Combinations are just an application of the counting principle?

skrying
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Is it fair to say combinations are just an application of the counting principle? I already understand that permutations are just an application of fundamental principle and that combinations are just an application of permutations. If it's fair to say that combinations are in fact, just an application of the counting principle, then would their be a specific formula that proves as such? :!)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pardon my ignorance. What is "the counting principle"?
 
The counting principle

The counting principle is dealing with the occurrence of more than one event, thus being able to quickly determine how many possible outcomes exist.
Kind of like sequences, if that makes more sense.
 
Counting principal for multiplication is: If something can be done in A ways and something else can be done in B ways, then the entire event can be done in AB ways.
For addition it means that in disjoint sets A and B, if we have K choices in A and L choices in B, then we have K+L choices in A union B.

Combinations and permutations then seem to be just that, applications of the counting principal. Possibly, skrying is aware that the combinations of N things taken K at a time is:

\frac{N!}{K!(N-K)!} And for permutations: \frac{N!}{(N-K)!}
 
Last edited:
Thank you Robert

Thank you Robert, that explanation and the examples were really helpful. You explained it so it actually "makes sense" to me. Much appreciated! :smile:
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top