Hello, /lit/ I figure that you guys know more about word shit

how would i know that you havent listed the same one twice?

>>7229062
You wouldn't. But given that there are two letter 'l's, are they both valid anagrams given that, if you were to number each letter, they would be different?

For example:

" h1 e2 l3 l4 o5 "

helol (a): " h1 e2 l3 o5 l4 "
helol (b): " h1 e2 l4 o5 l3 "

id say no

an anagram takes one arrangement, and makes a new one

if the letters aren't distinguishable from each other, then you cannot make a new arrangement

e.g. you can make an anagram out of "AAAA" because you have the same result no matter how you arrange them

cannot*

unless the L's are labeled, you dont have a new product, you have the same product.

>>7229071
This. Now fuck off, OP.

>>7229077
harsh but fair

>>7229071
Alright, cheers mate

>>7229058
It would mean that any anagram for the word hello you come up with would have to be written twice, since you can always switch the two 'l's. So I think it's pretty stupid

yeah i think you list how many distinct arrangements you can make, and (1) helol and (2) helol are not distinct.

>>7229058
No because anagrams are about the words and letters themselves and not specific occurrences of them.

If you can label the two l's in "hello" as L1 and L2, it's because you're counting the occurrences of the letter L and not the letter itself. If you apply that logic consistently you can just make an anagram that just has the word "hello" over and over again, on the basis that each new occurrence of the word is made up of new letter occurrences. But that would be boring as fuck (even by anagram standards) and not the reason people do anagrams.

This is a math question (it's combinatorics) so ask /sci/. The answer is no though