Talk:Lobb number

No partial sum is negative

I think that you mean that the sum of any prefix is non-negative, yes? If so, please clarify the text. If not, if you mean that the sum from position i to position j for any i ≤ j then the case of i = j for some index that is −1 would seem to contradict the statement. Quantling (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't run across the word 'prefix' used in this way mathematically, but the phrase 'partial sum' is used in this way when discussing infinite series. If there's a better way to phrase things I'd be pleased for someone with inspiration to make an edit. Cartanalgebra (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of infinite series, I use "partial sum" the way you do, but it somehow rubbed me the wrong way in the present context. There is a page for "prefix sum," which describes the concept for which I was aiming. On the other hand, "partial sum" redirects to the "Series (mathematics)" page, which appears to be exclusively about infinite series. Thank you for making the Lobb numbers page and devoting some time to it! Quantling (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent to prefix of string of balanced parentheses

I like the edit - it's nicely put. Cartanalgebra (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot numbers

These numbers are the well-known ballot numbers. The formula was first found by Whitworth in 1878. There is really no reason to call these Lobb numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.150.22 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip. A section Ballot counting was added today to note the alternative interpretation of a combinatorial result. Rgdboer (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]