Four married couples attend a party. Each person shakes hands with every other person, except their own...
Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?
Describing a chess game in a novel
Knife as defense against stray dogs
English sentence unclear
Are ETF trackers fundamentally better than individual stocks?
Different outputs for `w`, `who`, `whoami` and `id`
Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?
What are substitutions for coconut in curry?
Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?
Why do newer 737s use two different styles of split winglets?
Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?
PTIJ: Who should I vote for? (21st Knesset Edition)
Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?
Print a physical multiplication table
Encrypting then Base64 Encoding
Most cost effective thermostat setting: consistent temperature vs. lowest temperature possible
Python if-else code style for reduced code for rounding floats
Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor breaks the "no parallel octaves" rule?
What's the meaning of a knight fighting a snail in medieval book illustrations?
As a new Ubuntu desktop 18.04 LTS user, do I need to use ufw for a firewall or is iptables sufficient?
Simplify an interface for flexibly applying rules to periods of time
A single argument pattern definition applies to multiple-argument patterns?
Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?
How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?
Four married couples attend a party. Each person shakes hands with every other person, except their own spouse, exactly once. How many handshakes?
counting hands shakePuzzle - In how many pairings can 25 married couples dance when exactly 7 men dance with their own wives?Graph Theory number of handshakes of couplesHandshakes in a partyHow many mixed double pairs can be made from 7 married couples provided that no husband and wife plays in a same set?In how many ways can 10 married couples line up for a photograph if every wife stands next to her husband?How many ways are there to order $n$ women and $n$ men in circleFinding the number of combinations.Round table combinatoricsNumber of handshakes - exclusion apporach
$begingroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
10 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
$endgroup$
My book gave the answer as 24. I thought of it like this:
You have four pairs of couples, so you can think of it as M1W2, M2W2, M3W3, M4W4, where
M is a man and W is a woman. M1 has to shake 6 other hands, excluding his wife. You have to do this 4 times for the other men, so you have 4 * 6 handshakes, but in my answer you are double counting. How do I approach this?
combinatorics
combinatorics
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
asked 43 mins ago
ZakuZaku
592
592
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
10 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
10 mins ago
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
10 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
10 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151152%2ffour-married-couples-attend-a-party-each-person-shakes-hands-with-every-other-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
$endgroup$
Suppose the spouses were allowed to shake each other's hands. That would give you $binom{8}{2} = 28$ handshakes. Since there are four couples, four of these handshakes are illegal. We can remove those to get the $24$ legal handshakes.
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
answered 22 mins ago
Austin MohrAustin Mohr
20.5k35098
20.5k35098
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
$endgroup$
You may proceed as follows using combinations:
- Number of all possible handshakes among 8 people: $color{blue}{binom{8}{2}}$
- Number of pairs who do not shake hands: $color{blue}{4}$
It follows:
$$mbox{number of hand shakes without pairs} = color{blue}{binom{8}{2}} - color{blue}{4} = frac{8cdot 7}{2} - 4 = 24$$
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
answered 21 mins ago
trancelocationtrancelocation
12.6k1826
12.6k1826
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$k$ couples entails $2k$ people. If we imagine each couple going in sequential order, couple 1 will each have to shake $2k-2$ couple's hands for each individual, or $4k-4$ handshakes for couple 1 total. Since there is 1 fewer couple every time a new couple shakes hands, there will be $4k-4i$ handshakes by the $i$-th couple. So the total number of handshakes is given by:
$$sum_{i=1}^k (4k-4i) = sum_{i=1}^k4k - sum_{i=1}^k4i = 4k^2 - 4frac{k(k+1)}{2} = 4(k^2 - frac{k^2+k}{2}) = 4(k^2 - (frac{k^2}{2} + frac{k}{2})) = 4(frac{k^2}{2}-frac{k}{2}) = 2(k^2-k)$$
for $k$ couples. Plugging in $k$ = 4 verifies a solution of 24 for this case.
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 12 mins ago
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
answered 34 mins ago
beefstew2011beefstew2011
687
687
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
beefstew2011 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Well, that quite goes against the grain of combinatorics, since you've listed nearly all cases. Try to count without listing. Think lazy!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
True. I'll delete this.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
32 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Undeleted with more general answer.
$endgroup$
– beefstew2011
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3151152%2ffour-married-couples-attend-a-party-each-person-shakes-hands-with-every-other-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
In your answer, you both overcounted and undercounted, and incidentally these happened to cancel out and give you the correct answer without having to do anything further. You did $4 times (text{Handshakes done by the men})$, which overcounted the man-man handshakes, but left out the woman-woman handshakes.
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
35 mins ago
$begingroup$
And that's easily fixed by counting all such handshakes in the same way, not just those done by men, so you get $48$. And now, as you said, you have indeed double-counted. But if you know it's exactly double counting, you can get the answer by halving it!
$endgroup$
– M. Vinay
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I recommend when you have a problem like this you can't solve, try solving an easier version first, like only 2 couples and anything goes.
$endgroup$
– DanielV
10 mins ago