Number of matrices with bounded products of rows and columnsAsymptotic Formula for a Mertens Style SumLeast prime in an arithmetic progression and the Selberg sieveBest upper bound on the number of divisors of $n$ that are larger than $N$.An upper bound to sum of ratios of gcd's and productsIndependence between the number of prime factors of $n$ and $n+2$On an open problem of GelfondProof of a theorem about the size of the number of sign changes of Hecke eigenvaluesBound on the number of primitive divisors of the $n$th Fibonacci number

Number of matrices with bounded products of rows and columns


Asymptotic Formula for a Mertens Style SumLeast prime in an arithmetic progression and the Selberg sieveBest upper bound on the number of divisors of $n$ that are larger than $N$.An upper bound to sum of ratios of gcd's and productsIndependence between the number of prime factors of $n$ and $n+2$On an open problem of GelfondProof of a theorem about the size of the number of sign changes of Hecke eigenvaluesBound on the number of primitive divisors of the $n$th Fibonacci number













7












$begingroup$


Fix an integer $d geq 2$ and for every real number $x$ let $M_d(x)$ be number of $d times d$ matrices $(a_ij)$ satisfying: every $a_ij$ is a positive integer, the product of every row does not exceed $x$, and the product of every column does not exceed $x$.



I'm looking for a good upper bound for $M_d(x)$ as $x to +infty$.



If we forget about the condition on the columns, since it is well known that the number of $d$-tuples $(b_1, dots, b_d)$ of positive integers satisfying $b_1 cdots b_d leq x$ is $ll_d x (log x)^d - 1$ (a generalization of Dirichlet divisor problem), we get the upper bound
$$M_d(x) ll_d x^d (log x)^d(d-1).$$



In the special case $d = 2$, we have that $a_12, a_21 leq min(x / a_11, x / a_22)$ and consequently
$$M_2(x) leq sum_a_11, a_22 leq x minleft(fracxa_11, fracxa_22right)^2 ll sum_a_11 leq a_22 leq x left(fracxa_22right)^2 ll x^2 log x ,$$
which is a better upper bound than the general one given in the above paragraph. However, I have no idea of how to generalize this trick to $d geq 3$ (if possible).



Has this problem been studied before? Do you have any idea/suggestion about it?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Do you believe the $2times 2$ bound is sharp?
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @IgorRivin I don't have any heuristic supporting such belief.
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is obviously not far from sharp, since diagonal matrices give you $x^2.$
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    What happens when you take logarithms of the aij? Gerhard "Maybe Row-Sum Literature Will Help" Paseman, 2019.08.17.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @GerhardPaseman I think logarithms do not help very much. They turn the problem from multiplicative to additive, but the variables are not integers anymore, making things much more difficult...
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago















7












$begingroup$


Fix an integer $d geq 2$ and for every real number $x$ let $M_d(x)$ be number of $d times d$ matrices $(a_ij)$ satisfying: every $a_ij$ is a positive integer, the product of every row does not exceed $x$, and the product of every column does not exceed $x$.



I'm looking for a good upper bound for $M_d(x)$ as $x to +infty$.



If we forget about the condition on the columns, since it is well known that the number of $d$-tuples $(b_1, dots, b_d)$ of positive integers satisfying $b_1 cdots b_d leq x$ is $ll_d x (log x)^d - 1$ (a generalization of Dirichlet divisor problem), we get the upper bound
$$M_d(x) ll_d x^d (log x)^d(d-1).$$



In the special case $d = 2$, we have that $a_12, a_21 leq min(x / a_11, x / a_22)$ and consequently
$$M_2(x) leq sum_a_11, a_22 leq x minleft(fracxa_11, fracxa_22right)^2 ll sum_a_11 leq a_22 leq x left(fracxa_22right)^2 ll x^2 log x ,$$
which is a better upper bound than the general one given in the above paragraph. However, I have no idea of how to generalize this trick to $d geq 3$ (if possible).



Has this problem been studied before? Do you have any idea/suggestion about it?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Do you believe the $2times 2$ bound is sharp?
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @IgorRivin I don't have any heuristic supporting such belief.
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is obviously not far from sharp, since diagonal matrices give you $x^2.$
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    What happens when you take logarithms of the aij? Gerhard "Maybe Row-Sum Literature Will Help" Paseman, 2019.08.17.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @GerhardPaseman I think logarithms do not help very much. They turn the problem from multiplicative to additive, but the variables are not integers anymore, making things much more difficult...
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago













7












7








7





$begingroup$


Fix an integer $d geq 2$ and for every real number $x$ let $M_d(x)$ be number of $d times d$ matrices $(a_ij)$ satisfying: every $a_ij$ is a positive integer, the product of every row does not exceed $x$, and the product of every column does not exceed $x$.



