Combinatorics - Specific Outcomes

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves combinatorial reasoning regarding an experiment with three possible outcomes performed four times, specifically focusing on the scenario where exactly two of the outcomes are the same. Participants are exploring how to count the valid sets of outcomes under these constraints.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of combinations (4C2) to determine how many ways two outcomes can be the same, while questioning how to account for the remaining outcomes. There is consideration of different ways to select which outcomes are repeated and how to calculate the total number of valid sets.

Discussion Status

There is active engagement with various interpretations of the counting process. Some participants suggest specific calculations and factors to consider, while others express confusion about undercounting and overcounting scenarios. Guidance has been offered regarding the breakdown of the counting process, but no consensus has been reached on a final method.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of combinatorial problems and express challenges in maintaining clarity in reasoning. There is an acknowledgment of the potential for multiple interpretations of the problem setup.

adam.wp
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



An experiment has 3 outcomes. If the experiment is performed 4 times, how many sets of outcomes exist in which exactly two of the experiments had the same outcome.


The Attempt at a Solution



From what I understand there is a 4-element set with each element having 3 possible values. So there are 34 = 81 such sets. The question is asking how many sets contain elements where exactly two of the elements are equal. I'm having trouble understanding how to count these. I imagine starting with 4C2 to get the number of ways to get two of the elements to fit a specific criteria, but I don't know how to continue.

Is there a general formula or reasoning process I am missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're right so far; only thing left is to specify which of the 3 outcomes was repeated when the experiment was done. So you first select the experiment orders in which the outcome was repeated, e.g., (1,2), (1,3) , etc. and then you decide which of the possible outcomes was repeated.
 
Bacle2 said:
You're right so far; only thing left is to specify which of the 3 outcomes was repeated when the experiment was done. So you first select the experiment orders in which the outcome was repeated, e.g., (1,2), (1,3) , etc. and then you decide which of the possible outcomes was repeated.

Awesome!

So from what I understand:

4C2 gives the number of ways the experiment could repeat itself (the number of ways certain elements in the set could meet specific criteria). Then I multiply 4C2 by the possible outcomes for the other two elements. Since one of the three outcomes has occurred the max number of times we are looking for, then each of the other two outcomes of the experiment only has two possible outcomes. So the answer is 4C2(2)(2)=24.

So if I wanted the number of sets in which the experiment repeated 3 times I could use this calculation: 4C3(2).

Thanks for the help!
 
If it's the first two experiments that have the same result, you have these possibilities:

AABC
AACB
BBAC
BBCA
CCAB
CCBA

Can you see how you'd be able to calculate there are 6 possibilities?

EDIT: I see you posted while I was writing. You actually missed Bacle2's point, but you did pick up on what Bacle2 missed, sort of. You're undercounting and overcounting right now.
 
vela said:
If it's the first two experiments that have the same result, you have these possibilities:

AABC
AACB
BBAC
BBCA
CCAB
CCBA

Can you see how you'd be able to calculate there are 6 possibilities?

EDIT: I see you posted while I was writing. You actually missed Bacle2's point, but you did pick up on what Bacle2 missed, sort of. You're undercounting and overcounting right now.

Dang. Can you help me understand what I missed?

I've been having a lot trouble thinking through the logic of these types of problems.

4C2=6 gives number of ways the experiment could repeat outcomes. 4C2(2)(2)=24 gives the number of sets in which two outcomes repeat, but this is undercounting?

So, was I forgetting about how each outcome could be repeated? So, would it be 4C2(2)(2)(3)=72?
 
You can't use 2x2 to count the number of outcomes for the non-matching experiments, otherwise you include the possibility of something like AABB. That's not an event where exactly two experiments have the same outcome. So in that sense, you're overcounting.

You're undercounting in the sense that you haven't taken into account what Bacle2 said.

There are 6 possibilities for each of the 4C2 outcomes (so the answer is 36). The way it breaks down is into (4C2)x2x3. Try to understand where each of those last two factors comes from.
 
Last edited:
vela said:
You can't use 2x2 to count the number of outcomes for the non-matching experiments, otherwise you include the possibility of something like AABB. That's not an event where exactly two experiments have the same outcome. So in that sense, you're overcounting.

You're undercounting in the sense that you haven't taken into account what Bacle2 said.

There are 6 possibilities for each of the 4C2 outcomes (so the answer is 36). The way it breaks down is into (4C2)x2x3. Try to understand where each of those last two factors comes from.

Ooooh, it's starting to make sense. Thanks for your patience.

I'll try again.

4C2 gives the number ways that two elements could meet some criteria. There are 3 values that these two elements could have, and 2 values for the next and 1 for the last. Is that why it is (4C2)x2x3?
 
Think of the ways in which you can have a pair of events be equal to each other; they can all be equal to...

This was the point I was trying to make initially, but I was not clear-enough.
 
Bacle2 said:
Think of the ways in which you can have a pair of events be equal to each other; they can all be equal to...

This was the point I was trying to make initially, but I was not clear-enough.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

So in the example above, there are 4C2 pairs of events which can be equal in 3 ways, then accounting for the last two elements having 2 and 1 outcomes we get (4C2)(3)(1)(2).

Is that it?

This is where I get confused with most problems in combinatorics. It seems like there are several correct interpretations, and I often mix those together to end up with a wrong interpretation... any advice on how to get this straight in my head?
 
  • #10
Practice. :smile:
 
  • #11
vela said:
Practice. :smile:

Then practice it is :)

Thanks for the help today.
 
  • #12
adam.wp said:
Sorry for misunderstanding.

So in the example above, there are 4C2 pairs of events which can be equal in 3 ways, then accounting for the last two elements having 2 and 1 outcomes we get (4C2)(3)(1)(2).

Is that it?

This is where I get confused with most problems in combinatorics. It seems like there are several correct interpretations, and I often mix those together to end up with a wrong interpretation... any advice on how to get this straight in my head?

Oh, no,please, don't blame yourself; I really meant it, I am not always as clear as I should be. Adding to Vela's comment, try doing a few problems in great level of detail. Try, e.g., calculating the expected return for some lottery, or the probability of n people winning when x people play,or the probability of getting different hands in poker, etc. and post it here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K