How is this huge function useful??

Подписаться 301 тыс.

Просмотров 30 тыс.

50% 1

🌟🌟Head to squarespace.com/michaelpenn to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code michaelpenn 🌟🌟
Each character found themselves partitioned into a singleton set. How did they get there? Why are they are? Are there sinister intentions afoot? You won't find out how they escape their dire straits unless you watch till the end and then the next 4 videos.
🌟Support the channel🌟
Patreon: / michaelpennmath
Merch: teespring.com/stores/michael-...
My amazon shop: www.amazon.com/shop/michaelpenn
🟢 Discord: / discord
🌟my other channels🌟
mathmajor: / @mathmajor
pennpav podcast: / @thepennpavpodcast7878
🌟My Links🌟
Personal Website: www.michael-penn.net
Instagram: / melp2718
Twitter: / michaelpennmath
Randolph College Math: www.randolphcollege.edu/mathem...
Research Gate profile: www.researchgate.net/profile/...
Google Scholar profile: scholar.google.com/citations?...
🌟How I make Thumbnails🌟
Canva: partner.canva.com/c/3036853/6...
Color Pallet: coolors.co/?ref=61d217df7d705...
🌟Suggest a problem🌟
forms.gle/ea7Pw7HcKePGB4my5

Опубликовано:

27 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 76

@MichaelPennMath Год назад

Head to squarespace.com/michaelpenn to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code michaelpenn

@QuantumHistorian Год назад

That final formula does not look like it would give natural number values for all n. And yet, given the definition of Bell numbers, it must!

@alexpotts6520 Год назад

I'm guessing this is just a thing for combinatorial sequences, given that the formula of Fibonacci numbers similarly has a bunch of irrational stuff in it that magically always spits out integers.

@lih3391 Год назад

Why doesn't it give natural numbers in desmos? I think that thing is too irrational to be integers. The function 1/e*e^e^x doesnt, but the sum does, oh nevermind, B(x) is not the bell bumber series itself

@lorenzosaudito Год назад

@@lih3391 Yep exactly, you have to be very careful to not mix up the original function and its generating function

@Alex_Deam Год назад

I managed to convince myself it makes sense via series manipulation for small values of n. E.g. for n=2, you can do: sum[(k^2)/k!] = sum[k/(k-1)!] = sum[{(k-1)+1}/(k-1)!] = sum[1/(k-2)!] + sum[1/(k-1)!] = 2e You can then show you'll always get an integer multiple of e for all n using induction, but I had to use strong induction by assuming it was true for all values below. I wonder if there's a way to do it with a weaker form of induction?

@chickencyanide9964 Год назад

@@lorenzosaudito may I then ask how we find the original function?

@landsgevaer Год назад

Explaining Bell numbers, finding a recursive form, and then an explicit (albeit infinite) sum. This is one nice video! Hoping you could manage something similar for the partition numbers... 🙂

@seneca983 Год назад

1:45 "How can you partition a zero element set?" Easy! It's {} and that's the only possible partition so 1 is indeed the right answer.

@driksarkar6675 Год назад

Technically, the empty set isn’t non-empty, so I’m not sure that’s a valid partition.

@seneca983 Год назад

@@driksarkar6675 It's its members that are not supposed to be empty (and the empty set has no empty members).

@tolberthobson2610 Год назад

I find it pretty cool how the closed-form explicitly-defined generating function for bell numbers involved a series and a transcendental number, but is able to 'spit out' natural numbers. Pretty mind-bending.

@5alpha23 Год назад

I never expected combinatorics to be so aesthetically pleasing - thanks for showing me that, it certainly widened my horizon!

@Hyakurin_ Год назад

Now it would be nice if you did a video about Stirling numbers and the number of surjection between two finite sets, and maybe its relationship with Bell numberz

@lexyeevee Год назад

Phew! Instead of having to do a large finite amount of recursive work, now we can simply do an infinite amount of iterative work

@Queen-be6md Год назад

Great content! and very good edition by the video editor

@Fightclub1995 Год назад

That generating function is the same generating function for a Poisson distribution with lambda = 1. Any relation?

@emanuellandeholm5657 Год назад

This was ... beautiful. Made my morning really :)

@seaassasin1855 Год назад

The thumbnail is so good

@TheMemesofDestruction Год назад

I was gonna save this then saw it was a Professor Penn Video! ^.^

@STbender Год назад

Last formula was unexpected Also, as bell number is sum of S(n,k) I read somewhere that for large n S(n,k)~k^n/k! Now ik why : ) So please make video s(n,k) like max of it

@aweebthatlovesmath4220 Год назад

I can't believe that last sum is always an integer!!

@david-hogarty Год назад

It's great to see some combinatorics!

@TronSAHeroXYZ Год назад

Thanks Michael.

@AJ-et3vf Год назад

great video. thank you

@Francisco-vl5ub Год назад

14:00 the sum from k = 0 to n changed to k = 0 to infinity

@edskev7696 Год назад

Yup, and that change appears to have a big impact on the rest of the calculation.

@Francisco-vl5ub Год назад

@@edskev7696 it works out correctly, but definitely obscures how Cauchy’s formula is used here

@landsgevaer Год назад

Isn't that because Bn for negative n and/or n-choose-k outside Pascal's triangle are zero, so do not contribute?

