Four married couples attend a party. Each person shakes hands with every other person, except their own...
Why do tuner card drivers fail to build after kernel update to 4.4.0-143-generic?
How can we have a quark condensate without a quark potential?
Relationship between sampajanna definitions in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35
The meaning of 振り in 無茶振り
Could the Saturn V actually have launched astronauts around Venus?
How to write cleanly even if my character uses expletive language?
What is a ^ b and (a & b) << 1?
A diagram about partial derivatives of f(x,y)
Is it good practice to use Linear Least-Squares with SMA?
Why do newer 737s use two different styles of split winglets?
English sentence unclear
Happy pi day, everyone!
Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?
Is there a symmetric-key algorithm which we can use for creating a signature?
Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day
Book: Young man exiled to a penal colony, helps to lead revolution
I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?
How could a scammer know the apps on my phone / iTunes account?
Did Ender ever learn that he killed Stilson and/or Bonzo?
How to make healing in an exploration game interesting
Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?
How to get the n-th line after a grepped one?
ERC721: How to get the owned tokens of an address
Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?
Four married couples attend a party. Each person shakes hands with every other person, except their own spouse, exactly once. How many handshakes?
counting hands shakePuzzle - In how many pairings can 25 married couples dance when exactly 7 men dance with their own wives?Graph Theory number of handshakes of couplesHandshakes in a partyHow many mixed double pairs can be made from 7 married couples provided that no husband and wife plays in a same set?In how many ways can 10 married couples line up for a photograph if every wife stands next to her husband?How many ways are there to order $n$ women and $n$ men in circleFinding the number of combinations.Round table combinatoricsNumber of handshakes - exclusion apporach
$begingroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Only person #1 has to shake hands 6 times, person #2 has already shaken hands with Person #1, so he only has to shake hands with 5 people. So the answer becomes 6+5+4+3+2+1, or 21. So Yes, I believe 21 is correct, to prevent double counting.
$endgroup$
– Issel
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Issel No, Person #2 being the spouse of Person #1, also has to shake hands with $6$ people, and so on, so it's $6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 24$.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
$endgroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
combinatorics
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
asked 1 hour ago
ZakuZaku
642
642
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Only person #1 has to shake hands 6 times, person #2 has already shaken hands with Person #1, so he only has to shake hands with 5 people. So the answer becomes 6+5+4+3+2+1, or 21. So Yes, I believe 21 is correct, to prevent double counting.
$endgroup$
– Issel
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Issel No, Person #2 being the spouse of Person #1, also has to shake hands with $6$ people, and so on, so it's $6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 24$.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
2 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Only person #1 has to shake hands 6 times, person #2 has already shaken hands with Person #1, so he only has to shake hands with 5 people. So the answer becomes 6+5+4+3+2+1, or 21. So Yes, I believe 21 is correct, to prevent double counting.
$endgroup$
– Issel
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Issel No, Person #2 being the spouse of Person #1, also has to shake hands with $6$ people, and so on, so it's $6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 24$.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
2 mins ago
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Only person #1 has to shake hands 6 times, person #2 has already shaken hands with Person #1, so he only has to shake hands with 5 people. So the answer becomes 6+5+4+3+2+1, or 21. So Yes, I believe 21 is correct, to prevent double counting.
$endgroup$
– Issel
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Only person #1 has to shake hands 6 times, person #2 has already shaken hands with Person #1, so he only has to shake hands with 5 people. So the answer becomes 6+5+4+3+2+1, or 21. So Yes, I believe 21 is correct, to prevent double counting.
$endgroup$
– Issel
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Issel No, Person #2 being the spouse of Person #1, also has to shake hands with $6$ people, and so on, so it's $6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 24$.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
2 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Issel No, Person #2 being the spouse of Person #1, also has to shake hands with $6$ people, and so on, so it's $6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 24$.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
2 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f3151152%2ffour-married-couples-attend-a-party-each-person-shakes-hands-with-every-other-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
answered 42 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
20.5k35098
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
$endgroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
answered 41 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.7k1826
12.7k1826
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 31 mins ago
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
answered 54 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
51 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well… Each of the $2k$ people shakes hands with $2k - 1 - 1 = 2k - 2$ others (everyone except the spouse). So that's $2k(2k- 2) = 4k(k - 1)$, but since every handshake must've been counted twice, divide that by $2$ to get $2k(k - 1)$ handshakes in total.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
8 mins 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.
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%2f3151152%2ffour-married-couples-attend-a-party-each-person-shakes-hands-with-every-other-p%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
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
30 mins ago
$begingroup$
Only person #1 has to shake hands 6 times, person #2 has already shaken hands with Person #1, so he only has to shake hands with 5 people. So the answer becomes 6+5+4+3+2+1, or 21. So Yes, I believe 21 is correct, to prevent double counting.
$endgroup$
– Issel
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Issel No, Person #2 being the spouse of Person #1, also has to shake hands with $6$ people, and so on, so it's $6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 24$.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
2 mins ago