Necklace combinatorics problem
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
If $n$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and two identical diamonds and similarly $m$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and $2$ different diamonds, then the value of $m$ and $n$ is?
combinatorics permutations
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
If $n$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and two identical diamonds and similarly $m$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and $2$ different diamonds, then the value of $m$ and $n$ is?
combinatorics permutations
What have you done so far? Where are you stuck? Can you figure out the problem if $17$ was a smaller number like $3$ or $4$, for example? Try to extend that logic.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:09
Well I am not sure how to start
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 4:10
In both questions, it is about where to place the diamonds. For example, let us call the diamonds $D$ (for the first question, where they are the same). Draw the skeleton of a necklace, and find out in how many ways can you place the two diamonds. The pearls will have to go in the other places, right?
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:13
1
Very good. In how many ways can you select two places? Remember, we are talking about places in a necklace, which loops back into itself, so only the distance between the two diamonds matters.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:19
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
If $n$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and two identical diamonds and similarly $m$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and $2$ different diamonds, then the value of $m$ and $n$ is?
combinatorics permutations
If $n$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and two identical diamonds and similarly $m$ is the number of necklaces which can be formed using $17$ identical pearls and $2$ different diamonds, then the value of $m$ and $n$ is?
combinatorics permutations
combinatorics permutations
edited Nov 21 at 5:06
David G. Stork
9,02321232
9,02321232
asked Nov 21 at 4:07
Saumil Sood
93
93
What have you done so far? Where are you stuck? Can you figure out the problem if $17$ was a smaller number like $3$ or $4$, for example? Try to extend that logic.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:09
Well I am not sure how to start
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 4:10
In both questions, it is about where to place the diamonds. For example, let us call the diamonds $D$ (for the first question, where they are the same). Draw the skeleton of a necklace, and find out in how many ways can you place the two diamonds. The pearls will have to go in the other places, right?
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:13
1
Very good. In how many ways can you select two places? Remember, we are talking about places in a necklace, which loops back into itself, so only the distance between the two diamonds matters.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:19
add a comment |
What have you done so far? Where are you stuck? Can you figure out the problem if $17$ was a smaller number like $3$ or $4$, for example? Try to extend that logic.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:09
Well I am not sure how to start
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 4:10
In both questions, it is about where to place the diamonds. For example, let us call the diamonds $D$ (for the first question, where they are the same). Draw the skeleton of a necklace, and find out in how many ways can you place the two diamonds. The pearls will have to go in the other places, right?
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:13
1
Very good. In how many ways can you select two places? Remember, we are talking about places in a necklace, which loops back into itself, so only the distance between the two diamonds matters.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:19
What have you done so far? Where are you stuck? Can you figure out the problem if $17$ was a smaller number like $3$ or $4$, for example? Try to extend that logic.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:09
What have you done so far? Where are you stuck? Can you figure out the problem if $17$ was a smaller number like $3$ or $4$, for example? Try to extend that logic.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:09
Well I am not sure how to start
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 4:10
Well I am not sure how to start
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 4:10
In both questions, it is about where to place the diamonds. For example, let us call the diamonds $D$ (for the first question, where they are the same). Draw the skeleton of a necklace, and find out in how many ways can you place the two diamonds. The pearls will have to go in the other places, right?
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:13
In both questions, it is about where to place the diamonds. For example, let us call the diamonds $D$ (for the first question, where they are the same). Draw the skeleton of a necklace, and find out in how many ways can you place the two diamonds. The pearls will have to go in the other places, right?
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:13
1
1
Very good. In how many ways can you select two places? Remember, we are talking about places in a necklace, which loops back into itself, so only the distance between the two diamonds matters.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:19
Very good. In how many ways can you select two places? Remember, we are talking about places in a necklace, which loops back into itself, so only the distance between the two diamonds matters.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Use Burnside's Lemma.
If $G$ is a finite group of permutations on a set $S$, then the number of orbits of $G$ on $S$ is
begin{align}
frac{1}{|G|}sum_{g in G}|operatorname{fix}(g)|.
end{align}
Observe there are $binom{19}{2}=171$ possible designs (of course, some of them are equivalent by rotation and reflection). Let $G = D_{38}$ act on the $171$ necklace designs. Observe we see that
begin{matrix}
text{element} & text{Number of Designs Fixed by Element}\
e & 171\
r^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 0\
f & 9\
fr^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 9
end{matrix}
Hence by Burnside's lemma, we see that
begin{align}
frac{1}{38}(171+9+9*18) = 9.
end{align}
Indeed, one possible configuration is that the two diamonds are $1$ apart on one side and $16$ apart on the other side or $3$ apart on one side and $14$ apart on the other side...until $17$ apart on one side and $0$ apart on the other side. Hence $9$ configurations.
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Use Burnside's Lemma.
