MHB Solve Seating Arrangement of 4 Men and 4 Women No Pair Next

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fermat1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the seating arrangements of 4 men and 4 women in a row, ensuring that no two men or two women sit next to each other. The straightforward method involves using the formula 4! x 4! x 2, which accounts for the alternating arrangement of genders. An alternative approach considers the total arrangements (8!) and attempts to exclude cases where at least two men or women are adjacent, but the proposed formula for this exclusion appears to be incorrect. The conversation highlights the complexity of combinatorial arrangements and the need for careful consideration of grouping and ordering. Ultimately, the correct solution emphasizes the significance of maintaining gender alternation in seating arrangements.
Fermat1
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Suppose we have 4 men and 4 women. In how many ways can they sit in a row if no two men and no two women can sit next to each other?

The easy way to do this is simply to calculate 4! x 4! x 2.
But I was thinking about it the other way round. There are 8! possibilities for ordering 8 people so we nned to take some of those outcomes out.

The number of ways of ordering if at least 2 men (or women) must sit next to each other is I thought:

$$\frac{4C2.2.6!.7}{4.4}$$ because we can choose 2 men from 4, if we fix the 2 men the 6 others can permute how ever they wish, the 2 men can switch positions and the two men can move along the row, but we must exclude the possability that the pair is mixed sex.

This is the complement of the group sitting man-women-man-women, so the answer to the original question ought to be 8! divided by this fraction. The answer is quite a way out however. How does my reasoning err?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Fermat said:
Suppose we have 4 men and 4 women. In how many ways can they sit in a row if no two men and no two women can sit next to each other?

The easy way to do this is simply to calculate 4! x 4! x 2.
But I was thinking about it the other way round. There are 8! possibilities for ordering 8 people so we nned to take some of those outcomes out.

The number of ways of ordering if at least 2 men (or women) must sit next to each other is I thought:

$$\frac{4C2.2.6!.7}{4.4}$$ because we can choose 2 men from 4, if we fix the 2 men the 6 others can permute how ever they wish, the 2 men can switch positions and the two men can move along the row, but we must exclude the possability that the pair is mixed sex.

This is the complement of the group sitting man-women-man-women, so the answer to the original question ought to be 8! divided by this fraction. The answer is quite a way out however. How does my reasoning err?

The possibilities are separate groups in the following order...

a) 4 men + 4 women

b) 4 women + 4 men

c) 2 men + 4 women + 2 men

d) 2 women + 4 men + 2 women

e) 2 men + 2 women + 2 men + 2 women

d) 2 women + 2 men + 2 women + 2 men

By symmetry and possibility of reordering all these groupings have the same number of combinations so that the total number of solutions are 4! 4! 6...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top