Help needed with my detailed analysis of 'mis-application of product principle'.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the book titled 'Combinatorics- A Guided Tour' by David Majur', there is
stated on pg. #18, #19 regarding a case of misapplication of product
principle, for the problem of counting number of $4$ lists from $[9]$ having at
least one pair of adjacent elements equal.
The $3$ steps are :
1. Which of the $3$ possible adjacent elements are equal. It may be :
(i) the first two,
(ii) the second & third,
(iii) the last two.
Any number of adjacent elements can be equal from min. of $2$ to max. of $4$.
The maximum number of adjacent locations can be : $3$.
2 . Specify the value of those equal elements, from the set of values $[1-9]$.
3 . Specify the value of other elements, i.e. again from the set of values $[1-
9]$.
The product of these gives : $3*9*9^2 = 2187$ (denoted by let, $a$) is wrong as
fails to account for the common cases generated again as shown by the below
examples.
(i) $aabc$ generates $aa11$ to $aa99$, i.e. a total of $9*9=81$ lists.
This is shown with $a=4$ for $aabc$ list type as below:
$$4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4415, cdots, 4497, 4498, 4499$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abbc$:
This is shown for $abbc$ list type as below:
$$1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, cdots, 9447, 9448, 9449$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abcc$:
This is shown for $c=9$ for $abcc$ list type as below:
$$1199, 1299, 1399, 1499, 1599, cdots, 9799, 9899, 9999$$
The correct solution approach is by subtracting the case of :'No adjacent equal equal elements in $4$ lists taken from $[9]$ = $9.8^3$',
from the case of 'all possible $4$ lists from $[9] = 9^4$'.
This leads to : $9^4 - 9.8^3$ leading to correct count $(let, b=)1953$.
I tried the detailed analysis for the reason for incorrect count ($a=2187$), & the difference ($c = a-b = 2187-1953 = 234$) below:
The wrong approach takes three possible positions of adjacent equal elements, &
ignores the common permutations generated by other pairs of adjacent equal
elements, as say :
$aabc$ ignores many common elements as below for the particular case of $a=1,
b,c = [1-9]$
Let us take $a=1$ case, for sample case below:
- $a=b$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when first
three positions have equal elements.
$1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119,$ i.e. a total of $8$ cases; - $a=b=c$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when all four
positions have equal elements.
$1111,$ i.e. a total of $1$ case; - $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ i.e. a total
of $8$ cases.
The sum of the $3$ cases above = $8+1+8=17$.
For the $9$ values possible for $a$, have $17*9 = 153$ values.
Still need $81 = (234 - 153)$ values more.
Next consider that similar error occurs for $abbc, abcc$ list types.
Also, have only $9$ possible numbers for $aabc$, with $a=b=c$ & they have been all accounted in case $2$ above.
For the rest $81$ values by the analysis of common extra cases generated by $abbc, abcc$ list types, see as below:
1 . There are $9$ cases given by the lists of type $abbc$ with $b=c$.
2 . There are $72$ lists of the type given by $abcc$ with $a=bne c$, as there are $8$ such cases for each of the $9$ values of $c$.
combinatorics
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the book titled 'Combinatorics- A Guided Tour' by David Majur', there is
stated on pg. #18, #19 regarding a case of misapplication of product
principle, for the problem of counting number of $4$ lists from $[9]$ having at
least one pair of adjacent elements equal.
The $3$ steps are :
1. Which of the $3$ possible adjacent elements are equal. It may be :
(i) the first two,
(ii) the second & third,
(iii) the last two.
Any number of adjacent elements can be equal from min. of $2$ to max. of $4$.
The maximum number of adjacent locations can be : $3$.
2 . Specify the value of those equal elements, from the set of values $[1-9]$.
3 . Specify the value of other elements, i.e. again from the set of values $[1-
9]$.
The product of these gives : $3*9*9^2 = 2187$ (denoted by let, $a$) is wrong as
fails to account for the common cases generated again as shown by the below
examples.
(i) $aabc$ generates $aa11$ to $aa99$, i.e. a total of $9*9=81$ lists.
This is shown with $a=4$ for $aabc$ list type as below:
$$4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4415, cdots, 4497, 4498, 4499$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abbc$:
This is shown for $abbc$ list type as below:
$$1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, cdots, 9447, 9448, 9449$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abcc$:
This is shown for $c=9$ for $abcc$ list type as below:
$$1199, 1299, 1399, 1499, 1599, cdots, 9799, 9899, 9999$$
The correct solution approach is by subtracting the case of :'No adjacent equal equal elements in $4$ lists taken from $[9]$ = $9.8^3$',
from the case of 'all possible $4$ lists from $[9] = 9^4$'.
