Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Chapter 4 - Number of games in double-elimination tournament #2

Open
muggin opened this issue Dec 11, 2018 · 4 comments
Open

Chapter 4 - Number of games in double-elimination tournament #2

muggin opened this issue Dec 11, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
errata Errors in the book text Sets Exercises for Chapter 4, Sets

Comments

@muggin
Copy link

muggin commented Dec 11, 2018

The author shows how to compute the number of games in a single-elimination tournament, using the following notation:
X - set of games
Y - set of players
L - set of losers (players that lost games)
f: X -> Y - function that given a game, returns its loser (injection - each game has unique loser)

Next, the author claims that in the case of a double-elimination tournament:

you won’t have an injection, but a so-called “double-cover” of the set of players. What I mean by double-cover is that every y ∈ Y has a preimage f^{−1}(y) = {x ∈ X : f(x) = y} of size exactly 2

However, isn't this statement false? If Y is the set of ALL players (losers and a single winner), then all, but one of the elements of Y will have a preimage of size exactly 2, while the winner will have an preimage of size 0 or 1. Am I missing something or did the author make a mistake or mean to write L instead of Y in the cited fragment?

@j2kun j2kun added Sets Exercises for Chapter 4, Sets errata Errors in the book text labels Dec 12, 2018
@j2kun
Copy link
Contributor

j2kun commented Dec 12, 2018

You are correct! If you'd like to submit an erratum for this, I'll credit you in the next edition. The submission form is at https://pimbook.org

@j2kun
Copy link
Contributor

j2kun commented Dec 12, 2018

I do believe I clarify this in the next sentence, but the way it's worded is incorrect enough that I should fix it.

@j2kun j2kun closed this as completed Dec 12, 2018
@muggin
Copy link
Author

muggin commented Dec 12, 2018

@j2kun , thanks for the response! I agree, that the next sentence aims at clarifying the idea, however, as you mentioned the wording could be better. I submitted an erratum for this yesterday.

Now another question about solving the counting problem in the double-elimination setting.
I came up with an idea that loosely follows the solution of a single-elimination setting.
I define a new set E and a new function g that will be bijective between X and E.

E - set of ordered pairs (loser, game), constructed as {(y, p_i) : y in Y, p_i in f^{-1}(y), where f^{-1}(y) is not empty} (it is a subset of Y x X)
g: X -> E - function that given a game returns the ordered pair (loser, game) (is injective since the tuple uniquely identifies a loser per game)

The size of set E is 2*|L| (or 2*|L| + 1 giving us the bounds) since we will have |L| = |Y| - 1 losers and each of them must've lost 2 times, optionally the winner lost once.
The newly defined function g is bijective, thus we can use the cardinality of set E to estimate the size of set X.

Could you comment whether there is a simpler way to approach this problem?

@j2kun j2kun reopened this Dec 22, 2018
@j2kun
Copy link
Contributor

j2kun commented Dec 24, 2018

This sounds like a good idea to me!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
errata Errors in the book text Sets Exercises for Chapter 4, Sets
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants