First of all, Claim 3 should be written as a TV set according to 1 or 2, or a TV set according to any one of 1 and 2.
Then you cite claim 3 in the fourth item. To tell the truth, it is better to quote the claim 1. Because: if you cite three, your fourth protection is: a TV containing A, B and C, where B is composed of F and G, E may be installed next to A, and H- is installed above C. If you cite claim 1, you protect a TV containing A, B, C and E, which may be installed next to A, and H- is installed.
Compared with the two, it is obvious that the latter has a wider scope of protection, because the latter protects a kind of TV that includes A, B and C. B is not composed of F and G, and E may be installed next to A and H- is installed on C.. In other words, if you quote three, the protection scope of four is narrowed and limited by the scope of three.
Therefore, in general dependent claims, permutation and combination are not considered, as long as the protection scope is as large as possible. And you should consider that in case claim 1 cannot be licensed, you need to upgrade claims 2, 3 and 4 to independent claims, and at this time, of course, the greater the protection scope of dependent claims such as claims 2, 3 and 4, the better, right?
I hope the answer will help you.