Preface
COMBINATORIAL ANALYSIS, THOUGH A WELL-RECOGNIZED PART of
mathematics, seems to have a poorly defined range and position. Leibniz,
in his “ars combinatoria”, was the originator of the subject, apparently in
the sense of Netto (Lehrbuch der Combinatorik, Leipzig, 1901) as the
consideration of the placing, ordering, or choice of a number of things
together. This sense appears also in the title, Choice and Chance (W. A.
Whitworth, fifth edition, London, 1901), of one of the few books in English
on the subject. This superb title also suggests the close relation of the
subject to the theory of probability. P. A. MacMahon, in the most ambitious
treatise on the subject (Combinatory Analysis, London, vol. I, 1915, vol. II,
1916), says merely that it occupies the ground between algebra and the
higher arithmetic, meaning by the latter, as he later explains, what is now
called the Theory of Numbers.
A current American dictionary (Funk and Wagnalls New Standard, 1943)
defines “combinatoric”—a convenient single word which appears now and
then in the present text—as “a department of mathematics treating of the
formation, enumeration, and properties of partitions, variations,
combinations, and permutations of a finite number of elements under
various conditions”.
The term “combinatorial analysis” itself, seems best explained by the
following quotation from Augustus DeMorgan (Differential and Integral
Calculus, London, 1842, p. 335): “the combinatorial analysis mainly
consists in the analysis of complicated developments by means of a priori
consideration and collection of the different combinations of terms which
can enter the coefficients”.
No one of these statements is satisfactory in providing a safe and sure guide
to what is and what is not combinatorial. The authors of the three textbooks
could be properly vague because their texts showed what they meant. The
dictionary, in describing the contents of such texts, allows no room for new
applications of combinatorial technique (such as appear in the last half of
Chapter 6 of the present text in the enumeration of trees, networks, and
linear graphs). DeMorgan’s statement is admirable but half-hearted; in