Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 5363: Full Product Choices and Prefix Counts

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 27

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

R0009-05363 · q-20261008-advance-20261012-r02-counting-principle-0038

Original question and givens

Ordered stage sizes=[1, 8]; every cross-stage combination is allowed. Give (full product count, each prefix product). Zero stages have one empty selection sequence.

  • G001 — Ordered stage sizes=[1, 8]; every cross-stage combination is allowed. Give (full product count, each prefix product). Zero stages have one empty selection sequence.

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

declared finite tagged choices or full-product protocol

After

combinatorial counts,not probabilities or independence

Conditions: none

Addition uses disjoint tags and multiplication uses the declared full cross-stage protocol;neither is a probability-independence assumption.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: finite_counting_protocol_scope · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

ordered sizes=[1, 8]

After

initial accumulator=1

Conditions: none

The empty disjoint sum is0;the empty full product is1,representing one empty choice sequence.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: counting_prefix_initial · Uses: G001, S001

S003 · calculation

Before

prefix count1 := mul(1, 1)

After

prefix count1 = 1

Conditions: none

Multiply in a stage of the declared full product,or add a disjoint tagged class,retaining every prefix.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: exact_rational_arithmetic · Uses: G001, S002

S004 · implies

Before

prefix through position0;new size=1

After

prefix total=1

Conditions: none

A full product stays0 after a zero factor;the disjoint sum continues adding in order.Do not interchange these protocols.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: counting_prefix_update · Uses: G001, S003

S005 · calculation

Before

prefix count2 := mul(1, 8)

After

prefix count2 = 8

Conditions: none

Multiply in a stage of the declared full product,or add a disjoint tagged class,retaining every prefix.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: exact_rational_arithmetic · Uses: G001, S004

S006 · implies

Before

prefix through position1;new size=8

After

prefix total=8

Conditions: none

A full product stays0 after a zero factor;the disjoint sum continues adding in order.Do not interchange these protocols.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: counting_prefix_update · Uses: G001, S005

Reverse checks

  • S006 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S005 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute prefix count2 with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
  • S004 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S003 · premise_and_result_audit — Recompute prefix count1 with exact rational arithmetic, not rounded decimals.
  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.

Result

(8, [1, 8])

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: 04447fb13a0085f8eafb52d58e021ca41a3f6ff910902c7f9b110511d89af86a
  • candidate record SHA-256: f54f5120371125cb269cf54acc848d2f3d16092cfbc3a78af6a2a8c719311a51
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: 71e7db519df31f3a164533e472e293cb64f001b475a8d002b4a5c2740a237b56
  • question-first witness SHA-256: 5a43f4f81b6256281f8d139a4010bbde127be803c528e5878857269c8f854462
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON