Determining the number of elements in the relative complement of a set

Mingy Jongo
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I have been very obsessed with a board game called Hex lately. I am trying to calculate the number of completed states (all positions filled in) on a 3x3 board where a certain player wins, given that some positions are already filled. I have attached a diagram illustrating what I am trying to do.

In the diagram are illustrations of a 3x3 Hex board, where pieces are played on the intersections. Each intersection either has a white or black piece on it, or is empty, meaning that it does not matter what color is placed on it.

For set A, the image designates 5 empty intersections that can either be black or white, giving a total of 2^5 elements in the set. Set B is the relative complement of another board with set A, which is equivalent to a set shown that includes 2^4 elements.

My problem is that I am having trouble calculating the number of elements in set C, which is equivalent to the relative complement of the board pictured with the union of sets A and B. It is not equivalent to any single diagram I can think of, so I can not compute it like I did with set B.

Are there any formulas I can use to compute this and further relative complements of unions?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Mingy Jongo and welcome to the forums.

What will probably help you for these kinds of problems is using the definition of A \ X for a general X (including if X = Y OR Z like in your example).

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(set_theory)
 
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