}
\title{\$SPAD/src/algebra combfunc.spad} \author{Manuel Bronstein, Martin Rubey} @@ -88,6 +88,53 @@ binomial : (F, F) -> F ++ binomial(n, r) returns the number of subsets of r objects ++ taken among n objects, i.e. n!/(r! * (n-r)!); +@ + +We currently simplify binomial coefficients only for non-negative integral +second argument, using the formula +$$\binom{n}{k}=\frac{1}{k!}\prod_{i=0..k-1} (n-i),$$ +except if the second argument is symbolic: in this case [[binomial(n,n)]] is +simplified to one. + +Note that there are at least two different ways to define binomial coefficients +for negative integral second argument. One way, particular suitable for +combinatorics, is to set the binomial coefficient equal to zero for negative +second argument. This is, partially, also the approach taken in +[[combinat.spad]], where we find + +\begin{verbatim} + binomial(n, m) == + n < 0 or m < 0 or m > n => 0 + m = 0 => 1 +\end{verbatim} + +Of course, here [[n]] and [[m]] are integers. This definition agrees with the +recurrence + +$$\binom{n}{k}+\binom{n}{k+1}=\binom{n+1}{k+1}.$$ + +Alternatively, one can use the formula +$$\binom{n}{k}=\frac{\Gamma(n+1)}{\Gamma(k+1)\Gamma(n-k+1)},$$ +and leave the case where$k\in\mathbb Z$,$n\in\mathbb Z$and$k \leq n < 0$+undefined, since the limit does not exist in this case: + +Since we then have that$n-k+1\geq 1$,$\Gamma(n-k+1)$is finite. So it is +sufficient to consider$\frac{\Gamma(n+1)}{\Gamma(k+1)}$. On the one hand, we +have +$$\lim_{n_0\to n} \lim_{k_0\to k}\frac{\Gamma(n_0+1)}{\Gamma(k_0+1)} = 0,$$ +since for any non-integral$n_0$,$\Gamma(n_0+1)$is finite. On the other +hand, +$$\lim_{k_0\to k} \lim_{n_0\to n}\frac{\Gamma(n_0+1)}{\Gamma(k_0+1)}$$ +does not exist, since for non-integral$k_0$,$\Gamma(k_0+1)$is finite while +$\Gamma(n_0+1)$is unbounded. + +However, since for$k\in\mathbb Z$,$n\in\mathbb Z$and$0 < k < n\$ both
+definitions agree, one could also combine them. This is what, for example,
+Mathematica does. It seems that MuPAD sets [[binomial(n,n)=1]] for all
+arguments [[n]], and returns [[binomial(-2, n)]] unevaluated. Provisos may help
+here.
+
+<<package COMBF CombinatorialFunction>>=
permutation: (F, F) -> F
++ permutation(n, r) returns the number of permutations of
++ n objects taken r at a time, i.e. n!/(n-r)!;
@@ -539,6 +586,16 @@
=> ibinom l
binomial(r1::R, r2::R)::F

+@
+
+[[iibinom]] checks those cases in which the binomial coefficient may be
+evaluated explicitly. Note that up to [[patch--51]], the case where the second
+argument is a positive integer was not checked.(Issue~\#336) Currently, the
+naive iterative algorithm is used to calculate the coefficient, there is room
+for improvement here.
+
+<<package COMBF CombinatorialFunction>>=
+
else
iibinom l ==
(r1 := retractIfCan(first l)@Union(R,"failed")) case "failed" or



reply via email to

 [Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
• [Axiom-developer] patch for binomial coefficient / bug 336, Martin Rubey <=