Distributing colored balls into bins such that each bin is distinct.
$begingroup$
Suppose I have $n = n_1 + n_2 + dots + n_k$ balls of $k$ colors, with exactly $n_i geq 1$ balls of color $i$. Balls that are the same color are indistinguishable. Additionally, we have $m$ indistinguishable bins. I would like to count the number of ways in which we can distribute the balls over all bins such that each bin is non-empty, and no two bins have the exact same multiset of balls (i.e. we can not have two bins ${R, B}$, but we can have both of the bins ${R, B}$ and ${R, R, B}$).
Example: say we have $m=2$ and $n_1 = 3$ ('red') and $n_2 = 2$ ('blue'). Then the valid distributions are:
- ${{R, R, R, B}, {B}}$
- ${{R, R, R}, {B, B}}$
- ${{R, R, B, B}, {R}}$
- ${{R, R, B}, {R, B}}$
- ${{R, R}, {R, B, B}}$
So the answer is $5$ (modulo an overseen distribution on my part :-) ).
How can I compute this quantity for given $n_1,n_2, dots, n_k$ and $m$?
combinatorics balls-in-bins
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose I have $n = n_1 + n_2 + dots + n_k$ balls of $k$ colors, with exactly $n_i geq 1$ balls of color $i$. Balls that are the same color are indistinguishable. Additionally, we have $m$ indistinguishable bins. I would like to count the number of ways in which we can distribute the balls over all bins such that each bin is non-empty, and no two bins have the exact same multiset of balls (i.e. we can not have two bins ${R, B}$, but we can have both of the bins ${R, B}$ and ${R, R, B}$).
Example: say we have $m=2$ and $n_1 = 3$ ('red') and $n_2 = 2$ ('blue'). Then the valid distributions are:
- ${{R, R, R, B}, {B}}$
- ${{R, R, R}, {B, B}}$
- ${{R, R, B, B}, {R}}$
- ${{R, R, B}, {R, B}}$
- ${{R, R}, {R, B, B}}$
So the answer is $5$ (modulo an overseen distribution on my part :-) ).
How can I compute this quantity for given $n_1,n_2, dots, n_k$ and $m$?
combinatorics balls-in-bins
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Oh god...the distinct bin condition is rough.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:51
$begingroup$
Yes, it is. FYI this isn't a problem from a text book or anything, it might not have a nice solution.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:53
$begingroup$
If not for that condition, this problem has a relatively clean solution. I'm not convinced that as written, it does. You probably have to do some major inclusion-exclusion work.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:55
$begingroup$
Yes, then it is a standard problem. I was trying to do inclusion/exclusion over that but it doesn't become very pretty. I was hoping someone here had a good idea on how to tackle it.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose I have $n = n_1 + n_2 + dots + n_k$ balls of $k$ colors, with exactly $n_i geq 1$ balls of color $i$. Balls that are the same color are indistinguishable. Additionally, we have $m$ indistinguishable bins. I would like to count the number of ways in which we can distribute the balls over all bins such that each bin is non-empty, and no two bins have the exact same multiset of balls (i.e. we can not have two bins ${R, B}$, but we can have both of the bins ${R, B}$ and ${R, R, B}$).
Example: say we have $m=2$ and $n_1 = 3$ ('red') and $n_2 = 2$ ('blue'). Then the valid distributions are:
- ${{R, R, R, B}, {B}}$
- ${{R, R, R}, {B, B}}$
- ${{R, R, B, B}, {R}}$
- ${{R, R, B}, {R, B}}$
- ${{R, R}, {R, B, B}}$
So the answer is $5$ (modulo an overseen distribution on my part :-) ).
How can I compute this quantity for given $n_1,n_2, dots, n_k$ and $m$?
combinatorics balls-in-bins
$endgroup$
Suppose I have $n = n_1 + n_2 + dots + n_k$ balls of $k$ colors, with exactly $n_i geq 1$ balls of color $i$. Balls that are the same color are indistinguishable. Additionally, we have $m$ indistinguishable bins. I would like to count the number of ways in which we can distribute the balls over all bins such that each bin is non-empty, and no two bins have the exact same multiset of balls (i.e. we can not have two bins ${R, B}$, but we can have both of the bins ${R, B}$ and ${R, R, B}$).