This leads to : $9^4 - 9.8^3$ leading to correct count $(let, b=)1953$.
I tried the detailed analysis for the reason for incorrect count ($a=2187$), & the difference ($c = a-b = 2187-1953 = 234$) below:
The wrong approach takes three possible positions of adjacent equal elements, &
ignores the common permutations generated by other pairs of adjacent equal
elements, as say :
$aabc$ ignores many common elements as below for the particular case of $a=1,
b,c = [1-9]$
Let us take $a=1$ case, for sample case below:
- $a=b$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when first
three positions have equal elements.
$1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119,$ i.e. a total of $8$ cases; - $a=b=c$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when all four
positions have equal elements.
$1111,$ i.e. a total of $1$ case; - $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ i.e. a total
of $8$ cases.
The sum of the $3$ cases above = $8+1+8=17$.
For the $9$ values possible for $a$, have $17*9 = 153$ values.
Still need $81 = (234 - 153)$ values more.
Next consider that similar error occurs for $abbc, abcc$ list types.
Also, have only $9$ possible numbers for $aabc$, with $a=b=c$ & they have been all accounted in case $2$ above.
For the rest $81$ values by the analysis of common extra cases generated by $abbc, abcc$ list types, see as below:
1 . There are $9$ cases given by the lists of type $abbc$ with $b=c$.
2 . There are $72$ lists of the type given by $abcc$ with $a=bne c$, as there are $8$ such cases for each of the $9$ values of $c$.
combinatorics
I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30
@Matt I constructed the question's wording in half an hour plus, after had attempted on paper. It required many re-framing of the words used. So, request you to reconsider your downvote.
â jiten
Sep 3 at 10:33
2
I understand. My reasoning for the downvote is that without visitting your outside links, the question is incomprehensible. I stand by that, because I think that you should include those things from your link in the body of the question itself.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54
@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
â jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the book titled 'Combinatorics- A Guided Tour' by David Majur', there is
stated on pg. #18, #19 regarding a case of misapplication of product
principle, for the problem of counting number of $4$ lists from $[9]$ having at
least one pair of adjacent elements equal.
The $3$ steps are :
1. Which of the $3$ possible adjacent elements are equal. It may be :
(i) the first two,
(ii) the second & third,
(iii) the last two.
Any number of adjacent elements can be equal from min. of $2$ to max. of $4$.
The maximum number of adjacent locations can be : $3$.
2 . Specify the value of those equal elements, from the set of values $[1-9]$.
3 . Specify the value of other elements, i.e. again from the set of values $[1-
9]$.
The product of these gives : $3*9*9^2 = 2187$ (denoted by let, $a$) is wrong as
fails to account for the common cases generated again as shown by the below
examples.
(i) $aabc$ generates $aa11$ to $aa99$, i.e. a total of $9*9=81$ lists.
This is shown with $a=4$ for $aabc$ list type as below:
$$4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4415, cdots, 4497, 4498, 4499$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abbc$:
This is shown for $abbc$ list type as below:
$$1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, cdots, 9447, 9448, 9449$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abcc$:
This is shown for $c=9$ for $abcc$ list type as below:
$$1199, 1299, 1399, 1499, 1599, cdots, 9799, 9899, 9999$$
The correct solution approach is by subtracting the case of :'No adjacent equal equal elements in $4$ lists taken from $[9]$ = $9.8^3$',
from the case of 'all possible $4$ lists from $[9] = 9^4$'.
This leads to : $9^4 - 9.8^3$ leading to correct count $(let, b=)1953$.
I tried the detailed analysis for the reason for incorrect count ($a=2187$), & the difference ($c = a-b = 2187-1953 = 234$) below:
The wrong approach takes three possible positions of adjacent equal elements, &
ignores the common permutations generated by other pairs of adjacent equal
elements, as say :
$aabc$ ignores many common elements as below for the particular case of $a=1,
b,c = [1-9]$
Let us take $a=1$ case, for sample case below:
- $a=b$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when first
three positions have equal elements.
$1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119,$ i.e. a total of $8$ cases; - $a=b=c$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when all four
positions have equal elements.
$1111,$ i.e. a total of $1$ case; - $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ i.e. a total
of $8$ cases.