If $G$ is a finite group of permutations on a set $S$, then the number of orbits of $G$ on $S$ is
begin{align}
frac{1}{|G|}sum_{g in G}|operatorname{fix}(g)|.
end{align}
Observe there are $binom{19}{2}=171$ possible designs (of course, some of them are equivalent by rotation and reflection). Let $G = D_{38}$ act on the $171$ necklace designs. Observe we see that
begin{matrix}
text{element} & text{Number of Designs Fixed by Element}\
e & 171\
r^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 0\
f & 9\
fr^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 9
end{matrix}
Hence by Burnside's lemma, we see that
begin{align}
frac{1}{38}(171+9+9*18) = 9.
end{align}
Indeed, one possible configuration is that the two diamonds are $1$ apart on one side and $16$ apart on the other side or $3$ apart on one side and $14$ apart on the other side...until $17$ apart on one side and $0$ apart on the other side. Hence $9$ configurations.
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Use Burnside's Lemma.
If $G$ is a finite group of permutations on a set $S$, then the number of orbits of $G$ on $S$ is
begin{align}
frac{1}{|G|}sum_{g in G}|operatorname{fix}(g)|.
end{align}
Observe there are $binom{19}{2}=171$ possible designs (of course, some of them are equivalent by rotation and reflection). Let $G = D_{38}$ act on the $171$ necklace designs. Observe we see that
begin{matrix}
text{element} & text{Number of Designs Fixed by Element}\
e & 171\
r^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 0\
f & 9\
fr^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 9
end{matrix}
Hence by Burnside's lemma, we see that
begin{align}
frac{1}{38}(171+9+9*18) = 9.
end{align}
Indeed, one possible configuration is that the two diamonds are $1$ apart on one side and $16$ apart on the other side or $3$ apart on one side and $14$ apart on the other side...until $17$ apart on one side and $0$ apart on the other side. Hence $9$ configurations.
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Use Burnside's Lemma.
If $G$ is a finite group of permutations on a set $S$, then the number of orbits of $G$ on $S$ is
begin{align}
frac{1}{|G|}sum_{g in G}|operatorname{fix}(g)|.
end{align}
Observe there are $binom{19}{2}=171$ possible designs (of course, some of them are equivalent by rotation and reflection). Let $G = D_{38}$ act on the $171$ necklace designs. Observe we see that
begin{matrix}
text{element} & text{Number of Designs Fixed by Element}\
e & 171\
r^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 0\
f & 9\
fr^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 9
end{matrix}
Hence by Burnside's lemma, we see that
begin{align}
frac{1}{38}(171+9+9*18) = 9.
end{align}
Indeed, one possible configuration is that the two diamonds are $1$ apart on one side and $16$ apart on the other side or $3$ apart on one side and $14$ apart on the other side...until $17$ apart on one side and $0$ apart on the other side. Hence $9$ configurations.
Use Burnside's Lemma.
If $G$ is a finite group of permutations on a set $S$, then the number of orbits of $G$ on $S$ is
begin{align}
frac{1}{|G|}sum_{g in G}|operatorname{fix}(g)|.
end{align}
Observe there are $binom{19}{2}=171$ possible designs (of course, some of them are equivalent by rotation and reflection). Let $G = D_{38}$ act on the $171$ necklace designs. Observe we see that
begin{matrix}
text{element} & text{Number of Designs Fixed by Element}\
e & 171\
r^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 0\
f & 9\
fr^k, k=1,ldots, 18 & 9
end{matrix}
Hence by Burnside's lemma, we see that
begin{align}
frac{1}{38}(171+9+9*18) = 9.
end{align}
Indeed, one possible configuration is that the two diamonds are $1$ apart on one side and $16$ apart on the other side or $3$ apart on one side and $14$ apart on the other side...until $17$ apart on one side and $0$ apart on the other side. Hence $9$ configurations.
answered Nov 21 at 4:52
Jacky Chong
17.3k21027
17.3k21027
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
add a comment |
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
Isn't this overkill...
– YiFan
Nov 21 at 4:56
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
@YiFan Yes. But my last paragraph gives a simple proof.
– Jacky Chong
Nov 21 at 4:57
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
I don't know this Theorem, can you tell any other method. Thanks
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 14:16
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007252%2fnecklace-combinatorics-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What have you done so far? Where are you stuck? Can you figure out the problem if $17$ was a smaller number like $3$ or $4$, for example? Try to extend that logic.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:09
Well I am not sure how to start
– Saumil Sood
Nov 21 at 4:10
In both questions, it is about where to place the diamonds. For example, let us call the diamonds $D$ (for the first question, where they are the same). Draw the skeleton of a necklace, and find out in how many ways can you place the two diamonds. The pearls will have to go in the other places, right?
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:13
1
Very good. In how many ways can you select two places? Remember, we are talking about places in a necklace, which loops back into itself, so only the distance between the two diamonds matters.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 21 at 4:19