Division to account for repetition in multiplication principle
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have this very bad misconception regarding when to divide and when not to divide when counting. I have compiled some of these problems(some from the book of Principle of Techniques in Combinatorics and some from my school’s lecture slides). I usually distinguish very clearly between when to strictly use binomial coeffficients only and when to compute binomial coefficients with factorials(to arrange some items). However, after going through the problems, it seems one can apply the multiplication principle on binomial coefficients as well to mimic the behaviour of arrangement, based on the multiplication principle.
Here are the problems and my interpretation of how whether I need to consider any form of repetition given the context. Answers shown and my own perspective will only from the binomial coefficient perspective to highlight the difference.
Highlighted in green are the restrictions for the corresponding sub problems.
Highlighted in yellow is the pool to make our subsets from(which is what the binomial coefficient is counting)
Prime factor:
Committee:
Pairing:
Spelling:
From all my previous experiences, I always believe it all bows down to common sense and phrasing in the question whether they want to consider any form of distinction after the restriction they impose, and what is the object we are actually "choosing" and I cannot accurately discern which is the right way to count quite frequently.
Is there a clearer way of explaining the anomaly of seeing division in the pairing problem or any alternate form of phrasing to make the other questions become a scenario that requires us to consider “division to account for lack of emphasis of order” to give me a wider perspective.
combinatorics permutations
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have this very bad misconception regarding when to divide and when not to divide when counting. I have compiled some of these problems(some from the book of Principle of Techniques in Combinatorics and some from my school’s lecture slides). I usually distinguish very clearly between when to strictly use binomial coeffficients only and when to compute binomial coefficients with factorials(to arrange some items). However, after going through the problems, it seems one can apply the multiplication principle on binomial coefficients as well to mimic the behaviour of arrangement, based on the multiplication principle.
Here are the problems and my interpretation of how whether I need to consider any form of repetition given the context. Answers shown and my own perspective will only from the binomial coefficient perspective to highlight the difference.
Highlighted in green are the restrictions for the corresponding sub problems.
Highlighted in yellow is the pool to make our subsets from(which is what the binomial coefficient is counting)
Prime factor:
Committee:
Pairing:
Spelling:
From all my previous experiences, I always believe it all bows down to common sense and phrasing in the question whether they want to consider any form of distinction after the restriction they impose, and what is the object we are actually "choosing" and I cannot accurately discern which is the right way to count quite frequently.
Is there a clearer way of explaining the anomaly of seeing division in the pairing problem or any alternate form of phrasing to make the other questions become a scenario that requires us to consider “division to account for lack of emphasis of order” to give me a wider perspective.
combinatorics permutations
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have this very bad misconception regarding when to divide and when not to divide when counting. I have compiled some of these problems(some from the book of Principle of Techniques in Combinatorics and some from my school’s lecture slides). I usually distinguish very clearly between when to strictly use binomial coeffficients only and when to compute binomial coefficients with factorials(to arrange some items). However, after going through the problems, it seems one can apply the multiplication principle on binomial coefficients as well to mimic the behaviour of arrangement, based on the multiplication principle.
Here are the problems and my interpretation of how whether I need to consider any form of repetition given the context. Answers shown and my own perspective will only from the binomial coefficient perspective to highlight the difference.
Highlighted in green are the restrictions for the corresponding sub problems.
Highlighted in yellow is the pool to make our subsets from(which is what the binomial coefficient is counting)
Prime factor:
Committee:
Pairing:
Spelling:
From all my previous experiences, I always believe it all bows down to common sense and phrasing in the question whether they want to consider any form of distinction after the restriction they impose, and what is the object we are actually "choosing" and I cannot accurately discern which is the right way to count quite frequently.
Is there a clearer way of explaining the anomaly of seeing division in the pairing problem or any alternate form of phrasing to make the other questions become a scenario that requires us to consider “division to account for lack of emphasis of order” to give me a wider perspective.
combinatorics permutations
I have this very bad misconception regarding when to divide and when not to divide when counting. I have compiled some of these problems(some from the book of Principle of Techniques in Combinatorics and some from my school’s lecture slides). I usually distinguish very clearly between when to strictly use binomial coeffficients only and when to compute binomial coefficients with factorials(to arrange some items). However, after going through the problems, it seems one can apply the multiplication principle on binomial coefficients as well to mimic the behaviour of arrangement, based on the multiplication principle.
Here are the problems and my interpretation of how whether I need to consider any form of repetition given the context. Answers shown and my own perspective will only from the binomial coefficient perspective to highlight the difference.
Highlighted in green are the restrictions for the corresponding sub problems.
Highlighted in yellow is the pool to make our subsets from(which is what the binomial coefficient is counting)
Prime factor:
Committee:
Pairing:
Spelling:
From all my previous experiences, I always believe it all bows down to common sense and phrasing in the question whether they want to consider any form of distinction after the restriction they impose, and what is the object we are actually "choosing" and I cannot accurately discern which is the right way to count quite frequently.
Is there a clearer way of explaining the anomaly of seeing division in the pairing problem or any alternate form of phrasing to make the other questions become a scenario that requires us to consider “division to account for lack of emphasis of order” to give me a wider perspective.
combinatorics permutations
combinatorics permutations
edited Nov 16 at 12:53
asked Nov 16 at 10:59
Prashin Jeevaganth
13312
13312
add a comment |
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001002%2fdivision-to-account-for-repetition-in-multiplication-principle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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