<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Q &amp; A: A little puzzle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/</link>
	<description>The Math Factor Podcast Site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:28:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: strauss</title>
		<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-197</link>
		<dc:creator>strauss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/31/q-a-a-little-puzzle/#comment-197</guid>
		<description>This is correct! But I&#039;m afraid not quite enough for a doctorate! 

I asked &lt;a href = &quot;http://stanwagon.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Stan Wagon&lt;/a&gt; about this problem last week; he tells me that this observation was first made only in the 1970&#039;s, by Szekeres and (the great) Erdos. (Surprisingly late) Their proof is just exactly the one you give!

(Also, you can verify that mCi * (m-i)C(j-i) = mCj * jCi directly from the definition of choose; and as you say, since mCi &gt; jCi, we must have a common factor of mCi and mCj)

Stan also gave me a formula for working out what the gcd actually is: 

Let g be the greatest common divisor of m!/j! and (m-i)!/(j-i)!
Then the greatest common divisor of mCi and mCj works out to be  (m!/j!) * (1/g)

(Stan runs  &lt;a href=&quot;http://mathforum.org/wagon/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; The Problem of the Week&lt;/a&gt;, an excellent source of interesting problems suitable for math undergrads on up)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is correct! But I&#8217;m afraid not quite enough for a doctorate! </p>
<p>I asked <a href = "http://stanwagon.com/" rel="nofollow"> Stan Wagon</a> about this problem last week; he tells me that this observation was first made only in the 1970&#8217;s, by Szekeres and (the great) Erdos. (Surprisingly late) Their proof is just exactly the one you give!</p>
<p>(Also, you can verify that mCi * (m-i)C(j-i) = mCj * jCi directly from the definition of choose; and as you say, since mCi > jCi, we must have a common factor of mCi and mCj)</p>
<p>Stan also gave me a formula for working out what the gcd actually is: </p>
<p>Let g be the greatest common divisor of m!/j! and (m-i)!/(j-i)!<br />
Then the greatest common divisor of mCi and mCj works out to be  (m!/j!) * (1/g)</p>
<p>(Stan runs  <a href="http://mathforum.org/wagon/" rel="nofollow"> The Problem of the Week</a>, an excellent source of interesting problems suitable for math undergrads on up)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stevestyle</title>
		<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-196</link>
		<dc:creator>stevestyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/31/q-a-a-little-puzzle/#comment-196</guid>
		<description>I believe I have an intuitive proof; you can judge how intuitive it is.

I will use an example with m = 6, i = 2 and j = 3.
I will use the notation mCi to mean the number of ways of choosing i objects from m objects, so mCi = m!/i!(m-i)!

Suppose we have a bag of m balls.  Each ball is labelled with a number; 1, 2, 3 up to m.

First we choose i balls.  There are mCi ways of doing this.
In our example we have fifteen ways:
	1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5
	2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 6

The bag now contains the remaining m-i balls.  From these we choose another j-i balls to give us j balls in total.  We are choosing j-i balls from m-i balls so we have (m-i)C(j-i) choices.
We can group these choices into mCi groups of (m-i)C(j-i).
In our example we have a total of 15 groups of 4 = 60 choices:
	1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1  .  .  .  5 5 5 5
	2 2 2 2   3 3 3 3  .  .  .  6 6 6 6
	3 4 5 6   2 4 5 6  .  .  .  1 2 3 4

We can get to the set 1 2 3 in three different ways.  We can choose our first set to be 1 2 and then add 3, we can choose 1 3 and then add 2 or we can choose 2 3 and then add 1.
We can reorder our 60 choices as 20 groups of 3.
	1 1 2   1 1 2   1 1 2   .  .  .  4 4 5
	2 3 3   2 4 4   2 5 5   .  .  .  5 6 6
	3 2 1   4 2 1   5 2 1   .  .  .  6 5 4
In general we have mCj groups of jCi.

This gives mCi x (m-i)C(j-i) = mCj x jCi.  In our example 6C2 x 4C1 = 6C3 x 3C2 or 15 x 4 = 20 x 3.
In particular mCi divides mCj x jCi.  
However there are more ways to choose i balls from m balls than there are to choose i balls from j balls, so mCi &gt; jCi.
Therefore mCi and mCj have a common factor.

The common factor is a multiple of mCi/jCi.  In our example this is 5, which is exactly the common multiple.

I hope all of that is clear and correct.

Chaim, is this enough for a doctorate or do I need to flesh it out a bit first? 

