I'm going to color four of the vertices of a regular octagon red, leaving the other four vertices alone. How many such colorings are there, up to a rotation?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Great! Burnside's lemma allows for easy counting under such scenarios where we want to account for symmetry (group actions).
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind, and you explained it very well. Thanks! (+1)
Follow-up question: What if we allow reflections too?
Amusing historical note: On the Continent, this result is often attributed to Cauchy and Frobenius; as they explain here , one might call it "the lemma that is not Burnside's" ;)
Log in to reply
Plus reflections, the group is now D 8 . We have these two additions:
Totaling everything gives 1 6 8 0 + 8 ⋅ 6 = 8 .
Ivan has written a fine conceptual solution. Since we are dealing with rather small numbers, it is also possible to enumerate the possible colourings.
Let's label consecutive vertices 1,2,...,8, and let's put the largest set of consecutive coloured vertices first:
1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1256, 1257, and 1357... 1 0 in all
If we allow reflections as well, then the cases 1235 and 1237 are identified, as are the cases 1257 and 1246, for a total of 8 possible colourings.
@Otto Bretscher Sir, isn't it possible to obtain 1237 from 1235 by 1 rotation? If we rotate the octagon about the line passing through 2 and 6 by 180 degrees then we can get the other one.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Burnside's lemma kills it. The underlying group is C 8 , rotations on an octagon (as is spelled out). Now,
On average, the number of colorings is 8 7 0 + 0 + 2 + 0 + 6 + 0 + 2 + 0 = 1 0 , which is also the number of colorings up to rotation (by Burnside's lemma).