<Question>
In how many ways can 8 people be seated around a square table with 2 people on a side?  (Two configurations are considered equivalent if one is a rotation of another.)
</Question>

<think>
<Plan_1>
Okay, so I need to figure out how many ways 8 people can be seated around a square table where each side has 2 people. The problem says that rotations of the same configuration are considered equivalent. Hmm, let me start by visualizing the table. A square table has four sides, and each side has two seats. So, there are 4 sides × 2 people per side = 8 seats in total. That matches the number of people we have to seat, which is good.

First, if the table weren't circular and rotations weren't considered the same, the number of arrangements would just be 8 factorial, which is 8! = 40320. But since it's a square table and rotations are equivalent, we need to adjust for that.

Wait, but square tables have rotational symmetry. For a circular table with n seats, the number of distinct arrangements considering rotation is (n-1)! because rotating the entire table doesn't create a new arrangement. But a square table is a bit different because it has four sides. So, rotating the table by 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, or 360 degrees (which is the same as 0 degrees) would map the table onto itself.
Therefore, the rotational symmetry group for a square has four elements: rotations by 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°.

But wait, the problem says two configurations are equivalent if one is a rotation of another. So, we need to consider the number of distinct seating arrangements under rotation.

However, the table is square, so maybe the symmetries are different? Wait, no, the problem is about rotational equivalence. So, if you can rotate a seating arrangement to get another one, they are considered the same. So, the group of rotations for a square is of order 4, as I thought. Therefore, maybe we can use Burnside's lemma to count the number of distinct arrangements.

<prompt_1.1> Consider using Burnside's lemma to count the number of distinct seating arrangements considering rotational symmetry. </prompt_1.1>
-----

Alternatively, maybe I can think of it as fixing a position to account for rotational symmetry. For example, in circular permutations, we fix one person's position to eliminate rotational symmetry. But in a square table, does fixing one person's position suffice, or do we need to consider more?

<prompt_1.2> Explore alternative methods to solve the problem, such as fixing positions or treating the table as two separate tables. </prompt_1.2>
</Plan_1>

<Execution_1>
<execution_1.1>
Wait, Burnside's lemma says that the number of distinct arrangements is equal to the average number of fixed points of the group actions. The group here is the cyclic group of order 4, generated by a 90° rotation. So, the elements of the group are: identity rotation (0°), rotation by 90°, rotation by 180°, and rotation by 270°. For each of these group elements, we need to compute the number of seating arrangements fixed by that rotation, then take the average.
</execution_1.1>

<execution_1.2>
Let me think. If we fix one person's seat, then the rotational symmetry is broken, but the remaining people can be arranged in 7! ways. However, since the table is square, maybe there's more symmetry? For example, flipping the table (reflection) would also create equivalent configurations, but the problem doesn't mention reflections as equivalent. It only mentions rotations. So, reflections would be considered different. Therefore, we only need to account for rotational symmetry, not reflective.
</execution_1.2>
</Execution_1>

<Plan_2>
Based on execution_1.1:
Let me recall Burnside's lemma: the number of distinct arrangements is (1/|G|) × Σ (number of arrangements fixed by each group element g), where G is the group of symmetries. In this case, |G| = 4.

First, let's handle the identity rotation. The identity rotation doesn't change the arrangement, so all possible arrangements are fixed by it. Therefore, the number of fixed arrangements here is 8! = 40320.

Next, consider rotation by 90°. For an arrangement to be fixed under a 90° rotation, rotating the table 90° must result in the same arrangement. That means each person must be moved to the seat of the person next to them in the rotation. Since the table is square, the rotation affects the positions in cycles. Let me try to visualize the cycles.

