MHB What is the relationship between r-multisets and combinations of 0s and 1s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmaniac1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The number of r-multisets with n distinct objects is equivalent to the number of ways to arrange r zeros and (n-1) ones in a row. This relationship arises because forming r-multisets involves creating tuples where the sum of object counts equals r, with each count being non-negative. Arranging the zeros and ones effectively divides the zeros into n groups, which corresponds to the multisets. This concept highlights the combinatorial connection between multisets and binary arrangements. Understanding this relationship clarifies the structure of r-multisets in combinatorial mathematics.
mathmaniac1
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
The no.of r-multisets with n distinct objects is
equal to the number of ways of combining r-0s and (n-1) 1s.
How?Can anyone explain this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: The no:of r-multisets

mathmaniac said:
The no.of r-multisets with n distinct objects is
equal to the number of ways of combining r-0s and (n-1) 1s.
I assume that $r$-multisets means multisets of cardinality $r$, and by combining zeros and ones the problem means arranging them in a row. The number of multisets of cardinality $r$ consisting of $n$ distinct objects equals the number of tuples $(r_1,\dots,r_n)$ such that $r_i\ge0$ for all $i$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n r_i=r$. Here $r_i$ serves as the number of copies of object number $i$. In turn, arranging $r$ zeros in a row and inserting $n-1$ ones between them amounts to dividing zeros into $n$ groups, some of which may be empty. Thus, each arrangement gives rise to a tuple described above.

See also Theorem 2 on this Wiki page.
 
Re: The no:of r-multisets

Thanks for replying,E.M

but I had got it on my own.
 
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.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K