I'm looking for a good upper bound for $M_d(x)$ as $x to +infty$.



If we forget about the condition on the columns, since it is well known that the number of $d$-tuples $(b_1, dots, b_d)$ of positive integers satisfying $b_1 cdots b_d leq x$ is $ll_d x (log x)^d - 1$ (a generalization of Dirichlet divisor problem), we get the upper bound
$$M_d(x) ll_d x^d (log x)^d(d-1).$$



In the special case $d = 2$, we have that $a_12, a_21 leq min(x / a_11, x / a_22)$ and consequently
$$M_2(x) leq sum_a_11, a_22 leq x minleft(fracxa_11, fracxa_22right)^2 ll sum_a_11 leq a_22 leq x left(fracxa_22right)^2 ll x^2 log x ,$$
which is a better upper bound than the general one given in the above paragraph. However, I have no idea of how to generalize this trick to $d geq 3$ (if possible).



Has this problem been studied before? Do you have any idea/suggestion about it?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




Fix an integer $d geq 2$ and for every real number $x$ let $M_d(x)$ be number of $d times d$ matrices $(a_ij)$ satisfying: every $a_ij$ is a positive integer, the product of every row does not exceed $x$, and the product of every column does not exceed $x$.



I'm looking for a good upper bound for $M_d(x)$ as $x to +infty$.



If we forget about the condition on the columns, since it is well known that the number of $d$-tuples $(b_1, dots, b_d)$ of positive integers satisfying $b_1 cdots b_d leq x$ is $ll_d x (log x)^d - 1$ (a generalization of Dirichlet divisor problem), we get the upper bound
$$M_d(x) ll_d x^d (log x)^d(d-1).$$



In the special case $d = 2$, we have that $a_12, a_21 leq min(x / a_11, x / a_22)$ and consequently
$$M_2(x) leq sum_a_11, a_22 leq x minleft(fracxa_11, fracxa_22right)^2 ll sum_a_11 leq a_22 leq x left(fracxa_22right)^2 ll x^2 log x ,$$
which is a better upper bound than the general one given in the above paragraph. However, I have no idea of how to generalize this trick to $d geq 3$ (if possible).



Has this problem been studied before? Do you have any idea/suggestion about it?







nt.number-theory matrices analytic-number-theory divisors






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









GH from MO

62.5k5 gold badges158 silver badges239 bronze badges




62.5k5 gold badges158 silver badges239 bronze badges






New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 9 hours ago









KateKate

384 bronze badges




384 bronze badges




New contributor



Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Kate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • $begingroup$
    Do you believe the $2times 2$ bound is sharp?
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @IgorRivin I don't have any heuristic supporting such belief.
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is obviously not far from sharp, since diagonal matrices give you $x^2.$
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    What happens when you take logarithms of the aij? Gerhard "Maybe Row-Sum Literature Will Help" Paseman, 2019.08.17.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @GerhardPaseman I think logarithms do not help very much. They turn the problem from multiplicative to additive, but the variables are not integers anymore, making things much more difficult...
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Do you believe the $2times 2$ bound is sharp?
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @IgorRivin I don't have any heuristic supporting such belief.
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is obviously not far from sharp, since diagonal matrices give you $x^2.$
    $endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    What happens when you take logarithms of the aij? Gerhard "Maybe Row-Sum Literature Will Help" Paseman, 2019.08.17.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @GerhardPaseman I think logarithms do not help very much. They turn the problem from multiplicative to additive, but the variables are not integers anymore, making things much more difficult...
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago















$begingroup$
Do you believe the $2times 2$ bound is sharp?
$endgroup$
– Igor Rivin
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Do you believe the $2times 2$ bound is sharp?
$endgroup$
– Igor Rivin
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
@IgorRivin I don't have any heuristic supporting such belief.
$endgroup$
– Kate
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@IgorRivin I don't have any heuristic supporting such belief.
$endgroup$
– Kate
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
It is obviously not far from sharp, since diagonal matrices give you $x^2.$
$endgroup$
– Igor Rivin
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
It is obviously not far from sharp, since diagonal matrices give you $x^2.$
$endgroup$
– Igor Rivin
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
What happens when you take logarithms of the aij? Gerhard "Maybe Row-Sum Literature Will Help" Paseman, 2019.08.17.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
What happens when you take logarithms of the aij? Gerhard "Maybe Row-Sum Literature Will Help" Paseman, 2019.08.17.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman I think logarithms do not help very much. They turn the problem from multiplicative to additive, but the variables are not integers anymore, making things much more difficult...
$endgroup$
– Kate
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@GerhardPaseman I think logarithms do not help very much. They turn the problem from multiplicative to additive, but the variables are not integers anymore, making things much more difficult...
$endgroup$
– Kate
5 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

This problem was considered in passing in the proof of Theorem 4.1 in Granville and Soundararajan, see the argument starting at the bottom of page 17. They show (in your notation) that $M_d(x)$ is of order $x^d (log x)^(d-1)^2$. You should also look at work of Harper, Nikeghbali and Radziwill which shows an asymptotic formula for closely related objects (see Theorem 3 there).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much!
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

Nice question. Some thoughts on lower bounds: for $d=2$, the order of magnitude $x^2log x$ is correct—here is an argument giving such a lower bound.