Example: say we have $m=2$ and $n_1 = 3$ ('red') and $n_2 = 2$ ('blue'). Then the valid distributions are:
- ${{R, R, R, B}, {B}}$
- ${{R, R, R}, {B, B}}$
- ${{R, R, B, B}, {R}}$
- ${{R, R, B}, {R, B}}$
- ${{R, R}, {R, B, B}}$
So the answer is $5$ (modulo an overseen distribution on my part :-) ).
How can I compute this quantity for given $n_1,n_2, dots, n_k$ and $m$?
combinatorics balls-in-bins
combinatorics balls-in-bins
asked Dec 18 '18 at 15:45
Timon KniggeTimon Knigge
370110
370110
1
$begingroup$
Oh god...the distinct bin condition is rough.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:51
$begingroup$
Yes, it is. FYI this isn't a problem from a text book or anything, it might not have a nice solution.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:53
$begingroup$
If not for that condition, this problem has a relatively clean solution. I'm not convinced that as written, it does. You probably have to do some major inclusion-exclusion work.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:55
$begingroup$
Yes, then it is a standard problem. I was trying to do inclusion/exclusion over that but it doesn't become very pretty. I was hoping someone here had a good idea on how to tackle it.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:56
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Oh god...the distinct bin condition is rough.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:51
$begingroup$
Yes, it is. FYI this isn't a problem from a text book or anything, it might not have a nice solution.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:53
$begingroup$
If not for that condition, this problem has a relatively clean solution. I'm not convinced that as written, it does. You probably have to do some major inclusion-exclusion work.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:55
$begingroup$
Yes, then it is a standard problem. I was trying to do inclusion/exclusion over that but it doesn't become very pretty. I was hoping someone here had a good idea on how to tackle it.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:56
1
1
$begingroup$
Oh god...the distinct bin condition is rough.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:51
$begingroup$
Oh god...the distinct bin condition is rough.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:51
$begingroup$
Yes, it is. FYI this isn't a problem from a text book or anything, it might not have a nice solution.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:53
$begingroup$
Yes, it is. FYI this isn't a problem from a text book or anything, it might not have a nice solution.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:53
$begingroup$
If not for that condition, this problem has a relatively clean solution. I'm not convinced that as written, it does. You probably have to do some major inclusion-exclusion work.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:55
$begingroup$
If not for that condition, this problem has a relatively clean solution. I'm not convinced that as written, it does. You probably have to do some major inclusion-exclusion work.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:55
$begingroup$
Yes, then it is a standard problem. I was trying to do inclusion/exclusion over that but it doesn't become very pretty. I was hoping someone here had a good idea on how to tackle it.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:56
$begingroup$
Yes, then it is a standard problem. I was trying to do inclusion/exclusion over that but it doesn't become very pretty. I was hoping someone here had a good idea on how to tackle it.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:56
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Note: what follows is a close adaptation of this MSE
link, which treats
unique factorizations of integers into multisets of factors. In the
present problem the factors have to be unique. Suppose we start with
the source multiset and using the notation from the cited link
$$deftextsc#1{dosc#1csod}
defdosc#1#2csod{{rm #1{small #2}}}
prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}$$
where we have $l$ different values and their multiplicities are the
$tau_k.$
If we have a CAS like Maple, $N$ is reasonable and we seek fairly
instant computation of these values then we may just use the cycle
index $Z(P_N)$ of the unlabeled operator $textsc{SET}_{=N}.$ This
yields the formula
$$left[prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}right]
Zleft(P_N; -1 + prod_{k=1}^l frac{1}{1-A_k}right).$$
Here we have used the recurrence by Lovasz for the quoted cycle index,
which is
$$Z(P_N) = frac{1}{N} sum_{l=1}^N (-1)^{l-1} a_l Z(P_{N-l})
quadtext{where}quad
Z(P_0) = 1.$$
Maple can extract these coefficients by asking for the coefficient of
the corresponding Taylor series. We get the following transcript:
> MSETS([3,2], 2);
5
> map(el->el[1], select(el->el[
> 2]>0, [seq([n, FACTORS(n,3)], n=1..256)]));
[24, 30, 36, 40, 42, 48, 54, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 78, 80,
84, 88, 90, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114,
120, 126, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 150,
152, 154, 156, 160, 162, 165, 168, 170, 174, 176, 180,
182, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 200, 204,
208, 210, 216, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 232,
234, 238, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256]
The sequence is OEIS A122181 and looks to
have the right values. The Maple code here is quite simple and also
includes a recurrence that does not use PET, which is based on MSE
Link II.
