Radleigh and Bradley both think that they are very cool; in fact, they are "RAD!!!". However, they dispute who is more "RAD!!!". Sameer came up with a metric of testing "RAD!!!"-ness: the person who has more permutations of their name starting with "RAD" has x more "RAD!!!"-ness points than the other, where x is the difference in the number of permutations.
If Adam says Bradley has 1 2 0 "RAD!!!"-ness points, then how many "RAD!!!"-ness points does Radleigh have?
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.
If Adam says Bradley has 120 "RAD!!!"-ness points, then how many "RAD!!!"-ness points does Radleigh have?
Here how Bradley has 120 "RAD!!!"-ness points ??? Am I missing anything ??? Please clear me...
Log in to reply
A name without any permutation beginning with RAD doesn't necessarily have zero Rp.
Radleigh's name must start with "RAD", but the other 5 letters can be in any order. Because all 5 of the letters are distinct, there are 5 ! = 120 ways to arrange Radleigh's name so it starts with "RAD". For Bradley, his name must start with "RAD", but the other 4 letters can be in any order. Because all 4 of the letters are distinct, there are 4 ! = 24 ways to arrange Bradley's name so it starts with "RAD".
The difference between these is 9 6 . Based off of Sameer's metric and Adam's information, Radleigh has 1 2 0 + 9 6 = 2 1 6 "RAD!!!"-ness points.
This question is an inside joke within the math team I am on. I haven't gone crazy and come up with some weird problem that doesn't make sense... Oh wait, that's exactly what I did.
I don't get how Bradley's "RAD!!!"-ness points is 120 ?
This problem is really weird. What is the whole x thing about? I was completely clueless on the whole RAD thing. I thought that the RAD-ness was a function of the number of permutations, so it would be ( n + 1 ) ! , which would make having 4 extra letters (in Bradley's case) equate to 120 RAD points. The whole thing was a complete mess.
Consider "RADleigh" and "bRADley".
Difference = 5 ! − 4 ! = 9 6 .
If Bradley has 120 (less) "RAD!!!"-ness points, Radleigh will have 1 2 0 + 9 6 = 2 1 6 points.
PS: This question almost confused me that number of ways = "RAD!!!"-ness points.
First, we calculate that Bradley has 4 ! = 2 4 permutations of his name starting with "Rad". Since the points have a one to one ratio to the permutations, they must equal 1 2 0 − 2 4 = 9 6 more than the actual permutations. We thus deduce that Radleigh has 5 ! + 9 6 = 1 2 0 + 9 6 = 2 1 6 "Rad"-ness points.
Why such a high rating?
Radleigh has 5! - 4! = 96 more points than Bradley, so he has 120+96=216... Trivial
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Main idea : Fix RAD at the front and compute the number of permutations of the remaining letters.
Complete proof :
Call "RAD!!!"-ness points Rp for short; not to be confused with Rupiah .
Since all permutations considered for Rp begin with RAD, we can fix RAD at the front and ignore them. This way, RADLEIGH becomes LEIGH, which has 5 ! = 1 2 0 permutations, and BRADLEY becomes BLEY, which has 4 ! = 2 4 permutations. Thus Radleigh's Rp is 1 2 0 + ( 1 2 0 − 2 4 ) = 2 1 6 .
Motivation : Eh, it's pretty obvious you want to compute the number of permutations of each name.
Generalization : Using different names is not fun. Even when they have multiple R, A, D, as they are indistinguishable, they have no effect; we can still pick an arbitrary R, A, and D to remove and arrange the rest using multinomial coefficients. A more fun generalization is "!!RAD!!"-ness points, where RAD can occur anywhere in the permutation. With at most one R, at most one A, or at most one D, this is easy: gather the RAD into a single block and use multinomial coefficient again. When there are two or more of each letter though (like ARDRAD), it becomes pretty hard, as RADRAD should be counted only once (and not twice due to the double RAD blocks).