Help needed with my detailed analysis of 'mis-application of product principle'.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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:



  1. $a=b$: 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;

  2. $a=b=c$: 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;

  3. $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ 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 $c$.










share|cite|improve this question























  • I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Matt
    Sep 3 at 10:54










  • @Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
    – jiten
    Sep 3 at 12:46















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:



  1. $a=b$: 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;

  2. $a=b=c$: 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;

  3. $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ 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 $c$.










share|cite|improve this question























  • I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Matt
    Sep 3 at 10:54










  • @Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
    – jiten
    Sep 3 at 12:46













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:



  1. $a=b$: 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;

  2. $a=b=c$: 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;

  3. $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ 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 $c$.










share|cite|improve this question















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:



  1. $a=b$: 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;

  2. $a=b=c$: 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;

  3. $b=c$ : $1122, 1133, 1144, 1155, 1155, 1166, 1177, 1188, 1199,$ 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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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.
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Matt
    Sep 3 at 10:54










  • @Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
    – jiten
    Sep 3 at 12:46

















  • I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
    – 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.
    – 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.
    – Matt
    Sep 3 at 10:54










  • @Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
    – jiten
    Sep 3 at 12:46
















I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
– Matt
Sep 3 at 10:30




I'm downvoting and flagging because of the links to outside sources and general uncomprehensibility of the question.
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.
– Matt
Sep 3 at 10:54












@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
– jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46





@Matt Unable to modify, please see the (now incomprehensible) edit at: i.stack.imgur.com/21SkU.png
– jiten
Sep 3 at 12:46











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:



enter image description here



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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • 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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 3:31






  • 1




    included a venn diagram.
    – 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
    – 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.
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 4:51






  • 1




    maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
    – Siong Thye Goh
    Sep 4 at 9:20










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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






























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:



enter image description here



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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • 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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 3:31






  • 1




    included a venn diagram.
    – 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
    – 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.
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 4:51






  • 1




    maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
    – Siong Thye Goh
    Sep 4 at 9:20














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:



enter image description here



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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • 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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 3:31






  • 1




    included a venn diagram.
    – 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
    – 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.
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 4:51






  • 1




    maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
    – Siong Thye Goh
    Sep 4 at 9:20












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:



enter image description here



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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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:



enter image description here



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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 3:31






  • 1




    included a venn diagram.
    – 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
    – 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.
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 4:51






  • 1




    maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
    – 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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 3:31






  • 1




    included a venn diagram.
    – 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
    – 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.
    – jiten
    Sep 4 at 4:51






  • 1




    maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
    – 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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
– 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. $A∩B = 1,2,3$, $B∩C = 2,3,4$ & $A∩B∩C =1,2,3,4$. But, have confusions as to why $A∩B∩C$ is subtracted twice. May be a simple Venn diagram is needed, or can modify one at: i.stack.imgur.com/0U2BK.png
– jiten
Sep 4 at 3:31




1




1




included a venn diagram.
– Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 3:47




included a venn diagram.
– 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
– 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 $A∩B∩C$ (shown by $R_i=5$), in each of $3$ circles. So, this region is added thrice, but subtracted also thrice by $-((A∩B)+(B∩C)+(A∩C))$; so need add $A∩B∩C$ 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.
– 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.
– 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.
– jiten
Sep 4 at 4:51




1




1




maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
– Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20




maybe later tonight if no one answers it.
– Siong Thye Goh
Sep 4 at 9:20

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?