MHB What Are Non-Crossing Partitions and How Are They Defined?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alyafey22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    partitions
Click For Summary
Non-crossing partitions are defined as partitions of a set where no two blocks intersect each other, meaning that if elements a and b are in one block and elements x and y are in another, they cannot be arranged in a crossing order like a x b y. The number of non-crossing partitions is calculated using Catalan numbers, contrasting with regular partitions, which are counted by Bell numbers. Visual representations help clarify the concept, illustrating how arches drawn between elements can indicate crossing or non-crossing arrangements. The discussion highlights the need for a clear mathematical definition alongside verbal explanations. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding both the visual and formal aspects of non-crossing partitions.
alyafey22
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
2
Define a partition of a set $S$ as a collection of non-empty disjoint subsets $\in S$ whose union covers $S$. The number of them is defined using the Bell numbers.

Can we define ''Non-crossing'' partitions in words . I have seen the visualization of these partitions and the number of them is calculated using the Catalan's numbers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the wiki, it says that a noncrossing partition
is a partition in which no two blocks "cross" each other, i.e., if a and b belong to one block and x and y to another, they are not arranged in the order a x b y. If one draws an arch based at a and b, and another arch based at x and y, then the two arches cross each other if the order is a x b y but not if it is a x y b or a b x y. In the latter two orders the partition { { a, b }, { x, y } } is noncrossing.
There's a nice picture illustrating noncrossing partitions.
 
Ackbach said:
In the wiki, it says that a noncrossing partition There's a nice picture illustrating noncrossing partitions.

Yes, I already saw this . But I am surprised to know that this is the only explanation! I mean it should have a mathematical definition '' can be described by words '' .
 
Is the part I quoted not in words? Is it an adequate definition? These are not rhetorical questions, but genuine.
 
Ackbach said:
Is the part I quoted not in words? Is it an adequate definition? These are not rhetorical questions, but genuine.

I actually meant something else .But now I got the general idea , thanks .
 
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...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
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.