Advertisements

- algorithm
- bar
- binary
- binomial coefficients
- book
- cards
- Carnival of Mathematics
- chocolate
- circle
- coins
- combinatorics
- complex
- conjecture
- convolution
- counting
- decadic
- decimal
- diagrams
- Dirichlet
- enumeration
- Euler
- factorization
- Fermat
- fibonacci
- game
- games
- gcd
- graph
- groups
- Haskell
- integers
- irrational
- Ivan Niven
- Lagrange
- lehmer
- little
- lucas
- MaBloWriMo
- making
- Mersenne
- moebius
- mu
- nim
- number
- numbers
- objects
- omega
- order
- orthogonal
- pi
- powers
- prime
- primes
- primitive
- programming
- proof
- puzzle
- review
- roots
- sequence
- square
- strategy
- sum
- symmetry
- test
- theorem
- tree
- triangular
- two-player
- unit
- unity
- video
- visualization
- X
- zero-sum

### Blogroll

### Fun

### Reference

### Categories

- algebra (46)
- arithmetic (63)
- books (30)
- calculus (7)
- challenges (53)
- combinatorics (20)
- complex numbers (6)
- computation (50)
- convergence (9)
- counting (32)
- famous numbers (48)
- fibonacci (18)
- fractals (13)
- games (34)
- geometry (61)
- golden ratio (8)
- group theory (27)
- humor (6)
- induction (7)
- infinity (19)
- iteration (24)
- links (74)
- logic (6)
- meta (42)
- modular arithmetic (24)
- number theory (86)
- open problems (11)
- paradox (1)
- pascal's triangle (8)
- pattern (92)
- people (21)
- pictures (70)
- posts without words (26)
- primes (45)
- probability (6)
- programming (17)
- proof (75)
- puzzles (15)
- recursion (16)
- review (21)
- sequences (28)
- solutions (28)
- teaching (14)
- trig (3)
- Uncategorized (6)
- video (19)

### Archives

- March 2018 (3)
- February 2018 (3)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (3)
- October 2017 (1)
- September 2017 (1)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (4)
- May 2017 (9)
- April 2017 (7)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (4)
- January 2017 (3)
- December 2016 (4)
- November 2016 (6)
- October 2016 (6)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (2)
- June 2016 (4)
- May 2016 (4)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (9)
- January 2016 (8)
- December 2015 (5)
- November 2015 (29)
- August 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (1)
- May 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (1)
- July 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (3)
- March 2013 (3)
- February 2013 (2)
- January 2013 (5)
- December 2012 (3)
- November 2012 (4)
- October 2012 (5)
- September 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (6)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (4)
- January 2012 (5)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (7)
- October 2011 (4)
- September 2011 (6)
- July 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (4)
- May 2011 (5)
- April 2011 (2)
- March 2011 (4)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (1)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (8)
- November 2009 (7)
- October 2009 (3)
- September 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (4)
- May 2009 (5)
- April 2009 (4)
- March 2009 (2)
- February 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (2)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (5)
- February 2008 (4)
- January 2008 (4)
- December 2007 (3)
- November 2007 (12)
- October 2007 (2)
- September 2007 (4)
- August 2007 (3)
- July 2007 (1)
- June 2007 (3)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (4)
- March 2007 (3)
- February 2007 (7)
- January 2007 (1)
- December 2006 (2)
- October 2006 (2)
- September 2006 (6)
- July 2006 (4)
- June 2006 (2)
- May 2006 (6)
- April 2006 (3)
- March 2006 (6)

### Meta

Advertisements

Elements of subsets of 2^K organized by subset size in columns?

That’s the idea, though I’m not quite sure what you mean by “elements of subsets of 2^K”.

By 2^K i think he means power set of K.

Sorry, I meant elements of 2^K.

Ah, makes sense!

Gorgeous!

A decade ago I was playing with visualizing your 5th group and discovered a beautiful layout of the connections between them: http://suberic.net/~dmm/mathy.html

Beautiful! Thanks for sharing!

Can you maybe say a bit more about how you discovered this layout, and how it is generated? Is there a nice description of which vertices correspond to which subsets?

I wanted to find a circular layout where each ring had the next layer of sets, the edges were symmetrical, and lines did not have to go across the center or 180 degrees around the diagram. I think that the diagram follows inexorably from those decisions. When I drew it for the first time it seemed instantly familiar, though I believe it is my discovery.

The central point at the origin indicates the empty set. Each of the innermost points is one of the single-element sets – we can call them A, B, C, D, and E. They’re in directions 0, 72, 144, etc from the origin.

The second ring of points corresponds to the two-element sets, and there are two types of those – neighbors such as AB, BC are placed between their component directions at 36, 108, etc. while non-neighbors such as EB, AC, BD are placed at the direction of the skipped element at 0, 72, 144, etc.

The third ring corresponds to the 3-element sets. Neighbors such as ABC are placed based on the central member, while non-neighbors like ACE have two neighboring directions and one loner (EA and C in this case) – those are placed opposite the loner, so ACE will be at 324. This means that there’s a radial line connecting each second-ring element to one third-ring element – non-neighbors get their missing middle and neighbors get their opposing element. This ring is also a reflection of the second ring, naturally.

The fourth ring is for the sets missing one element and they’re placed opposite the corresponding single-element point. The fifth ring is a single point infinitely away in every direction, indicated by the outer circle.

This kind of layout works in two dimensions only for 2, 3, and 5 elements due to symmetry reasons, and 5 is the only interesting-looking one. I think it would only work for 4 elements in three dimensions.

I see, makes sense! But why wouldn’t it work for more elements than 5?

If you have 7 elements and put A at 0 degrees, you have three 2-element sets that need to be on the 0-180 line: BG, CF, and DE. Only two such points are available in the second ring, so you’ll need to arbitrarily break the symmetry on one side or another. (Composite numbers are even worse, as directly opposing points belong in the very center of the diagram.)

Pingback: Well? What are we talking about? – The Square Root

I love it. I wonder if you would publish the diagrams code you used to do it. Diagrams could use some more examples, even/especially if hey are no about certain features but general ideas patterns.

All the code for my blog posts is publicly available at http://hub.darcs.net/byorgey/mathlesstraveled/ , though I suppose it is not necessarily easy/obvious how to find the code corresponding to a particular post. The code for this one can be seen at http://hub.darcs.net/byorgey/mathlesstraveled/browse/pww/Subsets.hs and http://hub.darcs.net/byorgey/mathlesstraveled/browse/pww/subsets.md .