Open muggin opened 5 years ago
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
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 , 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?
This sounds like a good idea to me!
The author shows how to compute the number of games in a single-elimination tournament, using the following notation:
X
- set of gamesY
- set of playersL
- 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:
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 writeL
instead ofY
in the cited fragment?