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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmaniac1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread 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.
 
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...

Similar threads

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