Bunuel
adishail
Out of curiosity
Why didn't we take different possible arrangements where order of selection is important (permutation). For example, if we have two chairs (A&B) and two tables (X&Y) selected from the warehouse, we can arrange them as AX & BY and AY & BX. Was this because of the fact that it was given that there are 150 different combinations ?
Decorator is to select 2 different chairs out of 5 and 2 different tables out of n. Now, two selections {C1, C2, T1, T2} and {C2, C1, T2, T1,} are the same for decorator as there are the same chairs and tables in both of them. So the order in which the items are taken is not considered.
Hope it's clear.
Yes. I understood your explanation.
However, I am talking about a case where we would have {C1T1, C2T2, and C1T2, C2T1} since these two can be considered different arrangements. But I think I somehow got stuck with the idea of making a set of a chair and table.
I guess if they would have worded it something like -
If 150 different sets of tables and chair are possible ...........then order would have been important. Is that correct Bunuel ? And in that case we would have taken COMBINATION for chairs and PERMUTATION for tables or vice versa because if we would have taken PERMUTATION for both tables an chairs, then we would have ended up with two identical cases like {C1T1, C2T2} and {C2T2, C1T1}.