arranging men, women problem
Nimo
10 men and 5 women
if they are standing in a particular order
say M M W W M M M M W M M W M M =Z
have to arrange them in couples.
like this MW MW MW MW MW MMMMMM =X
condition:-
if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order,
Z
Thanks.
Nimo
no one here,?
do u want any more information ?
Nimo
really no one knows answer to this
is it so tough for math people.?
oh my God!
Arturo Magidin
Nimo <azee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 12:27=A0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 11:29=A0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > let there are
>>
>> > 10 men and 5 women
>>
>> > if they are standing in a particular order
>>
>>
>> > have to arrange them in couples.
>>
>>
>> > condition:-
>> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order,
>> > Z
>>
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> no one here,?
>>
>> do u want any more information ?
>
>
>really no one knows answer to this
>is it so tough for math people.?
>
>oh my God!
Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org
Nimo
> In article <45770ff1-c895-4519-9297-5aa679a24...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
where's the 'toughness' lies ?
I think it is simple and people good at
number theory can do that.
Thanks.
[I don't much math,not but dealing
unusual problem]
Arturo Magidin
Nimo <azee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 1:33=A0am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
>> In article <45770ff1-c895-4519-9297-5aa679a24...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nimo =A0<azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 20, 12:27=3DA0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 19, 11:29=3DA0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > let there are
>>
>> >> > 10 men and 5 women
>>
>> >> > if they are standing in a particular order
>>
>>
>> >> > have to arrange them in couples.
>>
>>
>> >> > condition:-
>> >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original order=
>,
>> >> > Z
>>
>> >> > Thanks.
>>
>> >> no one here,?
>>
>> >> do u want any more information ?
>>
>> >really no one knows answer to this
>> >is it so tough for math people.?
>>
>> >oh my God!
>>
>> Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
>>
>where's the 'toughness' lies ?
First, your exposition of the problem is almost unintelligible. What
is it that one is trying to find? What does your "condition" really
mean? None of these questions are answerable from what you
wrote. Second, you did not even state a problem. What is it you are
looking for? An arrangement? An algorithm? A process? No idea. I'll
stop at two, though there are several other issues to trying to figure
out what it is you were trying to say. Few people will spend large
amounts of time trying to figure out what someone else is trying to
say, and even fewer when that person thinks that goading is the way to
get people to help him.
Do you get people to do you favors in the real world by poking them
with a stick, too?
>I think it is simple and people good at
>number theory can do that.
I think you don't know what "number theory" is.
Nimo
> In article <661a3586-1bd8-4cae-867f-b5dbe986b...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> is it that one is trying to find? What does your "condition" really
> mean? None of these questions are answerable from what you
> wrote.
(A) condition is if you reverse the process, you have to
go back to original order, right !
[Q] Second, you did not even state a problem. What is it you are
> looking for? An arrangement? An algorithm? A process? No idea. I'll
> stop at two, though there are several other issues to trying to figure
> out what it is you were trying to say. Few people will spend large
> amounts of time trying to figure out what someone else is trying to
> say, and even fewer when that person thinks that goading is the way to
> get people to help him.
>
> Do you get people to do you favors in the real world by poking them
> with a stick, too?
(A)Be it 'arrangement, algorithm,or a
process, no problem.
>
> >[Q] I think it is simple and people good at
> >number theory can do that.
>
> I think you don't know what "number theory" is.
> (A) so, what is number theory.?
Thanks.
I need just this you implement
any way as you wish
Given M M M W W M W M
should have to arrange them as
MW MW MW; MM
if you reverse it you have to
get the original order.
Arturo Magidin
Nimo <azee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 1:40=A0am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
>> In article <661a3586-1bd8-4cae-867f-b5dbe986b...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups=>> >On Nov 20, 1:33=3DA0am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote=
>:
>> >> In article <45770ff1-c895-4519-9297-5aa679a24...@x16g2000prn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>>
>> >> Nimo =3DA0<azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 20, 12:27=3D3DA0am, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 19, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > let there are
>>
>> >> >> > 10 men and 5 women
>>
>> >> >> > if they are standing in a particular order
>>
>>
>> >> >> > have to arrange them in couples.