<prompt_2.1> Calculate the number of arrangements fixed by a 90° rotation using the concept of cycles. </prompt_2.1>

Next, rotation by 180°. For an arrangement to be fixed under a 180° rotation, each person must be mapped to the seat opposite them. So, the table is divided into 4 pairs of opposite seats. Each pair must have the same person in both seats. But wait, we have 8 distinct people, so each pair must consist of two different people. However, if we rotate 180°, each person is moved to the seat opposite their current one. Therefore, for the arrangement to be fixed, each person must be in a seat that is opposite themselves. But since the seats are distinct (they are on different sides and positions), the only way this can happen is if each person is paired with the person they were originally seated opposite to. Wait, no, that might not make sense.

Wait, let's think step by step. If we have a seating arrangement that is fixed under 180° rotation, then rotating the table 180° leaves the arrangement unchanged. Therefore, each person must end up in the seat that was originally their seat after a 180° rotation. So, for each seat, the person in that seat must be the same as the person who was in the seat opposite to it before the rotation. Therefore, the seating arrangement must be such that each pair of opposite seats has the same two people in the same order. Wait, but since all people are distinct, the only way this can happen is if each person is seated in a seat such that their opposite seat has the same person. But since all people are distinct, this is impossible unless each person is paired with themselves, which isn't possible. Wait, maybe I need to model this as cycles.

<prompt_2.2> Calculate the number of arrangements fixed by a 180° rotation using the concept of cycles. </prompt_2.2>

Now, rotation by 270°, which is equivalent to rotation by -90°. This is similar to the 90° rotation case. The cycle structure would be the same as the 90° rotation. The permutation induced by a 270° rotation is the inverse of the 90° rotation permutation, but since cycles are the same length, the number of fixed arrangements would be the same as for 90°, which is 4.
-----

Based on execution_1.2:
So, using Burnside's lemma, we have (40320 + 4 + 4 + 4)/4 = 40320 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 40332; divided by 4 is 10083. But that seems odd. Let me check again.

Wait, the fixed arrangements under 90° and 270° rotations both are 4. So, total is 40320 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 40320 + 12 = 40332. Then divide by 4: 40332 /4 = 10083. So, 10083 ways.
Hmm, but is this correct?

Wait, but maybe I made a mistake in calculating the fixed arrangements for 180° rotation. Let me confirm.

<prompt_2.3> Re-evaluate the calculations for fixed arrangements under 180° rotation and confirm the final result. </prompt_2.3>
</Plan_2>

<Execution_2>
<execution_2.1>
The square table has four sides, but when considering rotational symmetry, each seat is part of a cycle. If we rotate the table 90°, each seat moves to the next position in a cycle. Since the table is square, there are four seats that form a single cycle of length 4. Wait, but actually, each side has two seats, so maybe the cycle structure is different. Let me think again.

Imagine labeling the seats from 1 to 8 in order around the table. Let's say seat 1 is on side 1, position 1; seat 2 is on side 1, position 2; seat 3 is on side 2, position 1; seat 4 is on side 2, position 2; and so on up to seat 8 on side 4, position 2. Then, a 90° rotation would move seat 1 to seat 3's position, seat 3 to seat 5's position (but wait, there is no seat 5), hold on, maybe my labeling is off. Wait, maybe it's better to label the seats as follows:

Let's consider the square table with four sides: North, East, South, West. Each side has two seats. Let's label them as follows:

- North side: Seat N1 (position 1) and N2 (position 2)
- East side: Seat E1 (position 1) and E2 (position 2)
- South side: Seat S1 (position 1) and S2 (position 2)
- West side: Seat W1 (position 1) and W2 (position 2)

So, seats are N1, N2, E1, E2, S1, S2, W1, W2 arranged clockwise.

Now, a 90° rotation clockwise would move N1 to E1's position, E1 to S1's position, S1 to W1's position, W1 to N1's position. Similarly, N2 would rotate to E2, E2 to S2, S2 to W2, W2 to N2. So, actually, the rotation affects the seats in two separate cycles: one cycle for the "first" seat of each side (N1, E1, S1, W1) and another cycle for the "second" seat of each side (N2, E2, S2, W2). Each cycle is of length 4.