The sum of the $3$ cases above = $8+1+8=17$.
For the $9$ values possible for $a$, have $17*9 = 153$ values.
Still need $81 = (234 - 153)$ values more.
Next consider that similar error occurs for $abbc, abcc$ list types.
Also, have only $9$ possible numbers for $aabc$, with $a=b=c$ & they have been all accounted in case $2$ above.
For the rest $81$ values by the analysis of common extra cases generated by $abbc, abcc$ list types, see as below:
1 . There are $9$ cases given by the lists of type $abbc$ with $b=c$.
2 . There are $72$ lists of the type given by $abcc$ with $a=bne c$, as there are $8$ such cases for each of the $9$ values of $c$.
combinatorics
In the book titled 'Combinatorics- A Guided Tour' by David Majur', there is
stated on pg. #18, #19 regarding a case of misapplication of product
principle, for the problem of counting number of $4$ lists from $[9]$ having at
least one pair of adjacent elements equal.
The $3$ steps are :
1. Which of the $3$ possible adjacent elements are equal. It may be :
(i) the first two,
(ii) the second & third,
(iii) the last two.
Any number of adjacent elements can be equal from min. of $2$ to max. of $4$.
The maximum number of adjacent locations can be : $3$.
2 . Specify the value of those equal elements, from the set of values $[1-9]$.
3 . Specify the value of other elements, i.e. again from the set of values $[1-
9]$.
The product of these gives : $3*9*9^2 = 2187$ (denoted by let, $a$) is wrong as
fails to account for the common cases generated again as shown by the below
examples.
(i) $aabc$ generates $aa11$ to $aa99$, i.e. a total of $9*9=81$ lists.
This is shown with $a=4$ for $aabc$ list type as below:
$$4411, 4412, 4413, 4414, 4415, cdots, 4497, 4498, 4499$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abbc$:
This is shown for $abbc$ list type as below:
$$1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, cdots, 9447, 9448, 9449$$
(ii) Common cases between lists of form $aabc$ & $abcc$:
This is shown for $c=9$ for $abcc$ list type as below:
$$1199, 1299, 1399, 1499, 1599, cdots, 9799, 9899, 9999$$
The correct solution approach is by subtracting the case of :'No adjacent equal equal elements in $4$ lists taken from $[9]$ = $9.8^3$',
from the case of 'all possible $4$ lists from $[9] = 9^4$'.
This leads to : $9^4 - 9.8^3$ leading to correct count $(let, b=)1953$.
I tried the detailed analysis for the reason for incorrect count ($a=2187$), & the difference ($c = a-b = 2187-1953 = 234$) below:
The wrong approach takes three possible positions of adjacent equal elements, &
ignores the common permutations generated by other pairs of adjacent equal
elements, as say :
$aabc$ ignores many common elements as below for the particular case of $a=1,
b,c = [1-9]$
Let us take $a=1$ case, for sample case below:
- $a=b$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when first
three positions have equal elements.
$1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119,$ i.e. a total of $8$ cases; - $a=b=c$: These cases are common to those generated by the cases when all four
positions have equal elements.
$1111,$ i.e. a total of $1$ case; - $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ i.e. a total
of $8$ cases.
The sum of the $3$ cases above = $8+1+8=17$.
For the $9$ values possible for $a$, have $17*9 = 153$ values.
Still need $81 = (234 - 153)$ values more.
Next consider that similar error occurs for $abbc, abcc$ list types.
Also, have only $9$ possible numbers for $aabc$, with $a=b=c$ & they have been all accounted in case $2$ above.
For the rest $81$ values by the analysis of common extra cases generated by $abbc, abcc$ list types, see as below:
1 . There are $9$ cases given by the lists of type $abbc$ with $b=c$.
2 . There are $72$ lists of the type given by $abcc$ with $a=bne c$, as there are $8$ such cases for each of the $9$ values of $c$.
combinatorics
combinatorics
edited Sep 4 at 5:54
Siong Thye Goh
82.2k1456104
82.2k1456104
asked Sep 3 at 10:13
jiten
1,1571412
1,1571412
I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30
@Matt I constructed the question's wording in half an hour plus, after had attempted on paper. It required many re-framing of the words used. So, request you to reconsider your downvote.
â jiten
Sep 3 at 10:33
2
I understand. My reasoning for the downvote is that without visitting your outside links, the question is incomprehensible. I stand by that, because I think that you should include those things from your link in the body of the question itself.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54
@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
â jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30
@Matt I constructed the question's wording in half an hour plus, after had attempted on paper. It required many re-framing of the words used. So, request you to reconsider your downvote.
