Lattice Paths that Avoid a Point
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
My house is located at $(0,0)$ and the supermarket is located at $(7,5)$. I can only move in the upwards or in rightward directions. How many different routes are there? Obviously, ${12}choose{7}$ $=$ ${12}choose{5}$ $=$ $792$. How many paths are there if I want to avoid the really busy intersection located at $(3,3)$?
I have three ideas, all of which lead to different answers:
1) My first idea was to label out the grid and write the number at each intersection that represents how many paths cross that point. This was equivalent to writing out pascals triangle in a tilted diagonal way, until I reached $(3,3)$ whereI had to write a $0$, but then I proceeded as you'd expect, the intersection's number was equal to the one below it added to the one to the left of it. At $(7,5)$ I ended up getting $490$.
After this, I wanted a combinatorial way to confirm my answer, so I tried:
2)counting all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{3}$ $=20$.
3)counting all the paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{4}$ $=15$.
So my question is: which method of thinking is correct and why do the other two not lead to the correct answer (what do they over/under count)? I suspect that my first try was correct, and the answer is $490$, but I don't see the algorithmic way of seeing it...
EDIT: Made a correction to my grid. I wrote a $34$ instead of a $36$ for the intersection at $(7,2)$. Woops!
combinatorics
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
My house is located at $(0,0)$ and the supermarket is located at $(7,5)$. I can only move in the upwards or in rightward directions. How many different routes are there? Obviously, ${12}choose{7}$ $=$ ${12}choose{5}$ $=$ $792$. How many paths are there if I want to avoid the really busy intersection located at $(3,3)$?
I have three ideas, all of which lead to different answers:
1) My first idea was to label out the grid and write the number at each intersection that represents how many paths cross that point. This was equivalent to writing out pascals triangle in a tilted diagonal way, until I reached $(3,3)$ whereI had to write a $0$, but then I proceeded as you'd expect, the intersection's number was equal to the one below it added to the one to the left of it. At $(7,5)$ I ended up getting $490$.
After this, I wanted a combinatorial way to confirm my answer, so I tried:
2)counting all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{3}$ $=20$.
3)counting all the paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{4}$ $=15$.
So my question is: which method of thinking is correct and why do the other two not lead to the correct answer (what do they over/under count)? I suspect that my first try was correct, and the answer is $490$, but I don't see the algorithmic way of seeing it...
EDIT: Made a correction to my grid. I wrote a $34$ instead of a $36$ for the intersection at $(7,2)$. Woops!
combinatorics
3
I would have expected your supermarket to be at $(7,11)$... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
My house is located at $(0,0)$ and the supermarket is located at $(7,5)$. I can only move in the upwards or in rightward directions. How many different routes are there? Obviously, ${12}choose{7}$ $=$ ${12}choose{5}$ $=$ $792$. How many paths are there if I want to avoid the really busy intersection located at $(3,3)$?
I have three ideas, all of which lead to different answers:
1) My first idea was to label out the grid and write the number at each intersection that represents how many paths cross that point. This was equivalent to writing out pascals triangle in a tilted diagonal way, until I reached $(3,3)$ whereI had to write a $0$, but then I proceeded as you'd expect, the intersection's number was equal to the one below it added to the one to the left of it. At $(7,5)$ I ended up getting $490$.
After this, I wanted a combinatorial way to confirm my answer, so I tried:
2)counting all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{3}$ $=20$.
3)counting all the paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{4}$ $=15$.
So my question is: which method of thinking is correct and why do the other two not lead to the correct answer (what do they over/under count)? I suspect that my first try was correct, and the answer is $490$, but I don't see the algorithmic way of seeing it...
EDIT: Made a correction to my grid. I wrote a $34$ instead of a $36$ for the intersection at $(7,2)$. Woops!
combinatorics
My house is located at $(0,0)$ and the supermarket is located at $(7,5)$. I can only move in the upwards or in rightward directions. How many different routes are there? Obviously, ${12}choose{7}$ $=$ ${12}choose{5}$ $=$ $792$. How many paths are there if I want to avoid the really busy intersection located at $(3,3)$?
I have three ideas, all of which lead to different answers:
1) My first idea was to label out the grid and write the number at each intersection that represents how many paths cross that point. This was equivalent to writing out pascals triangle in a tilted diagonal way, until I reached $(3,3)$ whereI had to write a $0$, but then I proceeded as you'd expect, the intersection's number was equal to the one below it added to the one to the left of it. At $(7,5)$ I ended up getting $490$.
After this, I wanted a combinatorial way to confirm my answer, so I tried:
2)counting all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{3}$ $=20$.
3)counting all the paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ and subtracting those away from $792$. So here I would subtract ${6}choose{4}$ $=15$.
So my question is: which method of thinking is correct and why do the other two not lead to the correct answer (what do they over/under count)? I suspect that my first try was correct, and the answer is $490$, but I don't see the algorithmic way of seeing it...
EDIT: Made a correction to my grid. I wrote a $34$ instead of a $36$ for the intersection at $(7,2)$. Woops!
combinatorics
combinatorics
edited 2 days ago
asked 2 days ago
ruferd
22318
22318
3
I would have expected your supermarket to be at $(7,11)$... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
yesterday
add a comment |
3
I would have expected your supermarket to be at $(7,11)$... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
yesterday
3
3
I would have expected your supermarket to be at $(7,11)$... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
yesterday
I would have expected your supermarket to be at $(7,11)$... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You need to look at the complement, which is all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$.
