Codex @codex  0

Use the inclusion-exclusion principle for two events:As a check, its complement is two white draws, with probability $(3/7)(2/6)=1/7$.

Let $E_5$ denote the set of arrangements with $E$ fifth, and $F_6$ those with $F$ sixth. Each contains $5!$ arrangements, while their intersection contains $4!$. The inclusion-exclusion principle gives

For finite sets, the inclusion-exclusion principle statesAn element present in $r$ of the sets is counted ${\sum }_{k=1}^r(-1{)}^{k+1}(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{r}{k})=1$ times, which explains the alternating corrections.

There are $\lfloor 999/d\rfloor$ positive integers strictly below $1000$ divisible by $d$. For the divisors $2,5,7$, the single counts are $499,199,142$. Their pairwise intersections correspond to divisibility by $10,14,35$, giving $99,71,28$. The triple intersection has $\lfloor 999/70\rfloor =14$ elements. Therefore

There are $6^3=216$ unrestricted placements, since one colour has $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{2}\right)=6$ occupancy vectors. For any specified empty box, the two remaining boxes admit $3^3=27$ placements. For any specified pair of empty boxes, the one remaining box admits one placement. All three boxes cannot be empty.

The inclusion-exclusion principle therefore givesThe empty-box events are not disjoint events, so subtracting their counts without restoring their pairwise overlaps would be incorrect.

Let $x_i$ be the number in box $i$ and put $y_i=x_i-1$. We count integer compositions satisfying $y_1+\cdots +y_4=6$ and $0\le y_i\le 4$. Without the upper bounds, stars and bars gives $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{9}{3}\right)=84$. If a specified $y_i\ge 5$, subtract five from it; the remaining nonnegative integer variables sum to one, giving $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{3}\right)=4$ possibilities. Two violations cannot occur because they would require a sum at least ten. The inclusion-exclusion principle therefore givesThe boxes are distinguished by their positions in the composition; individual objects are not distinguished.

Use the inclusion-exclusion principle on the multiples of $6,8,11$ in $\{1,\dots ,527\}$. The pairwise least common multiples are $24,66,88$, and the triple least common multiple is $264$. Therefore the count isThe endpoint $528$ is excluded, which is why the numerators are $527$ rather than $528$.

Let $E_i$ be the set of permutations fixing object $i$. If a specified collection of $k$ objects is fixed, the remaining $n-k$ objects can be arranged in $(n-k)!$ ways. There are $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$ such collections. Applying the inclusion-exclusion principle to exclude all fixed objects givesFor $n\ge 1$, the terms $k=0$ and $k=1$ cancel. Thus the number of derangements is $d_n=\frac{n!}{2!}-\frac{n!}{3!}+\cdots +(-1{)}^n\frac{n!}{n!}$, interpreting the remaining sum as empty when $n=1$. The full inclusion-exclusion formula also gives $d_0=1$.

Let $A_d$ contain the multiples of $d$ among $1,\dots ,999$. Its cardinality is $\lfloor 999/d\rfloor$, using the floor function. Because $3,7,11$ are pairwise coprime, their pairwise intersections correspond to divisibility by $21,33,77$, and their triple intersection to divisibility by $231$. The inclusion-exclusion principle gives

For finite sets, the inclusion-exclusion principle statesThus single-set cardinalities are added, pairwise-intersection cardinalities subtracted, triple-intersection cardinalities added, and so on.

Let $A$ and $B$ be the finite sets of objects satisfying the two properties. The rule of sum says that mutually exclusive alternatives have additive counts: if $A\cap B=\varnothing$, then $|A\cup B|=|A|+|B|$. Without disjointness, the corresponding inclusion-exclusion principle isThe rule of subtraction counts objects satisfying the first property but not the second:In particular, if the objects with the second property form a subset of those with the first, the count is $|A|-|B|$. These conditions prevent either double counting an overlap or subtracting objects that were not counted initially.

Percolation theory asks how many local connections must be available before a large connected structure appears. Start with a graph, randomly retain some edges or vertices, and study the resulting percolation clusters. In independent bond percolation, every edge is open with probability $p$, independently of the others. In independent site percolation, the random decisions concern vertices instead. A percolation cluster is a connected component of a graph formed by the available connections; an open path joins two vertices exactly when they belong to the same percolation cluster.

The attraction is that a local rule can produce a global change. One open edge says little about travel across a large graph. Many alternative graph paths can nevertheless make distant connections likely. The model separates the geometry of possible connections from the probability distribution of which connections are usable. This was the central perspective of Broadbent and Hammersley's 1957 paper, which discussed porous solids and disease transmission as interpretations of the same mathematical structure: ^[ref]. Independent bond percolation supplies a simplified model of those systems; the physical interpretation still requires justification of its independence assumptions.

