[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/sci/ - Science & Math

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:04 UTC+1 No.6613046 Report

I'm working on an extension of the Multinomial Theorem.

What do you think /sci/? Novel enough to publish?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:09 UTC+1 No.6613062 Report

>>6613046
You're that grad student form the /b/ thread last night.

>What do you think /sci/? Novel enough to publish?
Yeah, go for it.

I'm still trying to figure out that problem you posted.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:12 UTC+1 No.6613067 Report

>>6613062
Ah, I thought you would be here. Just tell me when you want me to give you the answer ;)
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:13 UTC+1 No.6613072 Report

>>6613067
Considering I don't know much about the requirements for the actual problem you can just post the answer if you want. I'd probably get more learning out of studying the solution.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:24 UTC+1 No.6613091 Report

>>6613072
Here ya go. Very rough draft obviously. Might be a bit hard to follow.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:26 UTC+1 No.6613098 Report

>Take a first year bachelors degree course
>learn discrete mathematics
>think he is journal ready

pfttttttttt
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:29 UTC+1 No.6613099 Report

>>6613098
I have a B.S. in math and I've published papers before. Not in math though.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:29 UTC+1 No.6613100 Report

>>6613091
It may take me a while to follow all the steps but it is something I can do.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:36 UTC+1 No.6613110 Report

>>6613099
Well, i'll read it through later if i have time. Altough i think the multinomial coefficient can be further generalized into matrices of sums. Usually the generalizations of these types end in that "type of level of abstraction", look at the proof for the matrix representation of the statistical version of "least square" approximation. I can feel that the end term on the right side at the end can be further generalized, its not powerful enough. Sorry.

Perphaps you need to introduce some new definitions or something.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:40 UTC+1 No.6613116 Report

>>6613110
That's actually what I'm working on right now. I just posted the most easy to understand part of what I'm working on.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:46 UTC+1 No.6613135 Report

>>6613046
>tfw engineerfag
>tfw I don't understand any of this
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:53 UTC+1 No.6613152 Report

>>6613135
It's actually really easy to understand even if you have very little math experience.

Let's say you wanted to find the coefficient of some term in the expansion of (x1)(x1+x2)(x1+x2+x3)(x1+x2+x3+x4)...(x1+...+xm)

You could do FOIL, which means m! multiplications, and then add up all the like terms until you get the coefficient you want. But that's sort of a pain in the ass.

Or you can generate the coefficient using the formula I came up with.

Let's say m=6 and the term you want to look at is (x1)^3(x2)^2(x3)^1. Well the coefficient is (3*4*4*3*2*1)/(3!2!1!0!0!0!) = 24
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:59 UTC+1 No.6613170 Report

>>6613135
Dude, the page shown has some pretty large and scary notations but the actual math behind it isn't particularly complex.

Can you integrate pic related? Is it true what I've heard? Do engineers suck at math?
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:02 UTC+1 No.6613181 Report

>>6613116
Only promote further reflection once you think that the level of generalization has been saturated, else you might come out as lazy.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:06 UTC+1 No.6613193 Report

>>6613046
I think it's great to find out these kind of things on your own. But I don't think this is novel and powerful enough to publish. I mean i have taken undergrad courses where we used techniques that came pretty close, so i can;t imagine this is now known.

Perhaps my advise to do some research into what is already known and see how this could possibly relate to existing research.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:07 UTC+1 No.6613194 Report

>>6613181
Well I don't really see how to further organize the part I posted. Perhaps multiindex notation could be used but I don't think it's particularly helpful here.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:10 UTC+1 No.6613205 Report

>>6613193
I have searched this extensively and I can't find anything like it. There really is not a lot of work on generalizing the Multinomial Theorem and what is there is mostly about continuous powers.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:15 UTC+1 No.6613221 Report

>>6613205
perhaps you should make it into a complete "nomial" thing. With an introduction to the simple binomial coefficient, and then build yourself up slowly to your generalization?
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:18 UTC+1 No.6613228 Report

>>6613221
I do explain how both the binomial and multinomial theorems can be derived from my generalization.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)21:05 UTC+1 No.6614925 Report

Op, are you still around? I have some questions I'd like to ask you about publishing in math.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)21:19 UTC+1 No.6614943 Report

OP, why do you think this work hasn't been published before?

I don't mean to imply you shouldn't publish it, I just don't know why a generalization of the binomial theorem isn't already out there.

Is publishing in math a matter of finding new math or can you basically put out an article on methods you use to solve more complicated problems??
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)04:01 UTC+1 No.6615616 Report

>>6613046

My advice is to find a math professor (preferably a friend of a friend) who is knowledgeable in this area. Then have them go over it as an unofficial review. They will be able to give you excellent advice as to what you should or shouldn't be doing.

Unfortunately, there's more to publishing than just the content of the manuscript. The reviewers need to know where you're coming from and what you think you're doing and where your work stands in the literature. By referencing the relevant, current literature, you will inevitably ingratiate yourself to people quite likely to review you. That, for better or worse, is how it works.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)04:06 UTC+1 No.6615625 Report

>>6613170
What.. you just partition the area in 2 and use double integrals
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)04:10 UTC+1 No.6615633 Report

>>6613170
I'm an engineer and I can integrate that, but why should I when I can just find the area with triangles?
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.