4

The usual derangement formula, for permutations of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ without fixed points, is given as follows:

$$\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^{n-i}i!\binom{n}{i} = D(n).$$

Richard Stanley, in his Enumerative Combinatorics (bottom of page 269), gives the following formula for derangements of a multiset of type $\alpha=(\alpha_1,....,\alpha_k)$:

$$D(\alpha) = \sum_{\beta_{1} =0}^{\alpha_1} ... \sum_{\beta_k=0}^{\alpha_k} \binom{\alpha_1}{\beta_1}\binom{\alpha_2}{\beta_2}...\binom{\alpha_k}{\beta_k}(-1)^{\beta_1+....+\beta_k} \binom{\sum (\alpha_i-\beta_i)}{\alpha_1-\beta_1,\alpha_2-\beta_2,...,\alpha_k-\beta_k}.$$

In the solution it says the derangement formula of $D(n)$ can be straightforwardly generalized to the sum above for the given type $\alpha=(\alpha_1,...., \alpha_k)$, where $M_\alpha$ is the multi-set $\{1^{\alpha_1},....,k^{\alpha_k}\}$.

Stanley defines a derangement of $M_\alpha$ as "a permutation $a_1a_2...a_n$ (where $\sum\alpha_i=n$) of $ M_\alpha$ such that it disagrees with every position we get by listing the elements of $M$ in a weakly increasing order, for example for the set $\{1,2^2,3\}$ the two possible derangements are $(2132,2312)$."

My question is how is that generalization straightforward? I don't see how that is achieved.

ViHdzP
  • 4,582
  • 2
  • 18
  • 44
  • Ok my mistake, so if we replace $n,$ with $\alpha_1,....\alpha_k,$ in to the formula $D(n),$ how will it change? – Aurora Borealis Mar 18 '18 at 11:31
  • It will change from making sense to not making sense. – Trevor Gunn Mar 18 '18 at 11:32
  • Because from the problem 12, in Richard P. Stanleys's book enumerative combinatorics chapter 2, its more specifically stated there, http://math.mit.edu/~rstan/ec/ec1.pdf. I guess I am not sure how to approach the summation. – Aurora Borealis Mar 18 '18 at 11:35
  • Richard gives the formula and proof in his book as well as a reference to Golden and Jackson, which contains 2 additional proofs. So what is the purpose of asking here? – Trevor Gunn Mar 18 '18 at 11:43
  • Because I do not quite understand the proof, and the part I was asking was one of the parts to the solution which I did not quite get. – Aurora Borealis Mar 18 '18 at 11:44
  • I still do not understand what you are trying to ask. I'm voting to put this on-hold until the question is clarified. – Trevor Gunn Mar 18 '18 at 11:53
  • I will rephrase the problem and edit my post shortly. – Aurora Borealis Mar 18 '18 at 12:12
  • @Trevor Gunn, I edited my post, can you try to help me now? Than you. – Aurora Borealis Mar 20 '18 at 04:35
  • 1
    Note that if you want to compute this faster, there is a pretty formula for this due to Evan and Gillis in terms of Laguerre polynomials (see eq (2.4) in http://people.brandeis.edu/~gessel/homepage/papers/rookp.pdf) – Jair Taylor Mar 20 '18 at 18:04
  • The Laguerre polynomial method discussed at this earlier question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/147657/derangements-of-multisets – Mike Earnest Aug 18 '23 at 17:53