MHB Using isomorphism and permutations in proofs

AI Thread Summary
Using isomorphism and permutations in combinatorial proofs can be challenging, particularly in determining when to apply "without loss of generality" (WLOG). WLOG is a technique that simplifies proofs by allowing the focus on a specific case, as other cases can be derived similarly. The discussion highlights the need for guidelines on utilizing symmetry effectively in arguments. An example is provided regarding the proof that any (7, 7, 4, 4, 2)-designs must be isomorphic. Understanding these concepts is crucial for advancing in combinatorial proofs.
annie122
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
I have trouble using isomorphism and permutation in proofs for combinatorics.
I don't know when I can assume "without loss of generality".
What are some guidelines to using symmetry in arguments.

One problem I'm working on that uses symmetry is to "prove that any (7, 7, 4, 4, 2)-designs must be isomorphic."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yuuki said:
I don't know when I can assume "without loss of generality".

Hi Yuuki, :)

Well, I don't have the background to answer all your questions but would like to clarify about statement "without loss of generality". First of all it's not an assumption but rather a way of narrowing down a proof to a special case. All the other possibilities of the proof just follows the same procedure with symbols and objects interchanged. You would find a nice example about the use of this statement >>here<<.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top