Cheers,
Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe I have an intuitive proof; you can judge how intuitive it is.</p>
<p>I will use an example with m = 6, i = 2 and j = 3.<br />
I will use the notation mCi to mean the number of ways of choosing i objects from m objects, so mCi = m!/i!(m-i)!</p>
<p>Suppose we have a bag of m balls.  Each ball is labelled with a number; 1, 2, 3 up to m.</p>
<p>First we choose i balls.  There are mCi ways of doing this.<br />
In our example we have fifteen ways:<br />
	1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5<br />
	2 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 6</p>
<p>The bag now contains the remaining m-i balls.  From these we choose another j-i balls to give us j balls in total.  We are choosing j-i balls from m-i balls so we have (m-i)C(j-i) choices.<br />
We can group these choices into mCi groups of (m-i)C(j-i).<br />
In our example we have a total of 15 groups of 4 = 60 choices:<br />
	1 1 1 1   1 1 1 1  .  .  .  5 5 5 5<br />
	2 2 2 2   3 3 3 3  .  .  .  6 6 6 6<br />
	3 4 5 6   2 4 5 6  .  .  .  1 2 3 4</p>
<p>We can get to the set 1 2 3 in three different ways.  We can choose our first set to be 1 2 and then add 3, we can choose 1 3 and then add 2 or we can choose 2 3 and then add 1.<br />
We can reorder our 60 choices as 20 groups of 3.<br />
	1 1 2   1 1 2   1 1 2   .  .  .  4 4 5<br />
	2 3 3   2 4 4   2 5 5   .  .  .  5 6 6<br />
	3 2 1   4 2 1   5 2 1   .  .  .  6 5 4<br />
In general we have mCj groups of jCi.</p>
<p>This gives mCi x (m-i)C(j-i) = mCj x jCi.  In our example 6C2 x 4C1 = 6C3 x 3C2 or 15 x 4 = 20 x 3.<br />
In particular mCi divides mCj x jCi.<br />
However there are more ways to choose i balls from m balls than there are to choose i balls from j balls, so mCi &gt; jCi.<br />
Therefore mCi and mCj have a common factor.</p>
<p>The common factor is a multiple of mCi/jCi.  In our example this is 5, which is exactly the common multiple.</p>
<p>I hope all of that is clear and correct.</p>
<p>Chaim, is this enough for a doctorate or do I need to flesh it out a bit first? </p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/31/q-a-a-little-puzzle/#comment-192</guid>
		<description>Well yes, it does.  For some reason the earlier entries didn&#039;t catch my eye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well yes, it does.  For some reason the earlier entries didn&#8217;t catch my eye.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: strauss</title>
		<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-189</link>
		<dc:creator>strauss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/31/q-a-a-little-puzzle/#comment-189</guid>
		<description>Hi, does this already happen with m=6? 

6 choose 1 = 6 = 2*3
6 choose 2 = 15 = 3*5
6 choose 3 = 20 = 2*2*5

Each pair has a common factor but the three as a whole do not. 

Same with m = 10

10 choose 1 = 10 
10 choose 2 = 45 
10 choose 5 = 252 = 2^2* 3^2* 7</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, does this already happen with m=6? </p>
<p>6 choose 1 = 6 = 2*3<br />
6 choose 2 = 15 = 3*5<br />
6 choose 3 = 20 = 2*2*5</p>
<p>Each pair has a common factor but the three as a whole do not. </p>
<p>Same with m = 10</p>
<p>10 choose 1 = 10<br />
10 choose 2 = 45<br />
10 choose 5 = 252 = 2^2* 3^2* 7</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-188</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/31/q-a-a-little-puzzle/#comment-188</guid>
		<description>The question gets particularly interesting at m=12, where each pair of entries has a common factor, but the row as a whole has no common factor:

12 choose 1 = 12 = 2*2*3
12 choose 3 = 220 = 2*2*5*11
12 choose 4 = 495 = 3*3*5*11</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question gets particularly interesting at m=12, where each pair of entries has a common factor, but the row as a whole has no common factor:</p>
<p>12 choose 1 = 12 = 2*2*3<br />
12 choose 3 = 220 = 2*2*5*11<br />
12 choose 4 = 495 = 3*3*5*11</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jlundell</title>
		<link>http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/q-a-a-little-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-183</link>
		<dc:creator>jlundell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/12/31/q-a-a-little-puzzle/#comment-183</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s trivially true if m is prime, is it not? I don&#039;t quite see how that helps the general case, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s trivially true if m is prime, is it not? I don&#8217;t quite see how that helps the general case, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
