So, what do you guys here think, what would be the distribution of the numbers in the multiplication table? That is, in the 10x10 multiplication table, why are there 6 numbers between 10 and 20 (12, 14, 15, 16, 18), 5 numbers between 20 and 30 (21, 24, 25, 27 and 28), but no numbers between 90 and 100 and only one number between 80 and 90 (81)? I've made a webapp (works only in modern browsers, not even in Internet Explorer 11) that calculates the properties of that distribution, but I can't figure out if it's some distribution that's already been described.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 19, 2022, 1:36 am
Thread Rating:
Distribution of numbers in the multiplication table

It's the nature of arithmetic. Not all numbers from 1100 are the product of integers from 110.
I'm not sure why this is even a question. Boru
‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Aliens.
(June 8, 2020 at 5:06 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It's the nature of arithmetic. Not all numbers from 1100 are the product of integers from 110. Of course not all numbers from 1100 are the product of integers from 110, but why aren't those numbers that are products evenly distributed? Furthermore, why is the distribution function mostly falling, but also has short intervals of growth? (June 8, 2020 at 5:49 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:(June 8, 2020 at 5:06 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It's the nature of arithmetic. Not all numbers from 1100 are the product of integers from 110. Why SHOULD they be evenly distributed? As you get to larger and larger numbers, it takes larger and larger integers to multiply to produce those numbers. But you're only working with factors of 110. So, the higher the product, the less likely it is to be produced by multiplying just 110 by other integers from 110. For example, lets look at two numbers, 30 and 94. The factors of 30 (that is, those integers that you can multiply to get 20) on a 10x10 multiplication table are 3,5,6, and 10. But for 94, the only factor on the same table is 2. Boru
‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson
RE: Distribution of numbers in the multiplication table
June 8, 2020 at 6:51 am
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2020 at 6:52 am by FlatAssembler.)
(June 8, 2020 at 6:01 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(June 8, 2020 at 5:49 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Of course not all numbers from 1100 are the product of integers from 110, but why aren't those numbers that are products evenly distributed? Furthermore, why is the distribution function mostly falling, but also has short intervals of growth? OK, well, prime numbers become more and more rare the numbers you are looking at get bigger. And, since prime numbers can't be found in an n*n multiplication table except in the interval <1,n], one could as well expect there to be more numbers in the multiplication table in higher intervals, rather than in lower intervals (there will be more prime numbers in lower intervals). Furthermore, why would somebody expect there to be short intervals of growth in the distribution function, ones that my webapp ( https://flatassembler.github.io/multiplication.html ) draws red? RE: Distribution of numbers in the multiplication table
June 8, 2020 at 7:07 am
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2020 at 7:16 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(June 8, 2020 at 6:51 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:(June 8, 2020 at 6:01 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Why SHOULD they be evenly distributed? As you get to larger and larger numbers, it takes larger and larger integers to multiply to produce those numbers. But you're only working with factors of 110. So, the higher the product, the less likely it is to be produced by multiplying just 110 by other integers from 110. It’s got nothing to do with prime numbers (well...a little bit to do with prime numbers). It has to with there being fewer factors of larger products in the 110 integer range. Let’s look at the number 60. Factors for this are 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30 and 60. But on a 10x10 table, you can only include 6 and 10 (the others are disqualified because you need a multiplier greater than ten to reach 60). This necessarily result in fewer products in the high end of the table. Boru
‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson
I blame Trump.
Signed The Left
I blame Obama.
Signed The Right. Boru
‘Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Exactly

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

Possibly Related Threads...  
Thread  Author  Replies  Views  Last Post  
Euclid proved that there are an infinite number of prime numbers.  Jehanne  7  423 
March 14, 2021 at 8:26 am Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama 

Are Numbers Real?  vulcanlogician  67  4318 
October 22, 2018 at 9:33 pm Last Post: Magilla 

Mathematician Claims Proof of Connection between Prime Numbers  KichigaiNeko  10  6643 
September 26, 2012 at 3:18 am Last Post: Categories+Sheaves 
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)