number partitions — part 2

So in the previous post,  I outlined the assumptions involved from a formal systems (and/or Godel’s theorem centric) approach for a proof of “There’ll never be an exact specific formula for predicting number of partitions for number ‘n'”.

This is a follow-up post, trying to get into more detailed nature and define what we mean my “exact specific formula”. 

  • “formula” — We refer to a mathematical function   To re-phrase, it is a mapping/pairing from set X to set Y. There can be one-to-one pairings, one-to-many, many-to-many, directed/undirected pairings, cyclic/a-cyclic pairings. (Yes i just made a comparison of it with graphs). Anyways for our case, we add the following constraints.        it will take natural numbers and produce natural numbers.  It is acyclic.  It cannot be one-to-many, but it can be many-to-one. 
  • “exact specific” — We refer to the symbol between LHS and RHS and are trying to say it must be the equals operator.
  • Another way to put this same is a closed-form solution.


So as per the previous post, the thesis/theorem goal becomes to prove that we don’t have a graph subject to above conditions, if we restrict the operations to those defined (as per previous post). 

Formally, a function f from a set X to a set Y is defined by a set G of ordered pairs (xy) such that x ∈ Xy ∈ Y, and every element of X is the first component of exactly one ordered pair in G.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.