Therefore, for a 90° rotation, the permutation consists of two cycles of length 4. Therefore, for an arrangement to be fixed under a 90° rotation, the seating must be such that each cycle is colored (assigned people) in a way that's invariant under rotation. That is, in each cycle, all positions must have the same person. Wait, no. If you rotate the table, the people in the cycle must be rotated as well. Therefore, for the arrangement to be fixed under a 90° rotation, rotating the table 90° must map each person to themselves. Therefore, each person in the cycle must be the same as the person next in the cycle. But since all people are distinct, the only way this can happen is if all positions in each cycle are the same person, which is impossible because all people are distinct. Therefore, there are no fixed arrangements under a 90° rotation. Hence, the number of fixed arrangements for 90° and 270° rotations is 0 each.
</execution_2.1>

<execution_2.2>
The seats can be divided into cycles based on how the rotation permutes them. For a square table with 8 seats, each 180° rotation will pair up the seats into cycles of length 2. Let me confirm. If we label the seats from 1 to 8 in order around the table, then a 180° rotation would send seat 1 to seat 5, seat 2 to seat 6, seat 3 to seat 7, seat 4 to seat 8, and so on. So, each seat is part of a 2-cycle. Therefore, there are 4 cycles of length 2. For an arrangement to be fixed under 180° rotation, the people in seats 1 and 5 must be the same, seats 2 and 6 must be the same, etc. But since all people are distinct, this is impossible. Therefore, there are no arrangements fixed under a 180° rotation. Wait, that can't be right. Wait, no. Wait, if the people are distinct, how can an arrangement be fixed under 180° rotation? Because each person would have to be in two different seats at the same time. Therefore, the number of fixed arrangements under 180° rotation is zero.
</execution_2.2>

<execution_2.3>
For 180° rotation, each seat is paired with the seat opposite it. So, for the arrangement to be fixed under 180° rotation, each pair of opposite seats must have the same people. But since all people are distinct, this can only happen if each pair of opposite seats is occupied by two specific people. However, since we have 8 distinct people, each pair of opposite seats must have two different people, but rotated 180°, those two people must swap places. Wait, no. If you rotate the table 180°, each person moves to the seat opposite. For the arrangement to be fixed, the person in seat A must be the same as the person who was in seat A after rotation. Therefore, seat A must have the same person as seat A' (the seat opposite). But since all seats are distinct and people are distinct, the only way this can happen is if each person is seated such that they are in a seat that maps to themselves. But in a square table, each seat has a unique opposite seat. Therefore, for each person, their seat is fixed under 180° rotation only if they are in a seat that is opposite themselves. Wait, but in a square table with two people per side, each seat is on a side, and the opposite seat is on the opposite side. So, each seat has a unique opposite seat. Therefore, for the arrangement to be fixed under 180° rotation, each person must be seated in a seat such that when the table is rotated 180°, they remain in the same seat. But since the seats are fixed in position (i.e., each seat is a specific spot around the table), rotating the table 180° would move each person to a different seat. Therefore, the only way an arrangement is fixed under 180° rotation is if each person is in a seat that is mapped to themselves, which isn't possible unless they are in a seat that is invariant under 180° rotation. But in a square table, no seat is invariant under 180° rotation; each seat has a distinct opposite seat. Therefore, there are no fixed arrangements under 180° rotation. Wait, but that contradicts my earlier conclusion. So which is correct?

