Why does $fracu_5 operatornamemod u_4u_4 operatornamemod u_3 = u_3$ where $u_n$ is the number of Gray codes on $n$ bits
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $u_n$ be the number of Gray codes on $n$ bits. See the entry on OEIS - only five values are listed.
I noticed that $$fracu_5 operatornamemod u_4u_4 operatornamemod u_3 = u_3$$
Or in IPython:
In [2]: import fractions
In [3]: fractions.Fraction(187499658240 % 91392, 91392 % 144)
Out[3]: Fraction(144, 1)
Is there a reason for that, or is it just a coincidence?
If the numbers 5, 4 and 3 are replaced with 4, 3 and 2 respectively, then the analagous claim doesn't hold because $$beginalignedu_3 operatornamemod u_2 &= 0\ u_4 operatornamemod u_3 &= 96endaligned$$
$96$ is also the number of cyclic Gray codes for $n=3$. So the coincidence is also that $$u_5 operatornamemod u_4 = [textnumber of Gray codes for n=3] times [textnumber of cyclic Gray codes for n=3]$$
combinatorics modular-arithmetic coding-theory coincidences gray-code
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $u_n$ be the number of Gray codes on $n$ bits. See the entry on OEIS - only five values are listed.
I noticed that $$fracu_5 operatornamemod u_4u_4 operatornamemod u_3 = u_3$$
Or in IPython:
In [2]: import fractions
In [3]: fractions.Fraction(187499658240 % 91392, 91392 % 144)
Out[3]: Fraction(144, 1)
Is there a reason for that, or is it just a coincidence?
If the numbers 5, 4 and 3 are replaced with 4, 3 and 2 respectively, then the analagous claim doesn't hold because $$beginalignedu_3 operatornamemod u_2 &= 0\ u_4 operatornamemod u_3 &= 96endaligned$$
$96$ is also the number of cyclic Gray codes for $n=3$. So the coincidence is also that $$u_5 operatornamemod u_4 = [textnumber of Gray codes for n=3] times [textnumber of cyclic Gray codes for n=3]$$
combinatorics modular-arithmetic coding-theory coincidences gray-code
1
I'm betting on coincidence. Given that it works once, and fails once, I see no reason to believe it's anything but coincidence. Given three positive integers, it's not hard to find an equation they satisfy.
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 at 22:56
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $u_n$ be the number of Gray codes on $n$ bits. See the entry on OEIS - only five values are listed.
I noticed that $$fracu_5 operatornamemod u_4u_4 operatornamemod u_3 = u_3$$
Or in IPython:
In [2]: import fractions
In [3]: fractions.Fraction(187499658240 % 91392, 91392 % 144)
Out[3]: Fraction(144, 1)
Is there a reason for that, or is it just a coincidence?
If the numbers 5, 4 and 3 are replaced with 4, 3 and 2 respectively, then the analagous claim doesn't hold because $$beginalignedu_3 operatornamemod u_2 &= 0\ u_4 operatornamemod u_3 &= 96endaligned$$
$96$ is also the number of cyclic Gray codes for $n=3$. So the coincidence is also that $$u_5 operatornamemod u_4 = [textnumber of Gray codes for n=3] times [textnumber of cyclic Gray codes for n=3]$$
combinatorics modular-arithmetic coding-theory coincidences gray-code
Let $u_n$ be the number of Gray codes on $n$ bits. See the entry on OEIS - only five values are listed.
I noticed that $$fracu_5 operatornamemod u_4u_4 operatornamemod u_3 = u_3$$
Or in IPython:
In [2]: import fractions
In [3]: fractions.Fraction(187499658240 % 91392, 91392 % 144)
Out[3]: Fraction(144, 1)
Is there a reason for that, or is it just a coincidence?
If the numbers 5, 4 and 3 are replaced with 4, 3 and 2 respectively, then the analagous claim doesn't hold because $$beginalignedu_3 operatornamemod u_2 &= 0\ u_4 operatornamemod u_3 &= 96endaligned$$
$96$ is also the number of cyclic Gray codes for $n=3$. So the coincidence is also that $$u_5 operatornamemod u_4 = [textnumber of Gray codes for n=3] times [textnumber of cyclic Gray codes for n=3]$$
combinatorics modular-arithmetic coding-theory coincidences gray-code
edited Jul 26 at 15:01
asked Jul 21 at 20:50
ogogmad
5,49211238
5,49211238
1
I'm betting on coincidence. Given that it works once, and fails once, I see no reason to believe it's anything but coincidence. Given three positive integers, it's not hard to find an equation they satisfy.
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 at 22:56
add a comment |Â
1
I'm betting on coincidence. Given that it works once, and fails once, I see no reason to believe it's anything but coincidence. Given three positive integers, it's not hard to find an equation they satisfy.
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 at 22:56
1
1
I'm betting on coincidence. Given that it works once, and fails once, I see no reason to believe it's anything but coincidence. Given three positive integers, it's not hard to find an equation they satisfy.
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 at 22:56
I'm betting on coincidence. Given that it works once, and fails once, I see no reason to believe it's anything but coincidence. Given three positive integers, it's not hard to find an equation they satisfy.
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 at 22:56
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2858875%2fwhy-does-fracu-5-operatornamemod-u-4u-4-operatornamemod-u-3-u-3-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
1
I'm betting on coincidence. Given that it works once, and fails once, I see no reason to believe it's anything but coincidence. Given three positive integers, it's not hard to find an equation they satisfy.
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 21 at 22:56