;; Ok, so I reckon: (defn regions [n m] (cond (= n 1) (list m (inc m)) (= m 0) (concat (repeat n 0) '(1)) :else (map + (regions n (dec m)) (concat '(0) (regions (dec n) (dec m))) (concat (regions (dec n) (dec m)) '(0))))) ;; In fact, I reckon that I can prove it. ;; It's quite easy to prove something that isn't true. Usually when ;; you run across a counterexample, that shows you where the ;; unsuspected false step in your reasoning was. ;; So I'd like to verify the formula on lots of examples. ;; But how? ;; These I can count in my head. (regions 3 0) ;-> (0 0 0 1) ; just space, no planes (regions 3 1) ;-> (0 0 1 2) ; a plane cuts space in half (regions 3 2) ;-> (0 1 4 4) ; two planes intersect in one line, cutting space into four (regions 3 3) ;-> (1 6 12 8) ; 1 point where three planes meet, ; six coordinate half-axes, ; three coordinate planes divided into four quadrants each, ; and eight octants ;; I am sort of confident that four planes make fifteen regions and intersect in four points. (regions 3 4) ;-> (4 18 28 15) ;; But every attempt to count the 18 lines and 28 regions I make ends up relying on ;; the sort of arguments I made to make the recursion in the first place. ;; And at this point my intuition breaks. (regions 3 5) ;-> (10 40 55 26) ;; I mean, five planes, any three intersect in a point, ;; 10 ways to choose 3 planes from five, so 10 points, ;; but after that I'm dead. ;; And this? Six choose 3 is 20, I can see that.... (regions 3 6) ;-> (20 75 96 42) ;; And I defy anyone to even picture (regions 5 8) ;-> (56 350 896 1176 792 219) ;; 8 choose 5 is (/ (* 8 7 6) (* 1 2 3)) = 56, which is fair enough. ;; 8 choose 4 is (/ (* 8 7 6 5) (* 1 2 3 4)) is 70 ;; If we take any 4 hyperplanes from our 8, they'll define a line. ;; The four remaining hyperplanes then divide each line like: (regions 1 4) ;-> (4 5) ;; So if each of those lines is sliced into 5 pieces then that's our 350. ;; But I'm just using the same recursive argument again. ;; So I don't even know if that's evidence or not. ;; One nice thing about it, the formula has an alternating sum property, ;; like the Euler index. (defn signature [lst] (reduce + (map * (apply concat (repeat '(+1 -1))) (reverse lst)))) (signature (regions 5 8)) ;-> 1 (def regions (memoize regions)) (regions 7 23) ;-> (245157 1817046 5787628 10271800 10973116 7057688 2531288 390656) (signature (regions 7 23)) ;-> 1 (regions 23 20) ;-> (0 0 0 1 40 760 9120 77520 496128 2480640 9922560 32248320 85995520 189190144 343982080 515973120 635043840 635043840 508035072 317521920 149422080 49807360 10485760 1048576) (signature (regions 23 20)) ;-> 1 ;; But annoyingly, you can just read that property straight from the recursion!

## Search This Blog

## Monday, May 12, 2014

### Planes in Space : Checking by Hand

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

You've probably already seen this, but still...

ReplyDeletehttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpaceDivisionbyPlanes.html

Indeed. In fact my friend Paul got that formula by doing the first four cases in his head and fitting a cubic, which is just cheap. And irritatingly clever at the same time. An exercise for the reader: show that my recurrence and that formula are the same. If indeed they are.

ReplyDelete