with(combinat);
with(numtheory);
pet_cycleind_set :=
proc(n)
option remember;
if n=0 then return 1; fi;
expand(1/n*
add((-1)^(l-1)*a[l]*pet_cycleind_set(n-l), l=1..n));
end;
pet_varinto_cind :=
proc(poly, ind)
local subs1, subsl, polyvars, indvars, v, pot;
polyvars := indets(poly);
indvars := indets(ind);
subsl := ;
for v in indvars do
pot := op(1, v);
subs1 :=
[seq(polyvars[k]=polyvars[k]^pot,
k=1..nops(polyvars))];
subsl := [op(subsl), v=subs(subs1, poly)];
od;
subs(subsl, ind);
end;
MSETS :=
proc(src, N)
local msetgf, cind, gf, cf;
msetgf := mul(1/(1-A[q]), q=1..nops(src))-1;
cind := pet_cycleind_set(N);
gf := pet_varinto_cind(msetgf, cind);
for cf to nops(src) do
gf := coeftayl(gf, A[cf] = 0, src[cf]);
od;
gf;
end;
FACTORS :=
proc(n, N)
local mults;
mults := map(el -> el[2], op(2, ifactors(n)));
MSETS(mults, N);
end;
FACTREC :=
proc(val, numel, maxfact)
option remember;
local divs;
if numel = 1 then
return `if`(1 < val and val <= maxfact, 1, 0);
fi;
divs := select(d -> d <= maxfact, divisors(val));
add(FACTREC(val/d, numel-1, d-1), d in divs);
end;
FACTORSX := (n, N) -> FACTREC(n, N, n);
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3045311%2fdistributing-colored-balls-into-bins-such-that-each-bin-is-distinct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Note: what follows is a close adaptation of this MSE
link, which treats
unique factorizations of integers into multisets of factors. In the
present problem the factors have to be unique. Suppose we start with
the source multiset and using the notation from the cited link
$$deftextsc#1{dosc#1csod}
defdosc#1#2csod{{rm #1{small #2}}}
prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}$$
where we have $l$ different values and their multiplicities are the
$tau_k.$
If we have a CAS like Maple, $N$ is reasonable and we seek fairly
instant computation of these values then we may just use the cycle
index $Z(P_N)$ of the unlabeled operator $textsc{SET}_{=N}.$ This
yields the formula
$$left[prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}right]
Zleft(P_N; -1 + prod_{k=1}^l frac{1}{1-A_k}right).$$
Here we have used the recurrence by Lovasz for the quoted cycle index,
which is
$$Z(P_N) = frac{1}{N} sum_{l=1}^N (-1)^{l-1} a_l Z(P_{N-l})
quadtext{where}quad
Z(P_0) = 1.$$
Maple can extract these coefficients by asking for the coefficient of
the corresponding Taylor series. We get the following transcript:
> MSETS([3,2], 2);
5
> map(el->el[1], select(el->el[
> 2]>0, [seq([n, FACTORS(n,3)], n=1..256)]));
[24, 30, 36, 40, 42, 48, 54, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 78, 80,
84, 88, 90, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114,
120, 126, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 150,
152, 154, 156, 160, 162, 165, 168, 170, 174, 176, 180,
182, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 200, 204,
208, 210, 216, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 232,
234, 238, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256]
The sequence is OEIS A122181 and looks to
have the right values. The Maple code here is quite simple and also
includes a recurrence that does not use PET, which is based on MSE
Link II.
