Talk:Recurrence Relation for the Number of Derangements on a Finite Set

Is the notation clear?

I'd never proven this relation using this much function or set notation before. Is it clear enough? --RickettsAM 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay ... except that if you're going to define a function recursively, you need to specify the value of the base cases, i.e. f(1) = 0, f(2) = 1, ...

O yeah, and FWIW I find it helps to split up the paragraphs so that each step of the argument begins on a different line. I have trouble following an argument that's all rolled up into one long wraparound line of prose. Since we don't need to economise on space (this ain't paper based) we can spread stuff out as much as we like. --Matt Westwood 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, yeah, forgetting the base cases was very stupid of me. I'll do that now. Thanks! --RickettsAM 17:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

... apart from that, yeah it's cool - now those red links ... I've done some work on combinatorics, there may be some defs / proofs I've added which include them. --Matt Westwood 18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I might have a look through any that seem like they may. At any rate, I'll try to get proofs of those up within the week. --Andrew 18:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I added justification for the base cases, as well, and did the spacing as you suggested. Thanks a lot for the feedback! --Andrew 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude. So much more readable. Nice one.--Matt Westwood 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)