Wait, let's clarify. Suppose we have a specific seat, say seat 1. When we rotate the table 180°, seat 1 moves to seat 5 (assuming seats are numbered 1 through 8 in order around the table). For the arrangement to be fixed under this rotation, the person in seat 1 must be the same as the person in seat 5 after rotation. But since we are considering fixed arrangements, the person in seat 1 must be the same as the person in seat 5 before rotation. Therefore, for all seats, seat i must have the same person as seat i+4 (mod 8). Therefore, the table is divided into 4 pairs of seats: (1,5), (2,6), (3,7), (4,8). Each pair must have the same two people. But since all people are distinct, each pair must consist of two different people. However, the number of ways to assign people to these pairs is 8! divided by (2!^4), because each pair has two people, and the order within the pair doesn't matter? Wait, but in our problem, the seats are distinct. Each seat is a specific position, so the order matters. For example, seat 1 and seat 5 are different seats, so assigning person A to seat 1 and person B to seat 5 is different from assigning person B to seat 1 and person A to seat 5. Therefore, if we require that seat 1 and seat 5 have the same person, then they must have the same person in both seats. But since all people are distinct, this is impossible. Therefore, there are no fixed arrangements under 180° rotation. Therefore, the number of fixed arrangements for 180° rotation is 0. Hmm, that's different from my initial conclusion of 4.
</execution_2.3>
</Execution_2>

<Plan_3>
Based on execution_2.1, execution_2.2, execution_2.3:
Therefore, using Burnside's lemma, the total number of distinct arrangements is (8! + 0 + 0 + 0)/4 = 8! /4 = 40320 /4 = 10080.

Wait, but this contradicts the earlier conclusion where I thought 180° fixed arrangements are 4. Let me check again.

<prompt_3.1> Re-evaluate the calculations for fixed arrangements under 180° rotation and confirm the final result. </prompt_3.1>
-----

But wait, let me check with another approach. Let's fix one person's position to account for rotational symmetry. Suppose we fix person A at seat N1 (north side, first position). Then, the remaining 7 people can be arranged in 7! ways. However, since rotations are considered equivalent, fixing one person's position already accounts for eliminating rotational symmetries. But wait, does fixing one person's position eliminate all rotational symmetries? Yes, because by fixing one person's seat, we are effectively pinning the table in place, so rotations that would move person A to another seat are no longer considered equivalent.

<prompt_3.2> Explore the alternative method of fixing positions and confirm the result. </prompt_3.2>
</Plan_3>

<Execution_3>
<execution_3.1>
Earlier, I thought that for 180° rotation, each pair of opposite seats must have the same two people, but since all people are distinct, this is impossible, hence 0 fixed arrangements. However, another way to think about it: if the arrangement is fixed under 180° rotation, then the permutation induced by the rotation must map each seat to another seat with the same person. Since each seat is paired with one opposite seat, the permutation is composed of four 2-cycles. Therefore, to have a fixed arrangement, the person in seat 1 must be the same as in seat 5, seat 2 same as seat 6, etc. But since all people are distinct, this is impossible. Therefore, indeed, the number of fixed arrangements under 180° rotation is 0. Therefore, the total number of distinct arrangements is (8! + 0 + 0 + 0)/4 = 8! /4 = 40320 /4 = 10080. So, 10080 ways.
</execution_3.1>

<execution_3.2>
Therefore, the number of distinct arrangements would be 7! = 5040. But this contradicts the previous result of 10080. Which one is correct?

Wait, maybe the problem is whether the table is considered fixed or not. If the table is considered fixed in space (i.e., rotations would move different people to different positions relative to the table), then fixing one person's seat would give 7! arrangements. But if the table is considered identical when rotated, meaning that two arrangements related by rotation are the same, then we need to divide by the number of rotational symmetries.

But in the problem statement, it says "Two configurations are considered equivalent if one is a rotation of another". So, the table's position in space doesn't matter; rotating the table doesn't create a new configuration. Therefore, the correct approach is to use Burnside's lemma, considering the rotational symmetries. Therefore, according to Burnside's lemma, the answer would be 8! /4 = 10080.

But the alternative approach of fixing one person's seat gives 7! = 5040. Which is correct?

Wait, perhaps the discrepancy arises because in the alternative approach, we fix one seat, effectively accounting for rotational symmetry, but in Burnside's approach, we consider all symmetries. Let me think. If we fix one seat, say seat N1, then we have eliminated the rotational symmetry, because seat N1 is now a specific point. Therefore, the number of distinct arrangements is 7! = 5040. But according to Burnside, it's 8! /4 = 10080. These two results differ by a factor of 2. Which is correct?

