Pair Share IV

By -
Remember Pair Share? It carries over seamlessly to triples. Let T be the set of all triples (m,n,p) such that mnp = m+n+p. (Digressing: notice that these triples are not sets, since if two numbers are the same, we can't let them fall together; also, they are not ordered triples or 3-vectors, since we don't distinguish between (m,n,p) and (m,p,n), etc. I believe that the technical term for this intermediate kind of entity is "bag.")(0,0,0) is in there, of course, but so is (1,2,3). Cool!

Most pairs (m,n) allow one (m,n,p) in T, but not all. Can you find (m,n) that doesn't allow any (m,n,p)? Answer: (1,1) is a good choice (of very many). 1 x 1 x p = p; 1+1+p = p+2.

Can you generate all and only the integer triples in T? Are there finitely or infinitely many of them? Answer: relying on analogy with the case of pairs, you might be tempted to bite me--er, no, I mean, you might be tempted to answer "finitely many." But triples have a dimension that pairs lack: every (-n,0,n) qualifies: the answer is "infinitely many."

The question of whether the aggregate resultants (i.e., mnp = m+n+p) are finite or infinite in number is slightly harder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more