with(combinat);
with(numtheory);
pet_cycleind_set :=
proc(n)
option remember;
if n=0 then return 1; fi;
expand(1/n*
add((-1)^(l-1)*a[l]*pet_cycleind_set(n-l), l=1..n));
end;
pet_varinto_cind :=
proc(poly, ind)
local subs1, subsl, polyvars, indvars, v, pot;
polyvars := indets(poly);
indvars := indets(ind);
subsl := ;
for v in indvars do
pot := op(1, v);
subs1 :=
[seq(polyvars[k]=polyvars[k]^pot,
k=1..nops(polyvars))];
subsl := [op(subsl), v=subs(subs1, poly)];
od;
subs(subsl, ind);
end;
MSETS :=
proc(src, N)
local msetgf, cind, gf, cf;
msetgf := mul(1/(1-A[q]), q=1..nops(src))-1;
cind := pet_cycleind_set(N);
gf := pet_varinto_cind(msetgf, cind);
for cf to nops(src) do
gf := coeftayl(gf, A[cf] = 0, src[cf]);
od;
gf;
end;
FACTORS :=
proc(n, N)
local mults;
mults := map(el -> el[2], op(2, ifactors(n)));
MSETS(mults, N);
end;
FACTREC :=
proc(val, numel, maxfact)
option remember;
local divs;
if numel = 1 then
return `if`(1 < val and val <= maxfact, 1, 0);
fi;
divs := select(d -> d <= maxfact, divisors(val));
add(FACTREC(val/d, numel-1, d-1), d in divs);
end;
FACTORSX := (n, N) -> FACTREC(n, N, n);
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note: what follows is a close adaptation of this MSE
link, which treats
unique factorizations of integers into multisets of factors. In the
present problem the factors have to be unique. Suppose we start with
the source multiset and using the notation from the cited link
$$deftextsc#1{dosc#1csod}
defdosc#1#2csod{{rm #1{small #2}}}
prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}$$
where we have $l$ different values and their multiplicities are the
$tau_k.$
If we have a CAS like Maple, $N$ is reasonable and we seek fairly
instant computation of these values then we may just use the cycle
index $Z(P_N)$ of the unlabeled operator $textsc{SET}_{=N}.$ This
yields the formula
$$left[prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}right]
Zleft(P_N; -1 + prod_{k=1}^l frac{1}{1-A_k}right).$$
Here we have used the recurrence by Lovasz for the quoted cycle index,
which is
$$Z(P_N) = frac{1}{N} sum_{l=1}^N (-1)^{l-1} a_l Z(P_{N-l})
quadtext{where}quad
Z(P_0) = 1.$$
Maple can extract these coefficients by asking for the coefficient of
the corresponding Taylor series. We get the following transcript:
> MSETS([3,2], 2);
5
> map(el->el[1], select(el->el[
> 2]>0, [seq([n, FACTORS(n,3)], n=1..256)]));
[24, 30, 36, 40, 42, 48, 54, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 78, 80,
84, 88, 90, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114,
120, 126, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 150,
152, 154, 156, 160, 162, 165, 168, 170, 174, 176, 180,
182, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 200, 204,
208, 210, 216, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 232,
234, 238, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256]
The sequence is OEIS A122181 and looks to
have the right values. The Maple code here is quite simple and also
includes a recurrence that does not use PET, which is based on MSE
Link II.