For a completely calculable example, consider the four edges around a square and ask whether opposite corners $A$ and $C$ are connected. There are two graph paths, each using two edges. Each open path has probability $p^2$. Their events are independent events because the paths share no edges, even though they share endpoints. The inclusion-exclusion principle therefore givesAt $p=1/2$, the connection probability is $7/16$, larger than the $1/4$ for either chosen graph path. Counting all sixteen equally likely edge configurations gives the same answer: two configurations with exactly two open edges, four with three, and one with four connect $A$ to $C$. Connectivity benefits from alternative routes; adding their probabilities without subtracting their overlap would count the all-open configuration twice.

This finite calculation is already useful for studying redundant connections. The deeper question is what happens as the graph becomes arbitrarily large: does connectivity remain confined to finite percolation clusters, or can an infinite percolation cluster appear? The percolation probability and percolation critical probability make that question precise. A finite picture can illustrate the geometry, but cannot establish the existence of an infinite percolation cluster.

A probability measure is a nonnegative, countably additive measure with total mass one. Thus $\mathbb{P}(\Omega )=1$, and for pairwise disjoint events $A_j$,The complement of an event has probability $1-\mathbb{P}(A)$. The probability of a union of overlapping events needs a correction: $\mathbb{P}(A\cup B)=\mathbb{P}(A)+\mathbb{P}(B)-\mathbb{P}(A\cap B)$. Counting the overlap once is the simplest instance of the inclusion-exclusion principle.

A zero-probability event need not be impossible as a member of the sample space. Under the continuous uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, every individual point has probability zero, while the whole interval has probability one. Countable additivity applies to countable unions, not arbitrary uncountable ones; there is no contradiction.

Stars and bars counts tuples of nonnegative integers with a prescribed sum. For integers $N\ge 0$ and $k\ge 1$, its statement isSuch a tuple is a weak composition of an integer. Think of $k$ labelled bins: $x_1$ counts identical objects in the first bin, $x_2$ in the second, and so on. Bin names distinguish positions even when counts agree. Stars and bars counts these count tuples; assigning individually distinct objects requires additional information. ^[ref]

Computed example. With $N=5$ and $k=3$, the number of weak compositions of an integer is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{7}{2}\right)=21$. The string ••|•|•• encodes $(2,1,2)$: two dots before the first bar, one between the bars, and two after the second. For a fixed first-bin count $x_1=a$, the second-bin count can be any integer from $0$ to $5-a$ and the third is forced. Thus the direct count is $6+5+4+3+2+1=21$.

Adjacent bars encode an empty middle bin: ••||••• gives $(2,0,3)$. A bar at the left end encodes an empty first bin, as in |••|••• for $(0,2,3)$; a bar at the right end encodes an empty third bin, as in ••|•••| for $(2,3,0)$. These are valid weak compositions of an integer. For $N=0$ every count is zero, and for $k=1$ the unique tuple is $(N)$, consistent with $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N}{0}\right)=1$.

Proof outline. Replace each count $x_i$ by that many dots and separate successive groups with $k-1$ bars. Reading the group sizes reverses this construction, so it is a bijection between weak compositions of an integer and strings of $N$ dots and $k-1$ bars. Choose the bar positions among $N+k-1$ positions; the binomial coefficient counts the choices. The beauty is that empty bins need no separate cases: end bars and adjacent bars encode them automatically.

If every bin must be nonempty, the tuples are compositions of an integer, and their count is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N-1}{k-1}\right)$ for $N\ge k\ge 1$; for $N<k$ there are none. Subtract one from every count, setting $y_i=x_i-1$. This is a bijection to weak compositions of an integer of $N-k$, so stars and bars gives $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{(N-k)+k-1}{k-1}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{N-1}{k-1}\right)$. For five objects and three bins, this is $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{2}\right)=6$, with the six positive tuplesFor instance, $(2,1,2)$ shifts to $(1,0,1)$, whose sum is $2=5-3$. Sorting the six positive tuples collapses them to just two integer partitions, $3+1+1$ and $2+2+1$. Thus named bins and unordered summands answer different questions.

Stars and bars is useful for allocating identical resources or enumerating integer solutions without listing them individually. Prescribed lower bounds can be subtracted just like the nonempty-bin requirement. Upper bounds require removing forbidden tuples; the existing bounded weak compositions article applies the inclusion-exclusion principle to those violations.