@Francisco-vl5ub Год назад

@@landsgevaer I don’t believe that to be the case. Note 14:38 RHS of Cauchy formula, the sum defining c_k is limited above

@landsgevaer Год назад

@@Francisco-vl5ub Yeah, but then nCk has k>n so you are outside Pascal's triangle, and those terms are zero. So the extra terms in the sum are simply zero. I'll admit that I was too lazy to wind back, but I did write it had to be either the Bn or the nCk.

@oida10000 Год назад

Shouldn't the inner sum only run up to the current index of the outer sum? So k 0 to n and m 0 to l?

@jamiepianist Год назад

THE FAST FORWARD PFFFFT

@Maths_3.1415 Год назад

Hey Michael penn You are my favourite teacher :)

@ddystopia8091 Год назад

14:07 Why second sum started to go to infinity??

@stoneman172 Год назад

The last chain of equalities gives an assertion about equality of limits. How can you conclude term-wise equality of the two series from this?

@vaevfunc Год назад

And that’s the perfect video to watch

@ethanbartiromo2888 Год назад

I noticed that you put in B(0) = 1, but shouldn’t it be B(0) = 0? Since we are plugging 0 in for x not n

@Hiltok Год назад

B(x=0) = sum 0 to inf of Bn*x^n/n! All terms in the sum go to zero except for the zero-th term, since 0^0=1, so B(x=0) = B0*0^0/0! = B0*1/1 = B0 = 1

@zachbills8112 Год назад

It's interesting how much simpler the closed form of the nth bell number is than that of the nth number of integer partitions.

@peon17 Год назад

Another fun set of numbers are Catalan numbers. They're not as exotic as Bell numbers, but they are notorious for how many different things they count.

@crazycat1503 Год назад

And first 4 Bell numbers are actually the same as 4 first Catalan numbers

@ukaszpawlak6953 Год назад

That's also moment generating function of Poisson distribution, I think there were some deeper connection between it and Bell numbers

@josephmathmusic Год назад

I am a probabilist so I immediately think of Poisson distribution when I see a double exponential...

@MooImABunny Год назад

it's pretty unbelievable that these sums all converge to e times an integer. it's like finding out the zeta function at every integer converged to a constant, irrational as it may be, times a rational. that would be crazy unlikely.

@johannesmoerland5438 Год назад

They don't. The n-th derivative at x=0 however gives you the n-th bell number

@Happy_Abe Год назад

@14:32 why is the second sum from 0 to infinity when it was from 0 to n before?

@Happy_Abe Год назад

And how would dividing by (n-k)! work when k>n So doesn’t look like the sun should go to infinity, just to n

@M.athematech Год назад

B0 = 1 because there is indeed precisely one partition of the empty set, namely the empty partition.

@Milan_Openfeint Год назад

But an empty subset is forbidden by definition...? Feels like defining 0/0=1 or something.

@MisterGhosh Год назад

What is the empty partition?

@YO-in2uw Год назад

@@Milan_Openfeint Yes, so {{}} is not a solution. The only valid partition is {}, which contains no empty subsets.

@schweinmachtbree1013 Год назад

@@MisterGhosh The partition consisting of zero parts

@MisterGhosh Год назад

@@schweinmachtbree1013 okay, think I got... You can take all zero parts and exhaust the empty set, it makes sense.

@YTSPoster Год назад

This is so cool what the heck

@davidgillies620 Год назад

Isn't the partition here also called an exact cover?

@gael8828 Год назад

Hum, how can the last result give the rational numbers seen at the beginning of the video ?

@the-avid-engineer Год назад

The second sum from k = 0 to n suddenly changes to k = 0 to infinity.. is that a mistake or did you just not explain it?

@PotatoImaginator Год назад

He always know the good place to stop :)

@forheuristiclifeksh7836 Год назад

4:00

@jonathantorres913 Год назад

God

@pharaohgarmar5611 Год назад

I had a wry laugh at this. You go overboard with your signposting that you are about to embark on an example but at 14:18, you give a “simplification” in a formula which is clearly a massive leap and looks wrong (how can k range from 1 to infinity in (n-k)! ?). While I have appreciated many of your videos there is a tendency to gloss over critical explanations like this.

@thomaspeck4537 Год назад

I think the infinity is actually a mistake. Looking at Cauchy's formula, it is indexed to n. It seems he was looking ahead, and accidentally wrote two infinite sums a step too early.

@memesThatDank Год назад

here before good place to stop

@okoyoso Год назад

The rotating transition animation is a little annoying. It feels like my phone screen just rotated and makes me want to rotate back.

@albertozuanon3874 Год назад

I totally agree!

@yahav897 Год назад

I'll be hijacking this comment section: I'm a first year, and I barely got a pass in my linear algebra I course, and failed my real analysis one. I'll be taking the re-exam for both of them in the next two weeks. Any tips you might come up with? I hope I pass this time.

@user-le1oc9js4h Год назад

In my first semester of uni I almost failed both linear algebra and real analysis and pass by some miracle. The problem was that I tried to memorize the formulas and theorems instead of trying to understand them and recreate them during exam based on my understanding. Although it is a very hard task, you should try to remain calm and read through the material that you got and explain to yourself every little detail until you got it. You have not that much time, so you won’t be able to do it with all the material, but it’s good to get the hang of it just so the professor would see that you at least understood something. And of course, get all the help you can - microheadphones, cheatsheets, try to put some pressure on feelings of the examiner. Good luck!

@yahav897 Год назад

@@user-le1oc9js4h that is good advice. While I think I understand the material, I probably don't understand it well enough - so I should go over that again, and solve more problems.