â jiten
Sep 3 at 10:33
2
I understand. My reasoning for the downvote is that without visitting your outside links, the question is incomprehensible. I stand by that, because I think that you should include those things from your link in the body of the question itself.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54
@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
â jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46
I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30
I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30
@Matt I constructed the question's wording in half an hour plus, after had attempted on paper. It required many re-framing of the words used. So, request you to reconsider your downvote.
â jiten
Sep 3 at 10:33
@Matt I constructed the question's wording in half an hour plus, after had attempted on paper. It required many re-framing of the words used. So, request you to reconsider your downvote.
â jiten
Sep 3 at 10:33
2
2
I understand. My reasoning for the downvote is that without visitting your outside links, the question is incomprehensible. I stand by that, because I think that you should include those things from your link in the body of the question itself.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54
I understand. My reasoning for the downvote is that without visitting your outside links, the question is incomprehensible. I stand by that, because I think that you should include those things from your link in the body of the question itself.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54
@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
â jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46
@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
â jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
We shouldn't be looking for $234$ objects that are counted multiple times, because there are only $225$ of them.
Define $A$, $B$, $C$ those sets of elements where their first two, second two, and the last two positions are to be the same respectively.
We have $|A|+|B|+|C|=2187$.
but actually, the quantity of interest is
$$|A|+|B|+|C|- [|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| ]=1953$$
We have
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| = 234$$
Note that
- $(A cap B) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $(B cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C)$
- $(A cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $A cap B cap C$
are disjoint and computing the sum of their cardinality is just computing the quantity of those elements that are counted for more than once.
The quantity that are over counted is
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -2|A cap B cap C| = 234- |A cap B cap C|$$
$$81+81+81 - 2(9)=234-9=225$$
Those $225$ elements consists of the form of $aaab, aabb, abbb$ where $ a ne b$ each of them have $72$ elements and $9$ copies of the form of $aaaa$.
$$72 times 3 + 9 =225$$
Edit:
Let $R_i$ denotes region $i$.
$|A|= sum_i in 1,2,4,5|R_i|$, do the same thing for $|B|$ and $|C|$ and we can see how many times region $5$ is counted.
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
1
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
1
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
 |Â
show 12 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
We shouldn't be looking for $234$ objects that are counted multiple times, because there are only $225$ of them.
Define $A$, $B$, $C$ those sets of elements where their first two, second two, and the last two positions are to be the same respectively.
We have $|A|+|B|+|C|=2187$.
but actually, the quantity of interest is
$$|A|+|B|+|C|- [|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| ]=1953$$
We have
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| = 234$$
Note that
- $(A cap B) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $(B cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C)$
- $(A cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $A cap B cap C$
are disjoint and computing the sum of their cardinality is just computing the quantity of those elements that are counted for more than once.
The quantity that are over counted is
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -2|A cap B cap C| = 234- |A cap B cap C|$$
$$81+81+81 - 2(9)=234-9=225$$
Those $225$ elements consists of the form of $aaab, aabb, abbb$ where $ a ne b$ each of them have $72$ elements and $9$ copies of the form of $aaaa$.
$$72 times 3 + 9 =225$$
Edit:
Let $R_i$ denotes region $i$.
$|A|= sum_i in 1,2,4,5|R_i|$, do the same thing for $|B|$ and $|C|$ and we can see how many times region $5$ is counted.
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
1
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
1
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
We shouldn't be looking for $234$ objects that are counted multiple times, because there are only $225$ of them.
Define $A$, $B$, $C$ those sets of elements where their first two, second two, and the last two positions are to be the same respectively.
We have $|A|+|B|+|C|=2187$.
but actually, the quantity of interest is
$$|A|+|B|+|C|- [|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| ]=1953$$
We have
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| = 234$$
Note that
- $(A cap B) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $(B cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C)$
- $(A cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $A cap B cap C$
are disjoint and computing the sum of their cardinality is just computing the quantity of those elements that are counted for more than once.
The quantity that are over counted is
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -2|A cap B cap C| = 234- |A cap B cap C|$$
$$81+81+81 - 2(9)=234-9=225$$
Those $225$ elements consists of the form of $aaab, aabb, abbb$ where $ a ne b$ each of them have $72$ elements and $9$ copies of the form of $aaaa$.
$$72 times 3 + 9 =225$$
Edit:
Let $R_i$ denotes region $i$.