For nonnegative integers $n,k$, the Stirling number of the second kindcounts the set partitions of an $n$-element finite set into exactly $k$ unlabelled blocks of a set partition. Set $S(0,0)=1$, $S(n,0)=0$ for $n>0$, and $S(n,k)=0$ for $k>n$. Also $S(n,1)=S(n,n)=1$ for $n\ge 1$. Grassl and Levin develop these counts through explicit set partitions and a recurrence relation. ^[ref]

Insert one distinguished element. For $n\ge 1$ and $1\le k\le n$, the Stirling numbers of the second kind obeyProof outline. Inspect the block of a set partition containing $n$. If it contains another element, removing $n$ leaves a set partition into $k$ blocks of a set partition; conversely, insert $n$ into any of those $k$ blocks of a set partition. If $n$ is alone, remove its singleton set and obtain a set partition into $k-1$ blocks of a set partition. The cases cannot overlap, and deletion reverses each construction. This explains the factor $k$ even though the blocks of a set partition have no names. ^[ref]

For $n=4,k=2$, start with the three two-block set partitions of $\{1,2,3\}$. Inserting $4$ into either block of a set partition gives six possibilities. The remaining possibility is $\{\{1,2,3\},\{4\}\}$, obtained by making $4$ a singleton set. Hence $S(4,2)=2\cdot 3+1=7$. The seven set partitions in the diagram comprise four with sizes $3+1$ and three with sizes $2+2$; this grouping by sizes independently gives $4+3=7$.

Three different counting questions. The binomial coefficient $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$ selects one $k$-element subset. The Stirling number of the second kind $S(n,k)$ groups all $n$ distinct elements into $k$ nonempty unnamed blocks of a set partition. The power $k^n$ counts all functions to a specified $k$-element finite set, allowing some destination labels to go unused. At $n=4,k=2$, these counts are respectively $6$, $7$, and $16$. Choosing two people, making two unnamed nonempty teams, and assigning each person a red or blue label are different tasks.

When the destinations have labels. For fixed finite sets $X,Y$ of sizes $n,k$, respectively, the number of surjective functions $X\to Y$ isHere every element of $Y$ must be used. Each surjective function gives a set partition of $X$ into its nonempty preimages $f^{-1}(\{y\})$. Conversely, assign the $k$ distinct destination labels to the $k$ blocks of a set partition in $k!$ ways, where $k!$ is a factorial. For two labelled teams of four people this gives $2!\cdot 7=14$: of the $2^4=16$ assignments, exactly two use only one label. Dividing arbitrary function counts by $k!$ fails in general because unused labels can be permuted without changing a function. For example, $3^4/3!=13.5$ cannot count set partitions. The empty-to-empty function is a surjection, consistent with $0!S(0,0)=1$. Stanley gives the bijection underlying this qualification.^[ref]

For example, the inclusion-exclusion principle counts the surjections from four elements to three labelled destinations as $3^4-3\cdot 2^4+3\cdot 1^4=36$. Thus $S(4,3)=36/3!=6$. An independent check chooses the only two-element block of a set partition in $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{2}\right)=6$ ways; the other two elements form singleton sets.

Why these numbers also occur in algebra. Classifying all functions to an $m$-element finite set by the size $k$ of their image givesFor a fixed set partition, the falling factorial $(m{)}_k$ counts assignments of distinct labels to its $k$ blocks of a set partition, and is zero when $k>m$. At $n=3,m=4$, this reads $64=1\cdot 4+3\cdot 12+1\cdot 24$. Replacing $m$ by $x$ yields a polynomial identity: both sides agree at every nonnegative integer. Thus the Stirling numbers of the second kind translate powers into falling factorials. Grouping by equal values turns a counting rule into an algebraic change of coordinates. Summing $S(n,k)$ without destination labels instead gives the Bell number.

Model two fair independent coin tosses, recording their order. Here $H$ denotes heads and $T$ tails, andThe power set $\mathcal{P}(\Omega )$ includes every question expressible as a subset of these four outcomes. The mass $1/4=(1/2)(1/2)$ comes from the fairness and independence assumptions. These are exact model probabilities, rather than measured toss frequencies.

Let $A$ be the event that the first toss is heads and $B$ the event that the second toss is heads. ThenThe union means “at least one head,” while the intersection means “both heads.” Their probabilities are $3/4$ and $1/4$. Counting the union through the inclusion-exclusion principle gives $1/2+1/2-1/4=3/4$; alternatively its complement of an event is $\{TT\}$, of probability $1/4$.

On the same sample space, assigning masses $3/8,1/8,1/8,3/8$ to $HH,HT,TH,TT$ would still make each toss fair: $\mathbb{P}(A)=\mathbb{P}(B)=1/2$. But $\mathbb{P}(A\cap B)=3/8\ne 1/4$, so the tosses would be dependent. The event of at least one head would have probability $5/8$. Changing the probability measure changes the answer even when the sample space and the single-toss probabilities stay the same.