Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2010


    Maybe some could be interested in reviewing it (Toby?).

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2010

    Seems that the first paragraph is mostly about “enumerative combinatorics”, so I wonder whether that more accurately reflects what you were intending. If so, maybe a change of title would be appropriate?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2010

    This is the central part easiest to define. The counting and bijections combine in building mroe complicated algorithms and object. So the idea (which is not mine) is to define combinatorics more narrowly but precisely and then to allow natural and reasonable extensions.

    The definition in wikipedia is on the other hand too inclusive – I mean study of countable discrete structures. Not all countable discrete mathematics is combinatorial. For example the entirety of the theory of finite groups is NOT part of combinatorics nor is the study of finite axiomatic systems.

    I agree that it would be desirabel to have a bit wider though still good definition of combinatorics and please go on and extend it. But I would object on simplistic and untrue definition at wikipedia. Not all the study of finite discrete objects is combinatorics as wikipedia suggests.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2010

    In informal language, “combinatorics” is used in such a broad way that it’s really hard to give a satisfying and encompassing idea of the scope of use. I agree that considering the theory of finite groups as “combinatorics” would be overly broad (and a tad reductionistic), but on the other hand there are aspects of say proof theory or game theory that definitely feel “combinatorial” to me (as do human games like chess and go), and it’s hard to describe the qualitative dividing line.

    Maybe one solution is just to admit that fact up front, saying it’s a kind of catch-all term, and say that in practice the term could refer to any of the following (enumerative combinatorics, algebraic combinatorics, etc. etc.), with pages for each if desired. I’m leery of trying to give a good definition, because I’m skeptical that there is one.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

    I agree that it is not definable in general, though I do not see it incompatible with the picture of several levels of generality. Why don’t you add to the entry more impressions, and examples or links.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2021

    added some formatting

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v19, current