What's a good short combinatorics book that covers all areas

>>8061217
>>>/adv/
>>>/r/
>Doesn't read the sticky

>>8061225
Fuck off. This is neither a homework, nor a career question thread.

>>8061228
>never bothered seeing what this link is
https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/

>>8061228
But this is a thread that could be answered in 30 seconds by reading the huge-ass sticky at the top of the board for this exact purpose.

Fuck off faggot.

>>8061225
The sticky is shit, and we all know it.

>>8061233
Wew lad, I found this after thirty seconds
https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/subjects/mathematics#TOC-Combinatronics

There's 38 blocks in ur pic related BTW...

>>8061258
Only 20 are confirmed

>>8061234
I've already read the sticky lots of times, dumb fuckwit.

>>8061289
Please see
>>8061240

You apparently need to learn to read.

>>8061217
Calm down, lads.
A Path To Combinatorics For Undergraduates by Titu Andreescu and Zuming Feng is a very thorough text, and the authors used to coach the US IMO team. A heady mix of Olympiad and undergraduate level combinatorics, all in all.
Applied Combinatorics by Alan Tucker is great if you're a computer science student, or just interested in the programming applications of combinatorics. If you want a short book however, I suggest the former.

>>8061423
Let me say it once again:
I've already read this sticky. You need to learn to perform basic logical thinking.

>>8061444
OP, just curious, why're you looking for a combinatorics textbook?

>>8061444
Like dis, master?
Modus Tollens:
If OP read took advantage of the sticky, then he would have found the book via a search.
If OP had found a book, then he would not have made a thread.
OP made a thread.
Hence, OP did not find a book.
Hence, OP did not take advantage of the sticky.

Categorical Syllogism:
All people who neglect simple solutions to their problems are faggots.
OP neglected the free ~250 page pdf on elementary combinatorics.
Hence, OP is a faggot.

Modus Ponens:
If you go on /sci/, you will find useless threads.
I went on /sci/
We can conclude I found a useless thread.

>>8061217

that is a fucked up Q*Bert level

>>8061612
False axioms lead to a false conclusion.

>If OP read took advantage of the sticky, then he would have found the book via a search.

False. Also, a priori reasoning of this kind is useless for the most part when it comes to real world situations.

>>8061238
this

>>8062239
They updated it
The wiki is now attached