For any real numbers $U,V$ such that $UV=x$ (and say $U,Vge2$), any $2times 2$ matrix such that $a_11,a_22inbig(frac U2,Ubig]$ and $a_21,a_12inbig(frac V2,Vbig]$ is counted by $M_2(x)$, and the number of such matrices is $gg U^2V^2 = x^2$. We can sum this dyadic-interval lower bound over $U=2^k$ for a suitable range of $k$ to obtain the lower bound $M_2(x) gg x^2log x$.



A similar argument gives a lower bound for general $dge3$. If $U_1U_2cdots U_d=x$, with the convention that $U_d+j=U_j$, then the matrices such that $a_ij in big( fracU_i+j2, U_i+jbig]$ for all $1le i,jle d$ contribute $gg U_1^d cdots U_d^d = x^d$ to $M_d(x)$. We then sum over all $U_1=2^k_1,dots,U_d=2^k_d$ such that $k_1+cdots+k_dle(log x)/log 2$; the number of such $d$-tuples of positive integers is $gg_d(log x)^d$, giving the lower bound $M_d(x) gg_d x^d(log x)^d$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$

















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Kate is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f338550%2fnumber-of-matrices-with-bounded-products-of-rows-and-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    This problem was considered in passing in the proof of Theorem 4.1 in Granville and Soundararajan, see the argument starting at the bottom of page 17. They show (in your notation) that $M_d(x)$ is of order $x^d (log x)^(d-1)^2$. You should also look at work of Harper, Nikeghbali and Radziwill which shows an asymptotic formula for closely related objects (see Theorem 3 there).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you very much!
      $endgroup$
      – Kate
      5 hours ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    This problem was considered in passing in the proof of Theorem 4.1 in Granville and Soundararajan, see the argument starting at the bottom of page 17. They show (in your notation) that $M_d(x)$ is of order $x^d (log x)^(d-1)^2$. You should also look at work of Harper, Nikeghbali and Radziwill which shows an asymptotic formula for closely related objects (see Theorem 3 there).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you very much!
      $endgroup$
      – Kate
      5 hours ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    This problem was considered in passing in the proof of Theorem 4.1 in Granville and Soundararajan, see the argument starting at the bottom of page 17. They show (in your notation) that $M_d(x)$ is of order $x^d (log x)^(d-1)^2$. You should also look at work of Harper, Nikeghbali and Radziwill which shows an asymptotic formula for closely related objects (see Theorem 3 there).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    This problem was considered in passing in the proof of Theorem 4.1 in Granville and Soundararajan, see the argument starting at the bottom of page 17. They show (in your notation) that $M_d(x)$ is of order $x^d (log x)^(d-1)^2$. You should also look at work of Harper, Nikeghbali and Radziwill which shows an asymptotic formula for closely related objects (see Theorem 3 there).







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 5 hours ago









    LuciaLucia

    36.5k5 gold badges157 silver badges185 bronze badges




    36.5k5 gold badges157 silver badges185 bronze badges










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you very much!
      $endgroup$
      – Kate
      5 hours ago













    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thank you very much!
      $endgroup$
      – Kate
      5 hours ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much!
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much!
    $endgroup$
    – Kate
    5 hours ago












    3












    $begingroup$

    Nice question. Some thoughts on lower bounds: for $d=2$, the order of magnitude $x^2log x$ is correct—here is an argument giving such a lower bound.



    For any real numbers $U,V$ such that $UV=x$ (and say $U,Vge2$), any $2times 2$ matrix such that $a_11,a_22inbig(frac U2,Ubig]$ and $a_21,a_12inbig(frac V2,Vbig]$ is counted by $M_2(x)$, and the number of such matrices is $gg U^2V^2 = x^2$. We can sum this dyadic-interval lower bound over $U=2^k$ for a suitable range of $k$ to obtain the lower bound $M_2(x) gg x^2log x$.



