Re: [PEPr] Comment on Math::Math_Combinatorics

I was thinking more of having repitition as an option. Wiki *said* the definition can be either with or without repitition for both combinations and permutations. (Now this is what I don't like about wiki: Someone has deleted the "Permutations without Repitition" sub-section without even providing a reason. See the history tab) > > However, there's a topic to think about - repetitions. The original > definition of combination in mathematics implies that the elements have > to be unique, i.e. the combinations of the set {A, A, B} are the same as > these of {A, B}, of {A, A, A, A, B}, etc. Nevertheless, the term > "combination with repetition" exists. I will try to take a look in my > university courses on combinatorics during the weekend, because I'm > uncertain what is the correct behaviour that has to be followed in the > package. > -- David Sanders shangxiao