Shaking Hands

Alright, the thesis is currently sitting at 40 pages, so I'm happy enough with my progress that I deserve to take a break. Naturally a break comes in the from of posting solutions to logic puzzles, because I have no sense of fun. So, lets look at the solution to the crazy ass number problem from last time.

First of all, if you played around with it a bit, you probably determined that for any starting N, only one final M was ever possible. As far as I am concerned, that fact was in of itself neat enough to make this puzzle pretty cool, but lets look at it a bit more.

First, if you just split N into N-1 and 1, and then N-1 into N-2 and 1 and just keep splitting off 1 all the way down, then you end with having written N-1, N-2, N-3,..., 2, 1 on board two, so the total sum is N(N-1)/2. Thus, if for any N there is only one possible value of M, that value must be N(N-1)/2. Note a particular edge case, that of N is 1, we take the value of M to be zero, later we will see that this is important for consistency.

Alright, so let us conjecture the solution to the puzzle:
When N is the starting value, then N(N-1)/2 is the unique final value of M.

Initially I wanted to prove this by induction, and one almost can, but actually to do it properly you need to break out strong induction, which I will talk briefly about first.

Induction is used if you want to prove some statement S(n) for all natural numbers n (and for the purpose of this post, the naturals start at 1 (and it pains me to write that)). You prove the statement is true by first showing that S(1) is true, and then showing that S(k-1) implies S(k) for k>1, good stuff, and the intuition behind it is pretty obvious for anybody who would actually read this blog.

For strong induction, you instead prove S(n) by proving S(1) and then show that [S(j) for all j less than k] implies S(k) for k>1. Intuitively, its not really any different from regular induction, the assumption is technically a bit different, but it still works. Naturally, one can reformulate any induction proof as a strong induction proof, as the strong induction assumption of [S(j) for all j less than k] is a stronger assumption than S(k-1), but there are some strong induction proofs that cannot be recast as regular induction, since you needed the stronger assumption. Strong induction is also used for proving statements about the ordinals, since some of those are not successors to other ones.

Anyway, let us prove our earlier conjecture by strong induction. It is easy to see that it holds for small N (I'm not sure about proving it for N=1, but lets just start with 2 or something). Now, assume that it is true for all j less than k for some k. Lets say that k is written on the board and calculate the possible values of M. We break k into p and k-p, for some p less than k. We then write p(k-p) on board 2, and are left with p and k-p on board 1. Naturally breaking up p results in us writing numbers summing to p(p-1)/2 on board 2 (by strong induction assumption) and breaking up k-p results in us writing numbers summing up to (k-p)(k-p-1)/2 onto board 2. Note that if p=1 or p=k-1, then having a 1 on board one does not result in any additional numbers on board 2, good.

So, on board 2, we have p(k-p) and a bunch of other numbers that sum to p(p-1)/2 and (k-p)(k-p-1)/2. Adding those up, we get k(k-1)/2 for any choice of p, proving the conjecture.

On the xkcd forums, somebody posted a much simpler solution than mine, and its cool enough that I will give it here.

Consider that we have N people in a room, and breaking N up into p and N-p is splitting people up into smaller groups. Before we split people up, they all shake hands with the people in the other group and say goodbye. For example, when we split 8 into 5 and 3, the 5 people each shake hands with the 3 people, so there are 15 handshakes. Board 2 is just keeping track of handshakes. The steps halt when everybody has been fully divided up and everybody must have said goodbye to everybody else. How many handshakes were there? There must have been N choose 2 of them, which is N(N-1)/2.

Splitting Up Numbers

Time to take a break from thesis writing to blog. I won't have much time to blog for the next little while, due to said thesis, but I found a new puzzle recently I really wanted to post. I still intend to post the follow-up to my post from last time about other solutions to the birds on a wire problem, but I don't have the time to give that a full write up right now. Anyway, this puzzle is really weird to word properly, so if you don't get it the first time read the example I give after and then try reading it again. I first learned this puzzle on the forums at xkcd.
There are 2 blackboards, and on the first one a natural number N>1 is written, the second board starts empty. You are going to do a calculation in a series of steps. A step is defined as follows:

If there are no numbers greater than 1 on the first blackboard, stop. Otherwise select one of the numbers greater than 1, call it k. Select two natural numbers i and j smaller than k such that i+j=k. Cross out k from the first black board, and write i and j on the first blackboard. On the second blackboard, write the product i*j. Then do another step.

When you are done doing steps (because all the numbers on the first blackboard are equal to 1), and add up the numbers on the second blackboard, call this sum M.

The puzzle is, given the initial value of N, what are the possible values of M?

Alright, so as example, let us assume N=8. Now, we select a number of the board (there is only 8, so we choose it) and select that i and j are 5 and 3. We cross out 8 and write 5 and 3 on the first blackboard, and write 15 on the second one.