    A similar argument gives a lower bound for general $dge3$. If $U_1U_2cdots U_d=x$, with the convention that $U_d+j=U_j$, then the matrices such that $a_ij in big( fracU_i+j2, U_i+jbig]$ for all $1le i,jle d$ contribute $gg U_1^d cdots U_d^d = x^d$ to $M_d(x)$. We then sum over all $U_1=2^k_1,dots,U_d=2^k_d$ such that $k_1+cdots+k_dle(log x)/log 2$; the number of such $d$-tuples of positive integers is $gg_d(log x)^d$, giving the lower bound $M_d(x) gg_d x^d(log x)^d$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



















      3












      $begingroup$

      Nice question. Some thoughts on lower bounds: for $d=2$, the order of magnitude $x^2log x$ is correct—here is an argument giving such a lower bound.



      For any real numbers $U,V$ such that $UV=x$ (and say $U,Vge2$), any $2times 2$ matrix such that $a_11,a_22inbig(frac U2,Ubig]$ and $a_21,a_12inbig(frac V2,Vbig]$ is counted by $M_2(x)$, and the number of such matrices is $gg U^2V^2 = x^2$. We can sum this dyadic-interval lower bound over $U=2^k$ for a suitable range of $k$ to obtain the lower bound $M_2(x) gg x^2log x$.



      A similar argument gives a lower bound for general $dge3$. If $U_1U_2cdots U_d=x$, with the convention that $U_d+j=U_j$, then the matrices such that $a_ij in big( fracU_i+j2, U_i+jbig]$ for all $1le i,jle d$ contribute $gg U_1^d cdots U_d^d = x^d$ to $M_d(x)$. We then sum over all $U_1=2^k_1,dots,U_d=2^k_d$ such that $k_1+cdots+k_dle(log x)/log 2$; the number of such $d$-tuples of positive integers is $gg_d(log x)^d$, giving the lower bound $M_d(x) gg_d x^d(log x)^d$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        Nice question. Some thoughts on lower bounds: for $d=2$, the order of magnitude $x^2log x$ is correct—here is an argument giving such a lower bound.



        For any real numbers $U,V$ such that $UV=x$ (and say $U,Vge2$), any $2times 2$ matrix such that $a_11,a_22inbig(frac U2,Ubig]$ and $a_21,a_12inbig(frac V2,Vbig]$ is counted by $M_2(x)$, and the number of such matrices is $gg U^2V^2 = x^2$. We can sum this dyadic-interval lower bound over $U=2^k$ for a suitable range of $k$ to obtain the lower bound $M_2(x) gg x^2log x$.



        A similar argument gives a lower bound for general $dge3$. If $U_1U_2cdots U_d=x$, with the convention that $U_d+j=U_j$, then the matrices such that $a_ij in big( fracU_i+j2, U_i+jbig]$ for all $1le i,jle d$ contribute $gg U_1^d cdots U_d^d = x^d$ to $M_d(x)$. We then sum over all $U_1=2^k_1,dots,U_d=2^k_d$ such that $k_1+cdots+k_dle(log x)/log 2$; the number of such $d$-tuples of positive integers is $gg_d(log x)^d$, giving the lower bound $M_d(x) gg_d x^d(log x)^d$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Nice question. Some thoughts on lower bounds: for $d=2$, the order of magnitude $x^2log x$ is correct—here is an argument giving such a lower bound.



        For any real numbers $U,V$ such that $UV=x$ (and say $U,Vge2$), any $2times 2$ matrix such that $a_11,a_22inbig(frac U2,Ubig]$ and $a_21,a_12inbig(frac V2,Vbig]$ is counted by $M_2(x)$, and the number of such matrices is $gg U^2V^2 = x^2$. We can sum this dyadic-interval lower bound over $U=2^k$ for a suitable range of $k$ to obtain the lower bound $M_2(x) gg x^2log x$.



        A similar argument gives a lower bound for general $dge3$. If $U_1U_2cdots U_d=x$, with the convention that $U_d+j=U_j$, then the matrices such that $a_ij in big( fracU_i+j2, U_i+jbig]$ for all $1le i,jle d$ contribute $gg U_1^d cdots U_d^d = x^d$ to $M_d(x)$. We then sum over all $U_1=2^k_1,dots,U_d=2^k_d$ such that $k_1+cdots+k_dle(log x)/log 2$; the number of such $d$-tuples of positive integers is $gg_d(log x)^d$, giving the lower bound $M_d(x) gg_d x^d(log x)^d$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 5 hours ago

























        answered 6 hours ago









        Greg MartinGreg Martin

        9,7851 gold badge39 silver badges63 bronze badges




        9,7851 gold badge39 silver badges63 bronze badges























            Kate is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Kate is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Kate is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Kate is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f338550%2fnumber-of-matrices-with-bounded-products-of-rows-and-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480