Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

#6: Post edited by user avatar DNB‭ · 2021-07-28T04:05:35Z (over 2 years ago)
  • I know that $\color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{limegreen}(n-k+1)\color{red}{(n - k)}$. I bungled by adding the unnecessary and wrong $\color{red}{(n - k)}$, probably because I affiliated choosing K objects with $\color{red}{(n - k)}$!
  • How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at \color{limegreen}{(n-(k-1)}?
  • >### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement).
  • >Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
  • object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)}$
  • possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
  • By convention, $n(n-1) \dots {\color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)}} = n$ for k = 1.
  • >This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
  • again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
  • time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
  • whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.
  • Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.
  • I know that $\color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{limegreen}(n-k+1)\color{red}{(n - k)}$. I bungled by adding the unnecessary and wrong $\color{red}{(n - k)}$, probably because I affiliated choosing K objects with $\color{red}{(n - k)}$!
  • How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at $\color{limegreen}{(n-(k-1)}$?
  • >### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement).
  • >Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
  • object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)}$
  • possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
  • By convention, $n(n-1) \dots {\color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)}} = n$ for k = 1.
  • >This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
  • again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
  • time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
  • whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.
  • Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.
#5: Post edited by user avatar DNB‭ · 2021-07-09T07:53:24Z (over 2 years ago)
  • Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots {(n-k+1)}\color{red}{(n - k)}$?
  • Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots [(n-(k - 1)]\color{red}{(n - k)}$?
  • I know that $\color{red}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}(n - k)$. I bungle by adding the unnecessary and wrong $n - k$, probably because I affiliate choosing K objects with $n - k$!
  • How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at \color{red}{(n-(k-1)}?
  • >### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement).
  • >Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
  • object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}$
  • possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
  • By convention, $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)} = n$ for k = 1.
  • >This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
  • again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
  • time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
  • whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.
  • Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.
  • I know that $\color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{limegreen}(n-k+1)\color{red}{(n - k)}$. I bungled by adding the unnecessary and wrong $\color{red}{(n - k)}$, probably because I affiliated choosing K objects with $\color{red}{(n - k)}$!
  • How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at \color{limegreen}{(n-(k-1)}?
  • >### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement).
  • >Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
  • object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)}$
  • possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
  • By convention, $n(n-1) \dots {\color{limegreen}{(n-k+1)}} = n$ for k = 1.
  • >This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
  • again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
  • time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
  • whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.
  • Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.
#4: Post edited by user avatar DNB‭ · 2021-07-09T07:49:44Z (over 2 years ago)
  • Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots {\color{red}{(n-k+1)}}(n - k)$?
  • Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots {(n-k+1)}\color{red}{(n - k)}$?
#3: Post edited by user avatar DNB‭ · 2021-07-09T04:10:05Z (over 2 years ago)
  • Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}(n - (k - 1))$?
  • Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots {\color{red}{(n-k+1)}}(n - k)$?
#2: Post edited by user avatar DNB‭ · 2021-07-09T04:09:19Z (over 2 years ago)
  • I know that $\color{red}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}(n - k)$. I bungle by adding the unnecessary and wrong $n - k$, probably because I affiliate choosing K objects with $n - k$!
  • How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at \color{red}{(n-(k-1)}?
  • >### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement).
  • >Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
  • object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}$
  • possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
  • By convention, $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}$ = n$ for k = 1.
  • >This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
  • again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
  • time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
  • whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.
  • Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.
  • I know that $\color{red}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}(n - k)$. I bungle by adding the unnecessary and wrong $n - k$, probably because I affiliate choosing K objects with $n - k$!
  • How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at \color{red}{(n-(k-1)}?
  • >### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement).
  • >Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
  • object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}$
  • possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
  • By convention, $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)} = n$ for k = 1.
  • >This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
  • again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
  • time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
  • whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.
  • Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar DNB‭ · 2021-07-09T04:08:51Z (over 2 years ago)
Intuitively, if you pick k out of n objects singly without replacement, why's the number of possible outcomes NOT $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}(n - (k - 1))$?
I know that $\color{red}{(n-k+1)} \equiv (n - (k - 1))$. But whenever I contemplate choosing k from n objects singly without replacement, I keep muffing the number of possible outcomes as $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}(n - k)$. I bungle by adding the unnecessary and wrong $n - k$, probably because I affiliate choosing K objects with $n - k$! 

How can I rectify my [Fence Post Error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error#Fencepost_error)? How can I intuitively remember to stop at \color{red}{(n-(k-1)}? 

>### Theorem 1.4.8 (Sampling without replacement). 

>Consider n objects and making k choices from them, one at a time _without replacement_ (i.e., choosing a certain
object precludes it from being chosen again). Then there are $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}$
possible outcomes for $1 \le k \le n$, and 0 possibilities for $k > n$ (where order matters).
By convention, $n(n-1) \dots \color{red}{(n-k+1)}$ = n$ for k = 1.

>This result also follows directly from the multiplication rule: each sampled ball is
again a sub-experiment, and the number of possible outcomes decreases by 1 each
time. Note that for sampling k out of n objects without replacement, we need $k \le n$,
whereas in sampling with replacement the objects are inexhaustible.


Blitzstein. *Introduction to Probability* (2019 2 ed). p. 12.