Wait, maybe the error is in assuming that fixing one seat accounts for all rotational symmetries. But actually, when we fix one seat, we are considering the table as fixed, so the number of distinct arrangements is indeed 7! . However, in Burnside's lemma, we are averaging over all group elements. Let me verify with a smaller case. Suppose we have a square table with 2 seats per side, total 4 seats. Then, how many distinct arrangements for 4 people?

Using Burnside: group of 4 rotations. Identity: 4! =24. Rotation 90°: 0 fixed. Rotation 180°: 2 fixed (since two pairs of opposite seats). Rotation 270°: 0. So total (24 + 0 + 2 + 0)/4 =26/4=6.5? Wait, that can't be. Wait, that suggests an error. Wait, in the case of 4 seats, each rotation by 180° would fix arrangements where opposite seats have the same people. But with 4 distinct people, how many fixed arrangements under 180°? The pairs are (1,3) and (2,4). So, to have fixed arrangements, person 1 must equal person 3, and person 2 must equal person 4. But since all people are distinct, this is impossible. Therefore, fixed arrangements under 180° rotation is 0. Then total would be (24 + 0 + 0 + 0)/4 =6. Which is 24/4=6. That's correct. For 4 people around a square table with rotational symmetry, the number is 3! =6. So, in that case, fixing one seat gives 3! =6, which matches Burnside's result. So, in that case, Burnside's lemma gives the correct answer as 24/4=6, which is same as fixing one seat.
</execution_3.2>
</Execution_3>

<Plan_4>
Based on execution_3.1:
Let me check with a smaller case. Suppose instead of 8 people, we have 2 people on each side, but with 2 people total.

<prompt_4.1> Verify the solution with smaller cases and confirm the final answer. </prompt_4.1>
-----

Based on execution_3.2:
Therefore, returning to the original problem, the number of distinct arrangements is 8! /4 =10080. Therefore, the answer is 10080.

But wait, in the 4-seat example, both methods give the same result. So, why the discrepancy here? Wait, no, in the 4-seat example, if we use the seat-fixing method, we fix one seat, so 3! =6, which matches Burnside's 24/4=6. So, in the original problem, if we fix one seat, we get 7! =5040. But according to Burnside's lemma, it's 8! /4=10080. These can't both be correct.

<prompt_4.2> Identify and resolve the discrepancy between the two methods and confirm the correct approach. </prompt_4.2>
</Plan_4>

<Execution_4>
<execution_4.1>
Suppose the square table has two people per side, so 4 sides × 2 = 4 seats. Wait, no, wait, two people per side would be 8 seats if it's a square table with four sides. Wait, no, wait, maybe the problem is with the number of sides. Wait, in the original problem, it's a square table with 2 people on a side. So, four sides, two people each, total 8 people. So, in the smaller case, maybe two sides, two people per side? No, perhaps not. Let's take a smaller example where the number of people is 4, two per side, so two sides. Then, how many arrangements? For two sides with two seats each, total four seats. If there are 4 people, how many distinct arrangements under rotation? Using the same logic, Burnside's lemma would give 4! /2 =12, but fixing one seat gives 3! =6. So, which is correct?