with(combinat);
with(numtheory);
pet_cycleind_set :=
proc(n)
option remember;
if n=0 then return 1; fi;
expand(1/n*
add((-1)^(l-1)*a[l]*pet_cycleind_set(n-l), l=1..n));
end;
pet_varinto_cind :=
proc(poly, ind)
local subs1, subsl, polyvars, indvars, v, pot;
polyvars := indets(poly);
indvars := indets(ind);
subsl := ;
for v in indvars do
pot := op(1, v);
subs1 :=
[seq(polyvars[k]=polyvars[k]^pot,
k=1..nops(polyvars))];
subsl := [op(subsl), v=subs(subs1, poly)];
od;
subs(subsl, ind);
end;
MSETS :=
proc(src, N)
local msetgf, cind, gf, cf;
msetgf := mul(1/(1-A[q]), q=1..nops(src))-1;
cind := pet_cycleind_set(N);
gf := pet_varinto_cind(msetgf, cind);
for cf to nops(src) do
gf := coeftayl(gf, A[cf] = 0, src[cf]);
od;
gf;
end;
FACTORS :=
proc(n, N)
local mults;
mults := map(el -> el[2], op(2, ifactors(n)));
MSETS(mults, N);
end;
FACTREC :=
proc(val, numel, maxfact)
option remember;
local divs;
if numel = 1 then
return `if`(1 < val and val <= maxfact, 1, 0);
fi;
divs := select(d -> d <= maxfact, divisors(val));
add(FACTREC(val/d, numel-1, d-1), d in divs);
end;
FACTORSX := (n, N) -> FACTREC(n, N, n);
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Note: what follows is a close adaptation of this MSE
link, which treats
unique factorizations of integers into multisets of factors. In the
present problem the factors have to be unique. Suppose we start with
the source multiset and using the notation from the cited link
$$deftextsc#1{dosc#1csod}
defdosc#1#2csod{{rm #1{small #2}}}
prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}$$
where we have $l$ different values and their multiplicities are the
$tau_k.$
If we have a CAS like Maple, $N$ is reasonable and we seek fairly
instant computation of these values then we may just use the cycle
index $Z(P_N)$ of the unlabeled operator $textsc{SET}_{=N}.$ This
yields the formula
$$left[prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}right]
Zleft(P_N; -1 + prod_{k=1}^l frac{1}{1-A_k}right).$$
Here we have used the recurrence by Lovasz for the quoted cycle index,
which is
$$Z(P_N) = frac{1}{N} sum_{l=1}^N (-1)^{l-1} a_l Z(P_{N-l})
quadtext{where}quad
Z(P_0) = 1.$$
Maple can extract these coefficients by asking for the coefficient of
the corresponding Taylor series. We get the following transcript:
> MSETS([3,2], 2);
5
> map(el->el[1], select(el->el[
> 2]>0, [seq([n, FACTORS(n,3)], n=1..256)]));
[24, 30, 36, 40, 42, 48, 54, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 78, 80,
84, 88, 90, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114,
120, 126, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 150,
152, 154, 156, 160, 162, 165, 168, 170, 174, 176, 180,
182, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 200, 204,
208, 210, 216, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 232,
234, 238, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256]
The sequence is OEIS A122181 and looks to
have the right values. The Maple code here is quite simple and also
includes a recurrence that does not use PET, which is based on MSE
Link II.
with(combinat);
with(numtheory);
pet_cycleind_set :=
proc(n)
option remember;
if n=0 then return 1; fi;
expand(1/n*
add((-1)^(l-1)*a[l]*pet_cycleind_set(n-l), l=1..n));
end;
pet_varinto_cind :=
proc(poly, ind)
local subs1, subsl, polyvars, indvars, v, pot;
polyvars := indets(poly);
indvars := indets(ind);
subsl := ;
for v in indvars do
pot := op(1, v);
subs1 :=
[seq(polyvars[k]=polyvars[k]^pot,
k=1..nops(polyvars))];
subsl := [op(subsl), v=subs(subs1, poly)];
od;
subs(subsl, ind);
end;
MSETS :=
proc(src, N)
local msetgf, cind, gf, cf;
msetgf := mul(1/(1-A[q]), q=1..nops(src))-1;
cind := pet_cycleind_set(N);
gf := pet_varinto_cind(msetgf, cind);
for cf to nops(src) do
gf := coeftayl(gf, A[cf] = 0, src[cf]);
od;
gf;
end;
FACTORS :=
proc(n, N)
local mults;
mults := map(el -> el[2], op(2, ifactors(n)));
MSETS(mults, N);
end;
FACTREC :=
proc(val, numel, maxfact)
option remember;
local divs;
if numel = 1 then
return `if`(1 < val and val <= maxfact, 1, 0);
fi;
divs := select(d -> d <= maxfact, divisors(val));
add(FACTREC(val/d, numel-1, d-1), d in divs);
end;
