Paradoxica
-insert title here-
Re: HSC 2016 3U Marathon
For completeness' sake...
For completeness' sake...
That's equivalent to arcsin(3/5) + pi/2 – arctan(24/7) = pi/2 – arcsin(3/5) <==> 2arcsin(3/5) = arctan(24/7).What would be the fastest way to prove this?
What would be the fastest way to prove this?
My attempt:Permutations question: 6 men and 3 women have a choice of two tables - a 4-seated round table and a 5-seated round table. In how many ways can they be seated if there is at least one woman sitting at the 5-seated round table?
Hmmm.. I wonder what was wrong with my solution :/My attempt:
What was your solution?Hmmm.. I wonder what was wrong with my solution :/
It's in the reply above ambility (2nd part)What was your solution?
For Jeff's question:
Checked the answer... wu345 should be right on this one.My attempt:
It's probably because it's supposed to be a permutations question.wu345's answer is correct. It would be an instructive exercise to find the flaw with the method posted by Ambility.
The term posted for Ambility's no. of ways to seat people in the 5-seat table is incorrect. Can anyone explain what was the reasoning behind Ambility's expression for that, and why it is not quite right? (Just focus on the numerator.)It's probably because it's supposed to be a permutations question.
EDIT. Although if I didn't say it was a permutations question, could it have been a combinations question?
EDIT 2. I don't think I've encountered any "round table" questions with combinations.
The reason for that is to account for the rotational symmetry of the seating in tables. It's standard required knowledge for 3U perms and combs for circular arrangements.Can someone explain why they divided by 5 or 4 in the denominator? I'm having a mind blank here. (Or is this because it's combinations, because I haven't really learned much of that yet?)
I'm laughing at myself now I usually just do (n-1)! eg. 3! for a 4-seated instead of 4!/4The reason for that is to account for the rotational symmetry of the seating in tables. It's standard required knowledge for 3U perms and combs for circular arrangements.
Yeah, they're equivalent methods. The reason those people did divisions by 5 etc. instead was that they found the ways of getting people for the table from the entire group of people first, and this generally in nPr form, rather than a factorial form, so they divided that by 5 and couldn't just straightaway do a 4!. To do the 4! thing we could first choose people for that table in the appropriate way, and then multiply by 4!.I'm laughing at myself now I usually just do (n-1)! eg. 3! for a 4-seated instead of 4!/4