>>
>>
>> >> >> > condition:-
>> >> >> > if you reverse the process, you have to get the given original or=
>der=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > Z
>>
>> >> >> > Thanks.
>>
>> >> >> no one here,?
>>
>> >> >> do u want any more information ?
>>
>> >> >really no one knows answer to this
>> >> >is it so tough for math people.?
>>
>> >> >oh my God!
>>
>> >> Yeah, we're all dumb. No sense in sticking around.
>>
>> >where's the 'toughness' lies ?
>>
>> [Q] First, your exposition of the problem is almost unintelligible. What
>> is it that one is trying to find? What does your "condition" really
>> mean? None of these questions are answerable from what you
>> wrote.
>
>(A) condition is if you reverse the process, you have to
>
>go back to original order, right !
Which, on plain reading, is no condition at all. If you have a
reversible process, then BY DEFINITION reversing it means going back
to the original situation. Rearrangements are always reversible, so
you are not placing any conditions whatsoever on whatever it is that
you are asking. That's why it is unclear what it is you MEANT to place
as a condition; because what you actually wrote is like saying
nothing. You also do not explain what it is you are trying to find or
get, so it makes it impossible to answer your post.
I saw your post when you first posted it. I could not make heads or
tails of what it is you think you are asking. I suspect others
encountered similar difficulties. When you then proceeded to see
whether insulting the readers might get you reponses, you transformed
from someone who could not express himself clearly into a git.
>[Q] Second, you did not even state a problem. What is it you are
>> looking for? An arrangement? An algorithm? =A0A process? No idea. I'll
>> stop at two, though there are several other issues to trying to figure
>> out what it is you were trying to say. Few people will spend large
>> amounts of time trying to figure out what someone else is trying to
>> say, and even fewer when that person thinks that goading is the way to
>> get people to help him.
>>
>> Do you get people to do you favors in the real world by poking them
>> with a stick, too?
>
>
>(A)Be it 'arrangement, algorithm,or a
>process, no problem.
It's not "be it". You have, apparently, a problem in mind. You failed
miserably to explain what that problem is. I don't care to spend my
time guessing what it is, and you saying "yeah, whathever" does not
help. Why will I waste my time working on what may or may not be the
problem? You aren't paying me, after all.
>Thanks.
>I need just this you implement
>any way as you wish
>
>Given M M M W W M W M
>
>should have to arrange them as
>
>MW MW MW; MM
>
>if you reverse it you have to
>get the original order.
Repeating nonsense does not make it acquire sense. You are still not
saying anything intelligible.
Nimo
@ Arturo Magidin
really believe me, I don't know where you didn't
understand the concept.
I mean I've in my mind like this,
this is the clear cut problem.
given there are 'p' men and 'q' women
I've to arrange them in pairs.
if any one is left, they are written as individually
Ex:- 3 M,4 W
given order is M M W W M W W
I've to write it as MW MW MW; W{individual}
in this procedure the only thing I'm looking is
again, I've to go back to the original order
with the help of some 'standard steps'
Thanks
now clear,
any more?
Arturo Magidin
At this point, "you aren't even wrong". You are just unintelligible.
>@ Arturo Magidin
>
>really believe me, I don't know where you didn't
>understand the concept.
I don't understand what it is you are trying to say.
>I mean I've in my mind like this,
>this is the clear cut problem.
I have no doubt. Your expression of it, however, has been all but clear.
>given there are 'p' men and 'q' women
>
>I've to arrange them in pairs.
That doesn't mean much. Clearly, you don't mean just list them in
alternating order until you run out of one. So you must mean something
else. But you do not say what you mean.
>if any one is left, they are written as individually
>
>Ex:- 3 M,4 W
>given order is M M W W M W W
What "given order"? You said nothing about "given orders".
>I've to write it as MW MW MW; W{individual}
So what is it you want to know? You've done it. What process it is you
are looking for?
