# ETOOBUSY đźš€ minimal blogging for the impatient

# All positive integer sums

**TL;DR**

We start layout out some steps to compute all subsets that lead to Bell numbers.

In previous post PWC108 - Bell Numbers we used the Bell triangle
to compute the required values for Bell numbers. I guess this saved
the day, but did not provide an answer to a more general question: *what
are all the possible partitions of a set with $N$ distinct
elements?*

In this series, we try to give this *super* challenge a try. (Here,
*super* is just meant as *staying over*, not as being extremely more
challenging).

The general strategy is the following:

- first, find out how big should be the subsets in all possible breakdowns. As an example, if we want to partition over $3$ elements, we will have the following possible breakdown cardinalities: $(3)$ (i.e. a single subset with $3$ elements inside), $(2, 1)$ (i.e. one subset with $2$ elements, one subset with the remaining $1$), $(1, 1, 1)$ (i.e. three subsets with $1$ element each).
- then, figure out a way to use this breakdown to generate the actual subsets.

In this post, we start looking at the first bullet, which can also be expressed as:

In which different ways can I express the positive integer $N$ as a sum of other positive integers?

Using $3$ as in the example above, we have:

\[3 = 3 \\ 3 = 2 + 1 \\ 3 = 1 + 1 + 1\]It is important in this context to realize that $2 + 1$ is the same as $1 + 2$ for our purposes, so we will just consider the former. In general, we will express our decomposition using only descending values, and considering each decomposition only once.

The first way we find for this decomposition relies upon a recursive approach:

```
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use 5.024;
use warnings;
use experimental qw< postderef signatures >;
no warnings qw< experimental::postderef experimental::signatures >;
sub int_sums_recursive ($N, $max = undef) {
return ([]) unless $N;
$max = $N if ! defined($max) || $max > $N;
my @retval;
for my $first (reverse 1 .. $max) {
push @retval, [$first, $_->@*]
for int_sums_recursive($N - $first, $first);
}
return @retval;
}
say "($_->@*)" for int_sums_recursive(shift || 3);
```

At a certain point, the function is required to generate a sequence of
arrangements based on two constraints `$N`

and `$max`

:

- we have to arrange exactly
`$N`

elements; - the maximum amount we can put in a slot is
`$max`

.

The first value is related to the initial amount that we want to decompose; the second value guarantees that all generated sequences are descending (or, at least, not ascending).

To make an example, letâ€™s assume that we are calculating all possible decomposition of $5$ and we are at a point where the first item in the decomposition is $2$. This means that we still have to arrange $3$ items, whose decomposition would be the following:

\[3 = 3 \\ 3 = 2 + 1 \\ 3 = 1 + 1 + 1\]as we saw above. In this context, though, the first decomposition would yield the following in the decomposition of $5$:

\[... \\ 5 = 2 + 3 \\ ...\]which breaks our requirement of having only not-increasing sequences.
For this reason, in the recursive call for decomposing $3$, we also set
that the *maximum* value to assign to a slot is $2$, so that the first
decomposition is ruled out.

Letâ€™s try it out:

```
$ perl int-sums.pl 5
(5)
(4 1)
(3 2)
(3 1 1)
(2 2 1)
(2 1 1 1)
(1 1 1 1 1)
```

Seems to work!

*Comments? Octodon, Twitter, GitHub, Reddit, or drop me a line!*