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.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K