On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I built an excel spread sheet to calculate this for various values of N,S, > and O. But when O = zero, the value of C(N,S)/T(N,S,O) doesn't make sense > for most values of N and S. For example if N = 100 and S = 10, and O = > zero, then A should equal 10, not one as it does on the spread sheet. >
It's a lower bound. > I have attached the excel spreadsheet I made to play around with your > formulas, and a PDF of one page of it, in case you don't have access to > Excel. > Your spreadsheet doesn't catch it for S=100 and O=1, it explodes when you try to increase N. But at S=10, O=2, you can see how lower bound increases as you increase N. At N=5000, lower bound is 6000, at N=10^6, it's 2.5*10^8, and at N=10^9 it's 2.5*10^14. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