FACTORSX := (n, N) -> FACTREC(n, N, n);
$endgroup$
Note: what follows is a close adaptation of this MSE
link, which treats
unique factorizations of integers into multisets of factors. In the
present problem the factors have to be unique. Suppose we start with
the source multiset and using the notation from the cited link
$$deftextsc#1{dosc#1csod}
defdosc#1#2csod{{rm #1{small #2}}}
prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}$$
where we have $l$ different values and their multiplicities are the
$tau_k.$
If we have a CAS like Maple, $N$ is reasonable and we seek fairly
instant computation of these values then we may just use the cycle
index $Z(P_N)$ of the unlabeled operator $textsc{SET}_{=N}.$ This
yields the formula
$$left[prod_{k=1}^l A_k^{tau_k}right]
Zleft(P_N; -1 + prod_{k=1}^l frac{1}{1-A_k}right).$$
Here we have used the recurrence by Lovasz for the quoted cycle index,
which is
$$Z(P_N) = frac{1}{N} sum_{l=1}^N (-1)^{l-1} a_l Z(P_{N-l})
quadtext{where}quad
Z(P_0) = 1.$$
Maple can extract these coefficients by asking for the coefficient of
the corresponding Taylor series. We get the following transcript:
> MSETS([3,2], 2);
5
> map(el->el[1], select(el->el[
> 2]>0, [seq([n, FACTORS(n,3)], n=1..256)]));
[24, 30, 36, 40, 42, 48, 54, 56, 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 78, 80,
84, 88, 90, 96, 100, 102, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114,
120, 126, 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 144, 150,
152, 154, 156, 160, 162, 165, 168, 170, 174, 176, 180,
182, 184, 186, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 200, 204,
208, 210, 216, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228, 230, 231, 232,
234, 238, 240, 246, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256]
The sequence is OEIS A122181 and looks to
have the right values. The Maple code here is quite simple and also
includes a recurrence that does not use PET, which is based on MSE
Link II.
with(combinat);
with(numtheory);
pet_cycleind_set :=
proc(n)
option remember;
if n=0 then return 1; fi;
expand(1/n*
add((-1)^(l-1)*a[l]*pet_cycleind_set(n-l), l=1..n));
end;
pet_varinto_cind :=
proc(poly, ind)
local subs1, subsl, polyvars, indvars, v, pot;
polyvars := indets(poly);
indvars := indets(ind);
subsl := ;
for v in indvars do
pot := op(1, v);
subs1 :=
[seq(polyvars[k]=polyvars[k]^pot,
k=1..nops(polyvars))];
subsl := [op(subsl), v=subs(subs1, poly)];
od;
subs(subsl, ind);
end;
MSETS :=
proc(src, N)
local msetgf, cind, gf, cf;
msetgf := mul(1/(1-A[q]), q=1..nops(src))-1;
cind := pet_cycleind_set(N);
gf := pet_varinto_cind(msetgf, cind);
for cf to nops(src) do
gf := coeftayl(gf, A[cf] = 0, src[cf]);
od;
gf;
end;
FACTORS :=
proc(n, N)
local mults;
mults := map(el -> el[2], op(2, ifactors(n)));
MSETS(mults, N);
end;
FACTREC :=
proc(val, numel, maxfact)
option remember;
local divs;
if numel = 1 then
return `if`(1 < val and val <= maxfact, 1, 0);
fi;
divs := select(d -> d <= maxfact, divisors(val));
add(FACTREC(val/d, numel-1, d-1), d in divs);
end;
FACTORSX := (n, N) -> FACTREC(n, N, n);
edited Dec 18 '18 at 21:04
answered Dec 18 '18 at 20:09
Marko RiedelMarko Riedel
40.5k339109
40.5k339109
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3045311%2fdistributing-colored-balls-into-bins-such-that-each-bin-is-distinct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Oh god...the distinct bin condition is rough.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:51
$begingroup$
Yes, it is. FYI this isn't a problem from a text book or anything, it might not have a nice solution.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:53
$begingroup$
If not for that condition, this problem has a relatively clean solution. I'm not convinced that as written, it does. You probably have to do some major inclusion-exclusion work.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Dec 18 '18 at 15:55
$begingroup$
Yes, then it is a standard problem. I was trying to do inclusion/exclusion over that but it doesn't become very pretty. I was hoping someone here had a good idea on how to tackle it.
$endgroup$
– Timon Knigge
Dec 18 '18 at 15:56