>in this procedure the only thing I'm looking is
>
>again, I've to go back to the original order
Just write "M M W W M W W". There's the "original order."
See why what you are saying makes no sense?
>
>with the help of some 'standard steps'
And this is still incomprehensible to me.
All you did was repeat, yet again, the same thing as before. What is
it that made you believe that if you only typed it yet another time,
now it would suddenly start making sense?
Nimo
" so that I would write it ", as you said.
you just give me some points, I'll state the Question
touching those points.
so that everyone can understand it.
Thanks.
Arturo Magidin
Since I do not understand what the problem is, no, I cannot tell you
how to write it.
Nimo
I'm expressing it in the most easiest way
MAN MAN WOMAN MAN WOMAN WOMAN MAN
MAN(4) +WOMAN(3)= total =7
now making them as
MANWOMAN MANWOMAN MANWOMAN MAN
up to here
did you understand ?
so that, next
I'll write the remaining part.
Thanks.
I think people are confusing
this with the concepts of permutations
and combinations.
may be that help here
this is more than that.
Ray Vickson
Please clarify. Do you just have MW MW MW W, or do you have John(M)Mary
(W) Fred(M)Susan(W) Sidney(M)Zelda(W) Rosanne(W). In the first case
you cannot tell one M from another, so there is just one
'arrangement', while in the other the different Ms and Ws have
different names, so there are many inequivalent arrangements. Even if
you mean the second, I still do not see what your stated problem IS.
Did you have an unordered list of 7 people (3M, 4W) and wanted to put
them in a particular order using the fewest steps (whatever a 'step'
may be), or what?
Your problem seems to be one of communication. You seem to write down
statements without really thinking them through. If English is not
your first language, you should think about the problem's statement in
your first language, giving the message a logical structure (imagine
that you want to explain the problem to your little sister). After you
have done that, then translate the message into English.
R.G. Vickson
Arturo Magidin
Nimo <azee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>for understanding purpose
>
>I'm expressing it in the most easiest way
>
>
>MAN MAN WOMAN MAN WOMAN WOMAN MAN
>
>MAN(4) +WOMAN(3)= total =7
>
>now making them as
>
>MANWOMAN MANWOMAN MANWOMAN MAN
>
>
>up to here
>did you understand ?
No. You lost me after "easiest way".
Nimo
OK, let MAN as 'Apple' and WOMAN as 'Mango'
A M M M M A A
you arrange them in pairs like AM AM etc.
then, I'll continue the next step
Dave Seaman
> On Nov 20, 3:24?am, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
>> In article <f37241d1-2b79-47e8-a9e8-6cadbcf91...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nimo ?<azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >for understanding purpose
>>
>> >I'm expressing it in the most easiest way
>>
>> >MAN MAN WOMAN MAN WOMAN WOMAN MAN
>>
>> >MAN(4) +WOMAN(3)= total =7
>>
>> >now making them as
>>
>>
>> >up to here
>> >did you understand ?
>>
>> No. You lost me after "easiest way".
>>
>> --
>> ======================================================================
>> "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
>> ? ? --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
>> ======================================================================
>>
>> Arturo Magidin
>> magidin-at-member-ams-org
> where did I lost you
> I think that is the most easiest way
> treat MAN = APPLE
> WOMAN = MANGO
> you arrange them in pairs.
> I'll waiting to see your arrangement.
> Thanks.
Ok, here is my arrangement:
APPLE MANGO
Done. That was easy.
--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>
Matt
It might help if you explain (and give an example of) the "process" by
which you get from the original order to the arrangement in couples,
and then explain (and give an example of) what it means to "reverse
the process".
Mensanator
Part of your problem is your M's are indistinguishable.
But that can be solved.
