Permutations
A school has 6 chairs in a front row and wants to seat 3 students from a class of 6 volunteers, one per chair. Does it matter whether Asha sits left of Bilal or Bilal sits left of Asha? Of course — they are different seating arrangements, even though the same three students were chosen. Whenever changing the order of chosen objects gives a genuinely different outcome — who's first, second, third; which digit is in the hundreds place; which letters come before which — we are counting permutations, not mere selections. This article builds the permutation formula from the multiplication principle, extends it to the two situations every CBSE Class 11 student must also handle — repetition allowed, and objects that are not all distinct — and works two classic examples: arranging letters of FLOWER and of STATISTICS. By the end you should be able to look at a word problem, decide instantly whether order matters, and pick the right formula without hesitation.
A permutation counts ordered arrangements of objects chosen from , given by , with repetition changing this to and repeated objects among all arranged together dividing by .
The core idea
What makes it a permutation. A permutation of distinct objects taken at a time is an ordered selection and arrangement of of them. Two arrangements that use the same objects but place them in a different sequence count as different permutations. This is the single fact that separates permutations from combinations (which come later in the same chapter): order matters here.
The formula, from first principles. Think of filling positions in a row, one object per position, no repeats. The first position can be filled in ways (any of the objects). Once that choice is made, the second position has only objects left to choose from, the third has , and so on, until the -th position, which has choices left. By the multiplication principle these choices multiply together:
where: is the total number of distinct objects available, is how many of them are arranged in order, (read " factorial") is , and (also written ) is the count of ordered arrangements. The special case — arranging all objects — gives , since by convention.
When repetition is allowed. If an object can be reused in a later position (say, digits in a code where repeats are permitted), every one of the positions independently has all objects available, so the count is simply — a different, usually much larger, number than .
When the objects themselves repeat. Sometimes we are not choosing out of distinct objects but arranging all objects in a row, where several of them are indistinguishable copies of each other — like the three S's in STATISTICS. If objects split into groups of identical objects (with ), the number of visibly distinct arrangements is
where: each is the count of one repeated kind of object. The division is a correction: naively treating all objects as distinguishable and computing overcounts, because swapping identical objects among themselves produces an arrangement that looks the same as before but was counted as new. Dividing by removes the ways to permute the first repeated group among itself, and likewise for each other group.
The goal is to show, using only the multiplication principle already known from earlier in this chapter and the definition of a factorial, that the number of ordered arrangements of objects chosen from distinct objects equals , and to see clearly why the division by is exactly the right correction rather than an arbitrary rule to memorise.
Step 1. Set up positions in a row, to be filled one at a time from left to right, using distinct objects with no repetition. The first position can be filled by any of the available objects, so there are ways to fill it.
Step 2. Once the first position is filled, one object has been used, leaving objects for the second position. By the multiplication principle, the number of ways to fill the first two positions together is . Continuing this reasoning, the third position has objects left, the fourth has , and in general the -th position has objects available.
Step 3. Multiply the choices for all positions: . This product has exactly factors, starting at and decreasing by each time, stopping at (not at , since the -th factor is the -th term of the sequence).
Step 4. Rewrite this product using factorials. Note that , i.e. equals our product times . Dividing both sides by isolates exactly the product we want: . Hence , confirming the formula purely from the step-by-step counting argument.
Worked example
Problem. How many 3-letter arrangements (no letter repeated) can be made from the letters of the word FLOWER? Then, separately, in how many distinct ways can all the letters of the word STATISTICS be arranged?
Step 1. FLOWER has 6 distinct letters: F, L, O, W, E, R. Arranging 3 of them in order, with no repetition, is exactly with , : .
Step 2. Cross-check FLOWER directly by the multiplication principle: first letter in 6 ways, second in 5 ways (one used), third in 4 ways, giving . Both routes agree: 120 three-letter arrangements.
Step 3. Now STATISTICS. It has 10 letters total: S, T, A, T, I, S, T, I, C, S. Counting repeats: S appears 3 times, T appears 3 times, I appears 2 times, and A and C each appear once. Check the total: .
Step 4. Since the letters are not all distinct, use with and repeated-group counts (groups of size contribute and change nothing): . The letters of STATISTICS can be arranged in 50,400 distinct ways, the division by removing the arrangements that only differ by swapping identical S's, T's, or I's among themselves.
Competitive stretch
A tighter variant: how many of those STATISTICS arrangements keep all three S's together, treated as one block? Glue the three S's into a single unit; we now arrange items — that block plus the remaining 7 letters T, A, T, I, T, I, C — of which T repeats 3 times and I repeats 2 times. The count is . This "glue the repeated block" trick is a common extension once the base not-all-distinct formula is secure.
Common traps
- Using when order does not actually matter. If the problem is about selecting a group (a committee, a hand of cards) and not sequencing it, permutations overcount — combinations are needed instead.
- Forgetting to divide out repeated objects. Treating STATISTICS-type words as if all letters were distinct and using plain silently overcounts by a factor of .
- Mixing up "repetition allowed" with the standard case. With repetition, the count is ; without it, — these are different formulas for different situations, not interchangeable.
- Misreading and from the word problem, or slipping in the arithmetic of , especially when and must first be extracted from a real-world description rather than being handed directly.
Ask the tutor: Want to try a mixed set of permutation word problems — some with repetition, some with repeated letters — to build speed at spotting which formula applies?
How do I quickly tell a permutation problem from a combination problem?
Ask whether swapping two chosen items changes the outcome. If arranging the same three people as president, secretary, treasurer gives a different result depending on who gets which role, order matters and it is a permutation. If you are just picking a 3-person committee with no distinct roles, swapping two members changes nothing, so it is a combination. Committees, teams, and subsets are usually combinations; rankings, passwords, and seating rows are usually permutations.
Why does the not-all-distinct formula divide by factorials instead of subtracting?
Because the overcounting is multiplicative, not additive. If you pretend all objects (including the repeated ones) are distinguishable, you get arrangements, but every group of identical objects can be internally shuffled in ways without changing what you actually see. Each such internal shuffle is counted once too many in , so you must divide by for every repeated group, not subtract a fixed amount, since the overcounting scales with how many arrangements exist in the first place.
Is 0! really equal to 1, and why does that matter here?
Yes, by definition, and it matters because with becomes . For this to correctly equal (arranging all objects, which clearly has orderings by direct reasoning), we need . It is a convention chosen precisely so formulas like stay consistent at their boundary case, not an accident.