As you noted, the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ is ${6choose3} = 20$, and the number of paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ is ${6choose4} = 15$. So the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$ is all combinations of the above paths, which means $20cdot15=300$ paths.
$792-300=492$, and so $492$ is the final answer.
New contributor
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Your idea to subtract the number of paths passing through $(3,3)$ from $792$ was a good idea, but you didn't carry it out quite right. The number of paths that pass through $(3,3)$ is not $binom{6}{3}$ nor $binom{6}{4}$, but $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$. This is because every path from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ through $(3,3)$ consists of two "mini-paths," one from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and one from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$. There are $binom{6}{3}$ ways to choose the first path and $binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the second, resulting in $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the entire path, and $792-binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ paths avoiding $(3,3)$.
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You need to look at the complement, which is all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$.
As you noted, the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ is ${6choose3} = 20$, and the number of paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ is ${6choose4} = 15$. So the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$ is all combinations of the above paths, which means $20cdot15=300$ paths.
$792-300=492$, and so $492$ is the final answer.
New contributor
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You need to look at the complement, which is all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$.
As you noted, the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ is ${6choose3} = 20$, and the number of paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ is ${6choose4} = 15$. So the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$ is all combinations of the above paths, which means $20cdot15=300$ paths.
$792-300=492$, and so $492$ is the final answer.
New contributor
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You need to look at the complement, which is all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$.
As you noted, the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ is ${6choose3} = 20$, and the number of paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ is ${6choose4} = 15$. So the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$ is all combinations of the above paths, which means $20cdot15=300$ paths.
$792-300=492$, and so $492$ is the final answer.
New contributor
You need to look at the complement, which is all the paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$.
As you noted, the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ is ${6choose3} = 20$, and the number of paths from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ is ${6choose4} = 15$. So the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ that pass through $(3,3)$ is all combinations of the above paths, which means $20cdot15=300$ paths.
$792-300=492$, and so $492$ is the final answer.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
AlephZero
25116
25116
New contributor
New contributor
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
Ok, I see now...I wasn't accounting for each new branch that I could take from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$ after I had already gone from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$. I guess I should have reflected on my results of option 2 and 3 and seen if I could use ${6}choose{4}$ and ${6}choose{3}$ in some way with 792 to get the answer. The only reasonable way would be to multiply them together and subtract, but this is the argument to back that idea up, thank you! And also, it appears that my grid in option 1 was off somehow! Woops!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Your idea to subtract the number of paths passing through $(3,3)$ from $792$ was a good idea, but you didn't carry it out quite right. The number of paths that pass through $(3,3)$ is not $binom{6}{3}$ nor $binom{6}{4}$, but $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$. This is because every path from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ through $(3,3)$ consists of two "mini-paths," one from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and one from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$. There are $binom{6}{3}$ ways to choose the first path and $binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the second, resulting in $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the entire path, and $792-binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ paths avoiding $(3,3)$.
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Your idea to subtract the number of paths passing through $(3,3)$ from $792$ was a good idea, but you didn't carry it out quite right. The number of paths that pass through $(3,3)$ is not $binom{6}{3}$ nor $binom{6}{4}$, but $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$. This is because every path from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ through $(3,3)$ consists of two "mini-paths," one from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and one from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$. There are $binom{6}{3}$ ways to choose the first path and $binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the second, resulting in $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the entire path, and $792-binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ paths avoiding $(3,3)$.
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Your idea to subtract the number of paths passing through $(3,3)$ from $792$ was a good idea, but you didn't carry it out quite right. The number of paths that pass through $(3,3)$ is not $binom{6}{3}$ nor $binom{6}{4}$, but $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$. This is because every path from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ through $(3,3)$ consists of two "mini-paths," one from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and one from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$. There are $binom{6}{3}$ ways to choose the first path and $binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the second, resulting in $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the entire path, and $792-binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ paths avoiding $(3,3)$.
Your idea to subtract the number of paths passing through $(3,3)$ from $792$ was a good idea, but you didn't carry it out quite right. The number of paths that pass through $(3,3)$ is not $binom{6}{3}$ nor $binom{6}{4}$, but $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$. This is because every path from $(0,0)$ to $(7,5)$ through $(3,3)$ consists of two "mini-paths," one from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ and one from $(3,3)$ to $(7,5)$. There are $binom{6}{3}$ ways to choose the first path and $binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the second, resulting in $binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ ways to choose the entire path, and $792-binom{6}{3}binom{6}{4}$ paths avoiding $(3,3)$.
answered 2 days ago
Frpzzd
20.4k638104
20.4k638104
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
AH ok, thank you. a path from $(0,0)$ to $(3,3)$ would also have ${6}choose{4}$ ways to get to $(7,5)$, so I'd multiply, thanks, it is so obvious now!
– ruferd
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f3020627%2flattice-paths-that-avoid-a-point%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
3
I would have expected your supermarket to be at $(7,11)$... :P
– Asaf Karagila♦
yesterday