Here's an example of a reversible process that works even
if they elements are indistinguishable. For clarity, I've
used odd & even numbers to prove that the reverse process
works as it should. The language is Python 2.6.
import itertools as it
the_numbers = [5,3,1,7,2,4,6]
the_odds = [(i,j) for i,j in enumerate(the_numbers) if j%2==1]
the_evens = [(i,j) for i,j in enumerate(the_numbers) if j%2==0]
pairs = [p for p in it.izip_longest(the_odds,the_evens)]
print 'here is the original list:'
for i in the_numbers: print i,
print
print
print 'here are the odd numbers:'
for i in the_odds: print i[1],
print
print
print 'here are the even numbers:'
for i in the_evens: print i[1],
print
print
print 'here are the odds & evens paired (leftovers not paired):'
for i in pairs:
if i[0]:
p1 = str(i[0][1])
else:
p1 = ''
if i[1]:
p2 = str(i[1][1])
else:
p2 = ''
print p1+p2,
print
print
print 'now, can we re-create the original list?'
print '(when the odds and evens were split out,'
print 'their position in the original list was'
print 'recorded also)'
print
new_numbers = [0]*len(the_numbers)
for i in pairs:
if i[0]: new_numbers[i[0][0]] = i[0][1]
if i[1]: new_numbers[i[1][0]] = i[1][1]
print 'here is the re-created list:'
for i in new_numbers: print i,
print
print
print 'QED'
##
## here is the original list:
## 5 3 1 7 2 4 6
##
## here are the odd numbers:
## 5 3 1 7
##
## here are the even numbers:
## 2 4 6
##
## here are the odds & evens paired (leftovers not paired):
## 52 34 16 7
##
## now, can we re-create the original list?
## (when the odds and evens were split out,
## their position in the original list was
## recorded also)
##
## here is the re-created list:
## 5 3 1 7 2 4 6
##
## QED
Gerry Myerson
<02149cc1-03ca-432a...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Nimo <azee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> treat MAN = APPLE
> WOMAN = MANGO
>
> you arrange them in pairs.
Or perhaps in PEARS.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Matt
wrote:
> In article
> <02149cc1-03ca-432a-a016-e8f39158b...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > treat MAN = APPLE
> > WOMAN = MANGO
>
> > you arrange them in pairs.
>
> Or perhaps in PEARS.
I'd o-range them in pears.
galathaea
i think there has also been a problem
with others expressing why you don't make sense
so let me show you how i read your problem
and why it doesn't make sense to me
let's say we have 10 men and 5 women
you want an algorithm to write them in pairs
that is _extremely_ simple
just take the lesser of the two numbers
(5 here is less than 10)
and write that many pairs
WM WM WM WM WM
now subtract the smaller number from the larger
10 - 5 = 5
and write that many individuals of the larger type
M M M M M
done
is that really what you wanted?
it doesn't make sense
because it doesn't use any of the other words
that you've used in your description
it doesn't use any starting position
(it just uses the number of each type)
even if you were given a starting position
there is no reason to use it for anything
it doesn't have anything to do with reversible
in fact
it can't be reversible
because none of any starting information
is stored in the final position
do you see why it might be frustrating to answer?
it's possible you have a very clear problem here
and you just don't know what else needs to be said
is this a problem you want to program on a computer?
maybe you are looking to do this for a data structure?
like a string?
do these people have names?
does the starting position obey some kind of rule?
or is it just an arbitrary one
chosen from any of the possible arrangements?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Nimo
Suppose you have 5 Mangoes 3 Apples
now you arrange them in pairs as MA
and if any thing is left out, write it
as individual item, you show me that
I'll write next part of the problem.
so that everyone can understand it easily.
Thanks.
I think ppl are confusing it
with the concept of permutations and
combinations, may be that help us here
Gerry Myerson
<5b0d81d9-af24-420a...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Nimo <azee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In simplest words this is the clear cut problem.
>
>
> Suppose you have 5 Mangoes 3 Apples
>
> now you arrange them in pairs as MA
>
> and if any thing is left out, write it
>
> as individual item, you show me that
OK, I'll bite:
MA MA MA M M
> I'll write next part of the problem.
>
> so that everyone can understand it easily.
--
Nimo
wrote:
> In article
> <5b0d81d9-af24-420a-9f20-ecb08408b...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In simplest words this is the clear cut problem.