Wait, actually, for two sides (a line of two seats each), but arranged in a square? Wait, perhaps the smaller example is not a square table. Maybe the problem is specific to a square table. So, in the original problem, the table is square, so rotational symmetry is four-fold. Therefore, in the smaller case, if we have a square table with two seats per side, total four seats, and four people, then using Burnside's lemma, we have rotations by 0°, 90°, 180°, 270°. The group has four elements. Identity: 4! =24. Rotation by 90° and 270°: cycles of length 4. For 90°, the permutation is a 4-cycle, so fixed arrangements must have all four people the same, which is impossible, so 0. Similarly for 270°. Rotation by 180°: two 2-cycles. So, to have fixed arrangements, the pairs must be equal, but with distinct people, impossible. So, total fixed arrangements: 24 + 0 + 0 + 0 =24. Average over 4: 24/4=6. So, 6 distinct arrangements. If we fix one seat, the remaining three can be arranged in 3! =6 ways. So, both methods agree. Therefore, in the original problem, if we fix one seat, the answer is 7! =5040. But according to Burnside's lemma, it's 8! /4=10080. These are different. What's the mistake here?

Ah! Wait, perhaps in the original problem, the table is square, with four sides, each with two seats. So, the total number of seats is 8. Therefore, when considering rotational symmetry, the group is of order 4 (rotations by 0°, 90°, 180°, 270°). However, in the smaller case with four seats, the group is also order 4. But in the original problem, the answer according to Burnside's lemma would be 8! /4=10080, but fixing one seat would give 7! =5040. Therefore, which is correct?

Wait, perhaps the key is that in the original problem, the table is square, so rotating the table by 90° degrees would map each side to the next side. Therefore, the rotational symmetry is of order 4. Therefore, the number of distinct arrangements is 8! /4=10080. However, in the smaller case with four seats, the same logic would apply, giving 4! /4=6, which matches both Burnside's lemma and the seat-fixing method. Wait, but in the four-seat case, fixing one seat gives 3! =6, which is the same as Burnside's 4! /4=6. Therefore, in the original problem, 8! /4=10080 is the correct answer.
</execution_4.1>

<execution_4.2>
Wait, no. Wait, in the 4-seat example, each rotation corresponds to rotating the entire table. If we fix one seat, then the number of distinct arrangements is 3! =6, which is equivalent to 4! /4 =24/4=6. So, in the original problem, 8! /4 =40320/4=10080. But if we fix one seat, it's 7! =5040. So, which is correct? There must be a misunderstanding here.

Wait, perhaps the key is that in the problem statement, the table is square, but each side has two seats. So, maybe the table has four sides, each with two seats, making eight seats total. However, when considering rotational symmetry, rotating the table by 90° moves each side to the next side. So, the rotational symmetry group is of order 4. Therefore, the number of distinct arrangements is indeed 8! /4 =10080. However, if we fix one seat (i.e., one specific seat's position is fixed), then the number is 8! /8 =7! , but since we have a square table with rotational symmetry of order 4, not 8. Wait, this is confusing.

Wait, the problem is about a square table, which has rotational symmetry of order 4 (90°, 180°, 270°, 360°=0°). Therefore, the group has four elements. Therefore, the number of distinct arrangements is 8! /4 =10080. However, if the table were a circular table with eight seats, the rotational symmetry would be of order 8. But since it's a square table with sides, maybe the rotational symmetry is still order 4, because rotating by 90° cycles the sides. Therefore, the correct approach is to use the cyclic group of order 4, leading to 8! /4 =10080. However, if the problem had considered the table as having eight distinct seats (like around a circle), then the rotational symmetry would be of order 8. But in this case, the table is square with four sides, each with two seats. Therefore, rotating the table by 90° cycles the sides, so the rotational symmetry is of order 4. Therefore, the number of distinct arrangements is 8! /4 =10080.
</execution_4.2>
</Execution_4>

<Plan_5>
Based on execution_4.2:
But let me check another way. Suppose we have 8 people, and we want to seat them around a square table with two seats per side. The number of ways to arrange them, considering rotations equivalent, is 8! divided by 4 (the number of rotations). Therefore, 40320 /4 =10080.
-----

Based on execution_4.2:
**Final Answer**
The number of distinct seating arrangements is \boxed{10080}.
</Plan_5>

<Execution_5>
No prompt to execute.
</Execution_5>

<Final_answer>
Therefore, the final answer is $\boxed{10080}$.
</Final_answer>
</think>