Undergrad Combination or Permutation Calculation

Click For Summary
To select 4 items from the numbers 1 through 6, ensuring that the number 2 is included, the problem simplifies to choosing 3 additional numbers from the remaining 5. The calculation yields 15 distinct subsets, but some initial counts may not include the number 2. A tree diagram can help visualize the combinations, confirming the correct count. It's important to note that since order does not matter in this case, the problem pertains to combinations rather than permutations. Understanding this distinction is crucial for solving similar problems effectively.
Vector1962
Messages
61
Reaction score
8
TL;DR
How to calculate subsets of 4 items from a set of 6 items and only count the subsets that have a specific item.
Hello Forum:
I have numbers 1 through 6 from which i must select 4 items. The twist is that i need to count only those subsets that include the number 2 all of the subsets are 'distinct' --> 2145 is the same as 2415. My quick calculation yields 15 distinct subsets however some of those do not contain the number 2. is there a formula to use or will i have to make some kind of tree diagram to list them? thanks in advance for the help. also, i picked intermediate but it may be a pretty basic question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Choose the number 2. Then the problem reduces to selecting any 3 from 5 numbers.
 
Excellent... thank you. for what it's worth and for the number of items involved i made the tree diagram and arrive at exactly what you suggest.
 
Just a word about terminology before leaving this. Instead of saying " all of the subsets are 'distinct' --> 2145 is the same as 2415. ", you should say that order doesn't count. Those are the magic words that we look for to determine that it is a problem about the number of combinations. If order counts (2145 not the same as 2415), then it is a problem about the number of permutations.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K