>
> > Suppose you have 5 Mangoes 3 Apples
>
> > now you arrange them in pairs as MA
>
> > and if any thing is left out, write it
>
> > as individual item, you show me that
>
> OK, I'll bite:
>
> MA MA MA M M
>
> > I'll write next part of the problem.
>
> > so that everyone can understand it easily.
>
> --
> Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
OK, you are perfect.
now, if you go back to the previous 'steps',what you have done
you have to trace the 'original order'
'In order to do that ,we need certain standard steps'
I'm asking you people, what are those 'standard' steps,
Got it?
do you need any clarification here ?
Thanks.
really happy,
people are now understanding it
slowly
galathaea
but i answered that in my post
i am definitely not understanding
why you think it hasn't been answered...
Nimo
>
> you want an algorithm to write them in pairs
>
> that is _extremely_ simple
>
> just take the lesser of the two numbers
> (5 here is less than 10)
> and write that many pairs
>
> WM WM WM WM WM
>
> now subtract the smaller number from the larger
> 10 - 5 = 5
> and write that many individuals of the larger type
>
>
> done
>
> is that really what you wanted?
>
> it doesn't make sense
> because it doesn't use any of the other words
> that you've used in your description
>
> (it just uses the number of each type)
>
> even if you were given a starting position
> there is no reason to use it for anything
>
>
> in fact
> it can't be reversible
> because none of any starting information
>
> do you see why it might be frustrating to answer?
>
> it's possible you have a very clear problem here
>
> is this a problem you want to program on a computer?(7)[may be, first I need the Idea , algorithm]
>
> maybe you are looking to do this for a data structure?
> like a string?
>
>
> does the starting position obey some kind of rule?(9) [no, they are provided as random ]
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>first of all apologies, if any thing is wrong.
>
>@ Arturo Magidin
>
>really believe me, I don't know where you didn't
>understand the concept.
None of what you wrote makes sense. Does that help?
>I mean I've in my mind like this,
>this is the clear cut problem.
>
>
>given there are 'p' men and 'q' women
>
>I've to arrange them in pairs.
>
>if any one is left, they are written as individually
>
>Ex:- 3 M,4 W
>given order is M M W W M W W
>
>I've to write it as MW MW MW; W{individual}
>
>
>in this procedure the only thing I'm looking is
>
>again, I've to go back to the original order
>
>with the help of some 'standard steps'
>
>
>Thanks
>now clear,
>any more?
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
Mike Terry
news:c9688101-2c34-40e7...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 11:17 am, Gerry Myerson <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5b0d81d9-af24-420a-9f20-ecb08408b...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Nimo <azeez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In simplest words this is the clear cut problem.
> >
> > > Suppose you have 5 Mangoes 3 Apples
> >
> > > now you arrange them in pairs as MA
> >
> > > and if any thing is left out, write it
> >
> > > as individual item, you show me that
> >
> > OK, I'll bite:
> >
> > MA MA MA M M
> >
> > > I'll write next part of the problem.
> >
> > > so that everyone can understand it easily.
> >
> > --
> > Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
>
> OK, you are perfect.
>
>
> now, if you go back to the previous 'steps',what you have done
> you have to trace the 'original order'
>
I'm guessing that you're saying:
a) the Mangos and Apples are indistinguishable
b) having arranged the original list into a "paired list"
(with surplus Mangos at the end)
you want to be able to recover the original list from
the rearranged list.
This is obviously not possible. Consider:
1) With 5 Mangos and 3 Apples, there are
8! / (5! * 3!) = 56 possible initial lists
2) The "paired up lists" will look like this
[MA] [MA] [MA] MM
(The bracketed pairs can be either MA or AM.)
3) There are exactly 8 possible paired up lists.
So you are trying to map 56 possible starting strings into 8, and then
recover which of the 56 original lists were specified. Clearly not
possible...
Regards,
Mike.
riderofgiraffes
investigate the Burrows-Wheeler transform, but I forgot
that you never seem to bother doing your own homework.