Talk:Combinatorial proof: Difference between revisions
On 'double counting' |
Peter Kwok (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 21:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 21:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
||
It looks like that "double counting" can refer to a fallacy, while "combinatorial proof" cannot. |
|||
Also, I can't come up a concrete example now, but I worry what if we need to count something in more than two ways, like in a planar graph where you need to count the number of edges and faces incident to a vertex? |
|||
Would that be still considered "double" counting? or "triple" counting? |
|||
So I would say "combinatorial proof" is the preferred term as far as the non-fallacy part is concerned. |
|||
But since it does not really cover all meanings of "double counting", the latter should not be treated as a subset. |
|||
Perhaps the two pages are better left separated for the time being.<br> |
|||
[[User:Peter Kwok|Peter Kwok]] 15:31, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:31, 22 June 2004
There is already a double counting page. If combinatorial proof is the more general concept, perhaps that page should be merged into this one.
Charles Matthews 21:25, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It looks like that "double counting" can refer to a fallacy, while "combinatorial proof" cannot.
Also, I can't come up a concrete example now, but I worry what if we need to count something in more than two ways, like in a planar graph where you need to count the number of edges and faces incident to a vertex?
Would that be still considered "double" counting? or "triple" counting?
So I would say "combinatorial proof" is the preferred term as far as the non-fallacy part is concerned.
But since it does not really cover all meanings of "double counting", the latter should not be treated as a subset.
Perhaps the two pages are better left separated for the time being.
Peter Kwok 15:31, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)