$|A|= sum_i in 1,2,4,5|R_i|$, do the same thing for $|B|$ and $|C|$ and we can see how many times region $5$ is counted.
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
1
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
1
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
We shouldn't be looking for $234$ objects that are counted multiple times, because there are only $225$ of them.
Define $A$, $B$, $C$ those sets of elements where their first two, second two, and the last two positions are to be the same respectively.
We have $|A|+|B|+|C|=2187$.
but actually, the quantity of interest is
$$|A|+|B|+|C|- [|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| ]=1953$$
We have
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| = 234$$
Note that
- $(A cap B) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $(B cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C)$
- $(A cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $A cap B cap C$
are disjoint and computing the sum of their cardinality is just computing the quantity of those elements that are counted for more than once.
The quantity that are over counted is
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -2|A cap B cap C| = 234- |A cap B cap C|$$
$$81+81+81 - 2(9)=234-9=225$$
Those $225$ elements consists of the form of $aaab, aabb, abbb$ where $ a ne b$ each of them have $72$ elements and $9$ copies of the form of $aaaa$.
$$72 times 3 + 9 =225$$
Edit:
Let $R_i$ denotes region $i$.
$|A|= sum_i in 1,2,4,5|R_i|$, do the same thing for $|B|$ and $|C|$ and we can see how many times region $5$ is counted.
We shouldn't be looking for $234$ objects that are counted multiple times, because there are only $225$ of them.
Define $A$, $B$, $C$ those sets of elements where their first two, second two, and the last two positions are to be the same respectively.
We have $|A|+|B|+|C|=2187$.
but actually, the quantity of interest is
$$|A|+|B|+|C|- [|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| ]=1953$$
We have
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -|A cap B cap C| = 234$$
Note that
- $(A cap B) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $(B cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C)$
- $(A cap C) setminus (A cap B cap C), $
- $A cap B cap C$
are disjoint and computing the sum of their cardinality is just computing the quantity of those elements that are counted for more than once.
The quantity that are over counted is
$$|A cap B| + |B cap C| + |A cap C| -2|A cap B cap C| = 234- |A cap B cap C|$$
$$81+81+81 - 2(9)=234-9=225$$
Those $225$ elements consists of the form of $aaab, aabb, abbb$ where $ a ne b$ each of them have $72$ elements and $9$ copies of the form of $aaaa$.
$$72 times 3 + 9 =225$$
Edit:
Let $R_i$ denotes region $i$.
$|A|= sum_i in 1,2,4,5|R_i|$, do the same thing for $|B|$ and $|C|$ and we can see how many times region $5$ is counted.
edited Sep 4 at 3:47
answered Sep 3 at 15:53
Siong Thye Goh
82.2k1456104
82.2k1456104
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
1
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
1
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
 |Â
show 12 more comments
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
1
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
1
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
Thanks for showing such a nice way to approach the problem. Inclusion-exclusion principle (as also in chap. 3 of the concerned book) is a nice way to show the cases when more than two adjacent elements are equal, i.e. $Aâ©B = 1,2,3$, $Bâ©C = 2,3,4$ & $Aâ©Bâ©C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $Aâ©Bâ©C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
â jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31
1
1
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
included a venn diagram.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
By inclusion-exclusion (IE, for short) prin., the common region for sets $A,B,C,$ are given. Each adds the common region of $4$ adj. elements, i.e $Aâ©Bâ©C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((Aâ©B)+(Bâ©C)+(Aâ©C))$; so need add $Aâ©Bâ©C$ one time more to get $234$. I hope the only alternate way is to take a smaller example, say $[3]$ lists of $5$ elements. I am working on it now.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:03
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
Kindly see the image at : i.stack.imgur.com/pnsX0.png for the case of $3$ lists taken from $[5]$ elements.
â jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51
1
1
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
â Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20
 |Â
show 12 more comments
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2903732%2fhelp-needed-with-my-detailed-analysis-of-mis-application-of-product-principle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30
@Matt I constructed the question's wording in half an hour plus, after had attempted on paper. It required many re-framing of the words used. So, request you to reconsider your downvote.
â jiten
Sep 3 at 10:33
2
I understand. My reasoning for the downvote is that without visitting your outside links, the question is incomprehensible. I stand by that, because I think that you should include those things from your link in the body of the question itself.
â Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54
@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
â jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46