Next step we select 3, crossing it out and writing 1 and 2 on the first blackboard, writing 2 on the second blackboard. On the first board there is now (1,2,5) and on the second one there is (15,2)

Next step we select 5 and cross it out and write 2 and 3 on board one, writing 6 on board two. Board one has (1,2,2,3) board two has (15,2,6)

Next step we select 2, writing 1 and 1 in its place, and write 1 on board two. The boards are (1,1,1,2,3) and (15,2,6,1)

Next select 2, write 1 and 1 in its place, writing 1 on board two. The boards are (1,1,1,1,1,3) and (15,2,6,1,1)

Next select 3, writing 2 and 1 in its place, writing 2 on board two. The boards are (1,1,1,1,1,1,2) and (15,2,6,1,1,2)

Next select 2, writing 1 and 1 in its place, writing 1 on board two. The boards are (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) and (15,2,6,1,1,2,1)

Finally we stop, board one has no numbers greater than 1. We calculate M by adding up the numbers on board two, se we see M=28.

So we see that when N=8, it is possible for M to be 28. The puzzle is asking what other values of M are possible for N=8? What about other values of starting N?

Birds On A Wire

Alright, time to post the solution to the dots on a line puzzle from last time. First I suppose I'll link directly the cut-the-knot page with the puzzle. He has a cool little applet thing there you can use to simulate the problem and try to guess the solution yourself, and he also has links to where people have written up derivations, one of which I will regurgitate on here later because I found it to be so interesting.

For today though, I am simply going to post the solution to the problem as Matt and I initially solved it. First, I must solve a very simple problem that gives us a technique that will be needed later. Consider the following problem:
N numbers between 0 and 1 are selected uniformly at random. On average what is the value of the smallest one?

First, let us try to solve this for N=2. We can see that we simply must solve the integral
∫ min(x,y) dxdy

integrated over [0,1]x[0,1], and min(,) is the minimum function. Clearly min(x,y)=min(y,x) so we can instead integrate over the "lower half triangle" and double our answer. So, instead integrate x in [0,1] and y in [0,x] in
2∫ y dxdy

the 2 is because we are only covering half the area we should be covering, and min(x,y) has been replaced by y, because x>y now. The integral is pretty simple to do, and gives the answer 1/3.

Now in the general N case we must consider we have a collection of N points {x[1],x[2],x[3]...,x[N]}, and integrate
∫ min(x[1],x[2],x[3]...,x[N]) dx[1]dx[2]dx[3]...dx[N]

As before, we order them x[1]>x[2]>x[3]...>x[N], so the min function always returns x[N], and we must integrate x[1] in [0,1], x[2] in [0,x[1]], x[3] in [0,x[2]] and so on. We must also find the prefactor, which is one over the area of the triangle we are integrating. Integrating the function 1 over the region of integration, we find the prefactor must be N!. So we must integrate
N!∫ x[N]dx[1]dx[2]dx[3]...dx[N]

over our triangular region. The final answer comes out to be 1/(N+1), sort of neat, but anyway I just wanted to demonstrate the technique so it is less confusing later.

Back to the problem at hand. We have N points {x[1],x[2],x[3]...,x[N]}, and we will order them as x[1]>x[2]>x[3]...>x[N]. Let us define
d[i]=x[i]-x[i+1]

so d[i] is the size of the ith region, and this i runs from 1 to N-1.

Next, we will define S[i] to be equal to d[i] if the ith region is shaded, and S[i] will be zero if it is not. The answer we seek is
S=N!∫ Σ S[j] dx[i]

Integrated over all the x[i] positions, and j summed from 1 to N-1 to add up all the shaded regions.

S[i] will be nonzero (and equal to d[i]) in one of two conditions:
1) x[i+1]-x[i+2] > x[i]-x[i+1]
2) x[i-1]-x[i] > x[i]-x[i+1]

That is, if d[i+1] is greater than d[i] or if d[i-1] is greater than d[i], d[i] will get shaded in.

With calculating probabilities, whenever you have to find the chance that A or B happens, it is often easier to find the chance that neither happened and take one minus that. Similarly here, rather than integrate whenever 1) or 2) happens, it is easier to find the situation of neither of them happening. Let is define q[i] as d[i]-S[i], so q[i] represents the unshaded regions, it is equal to d[i] when S[i]=0 and it is zero when S[i]=d[i]. Clearly then
S=N!∫ Σ S[j] dx[i]
=1 - N!∫ Σ q[j] dx[i]

We can of course move the sum outside of the integral, so we simply must calculate
∫ q[j] dx[i]

for an arbitrary j and then we can sum it up and multiply by N!.

The integration has x[1] running from 0 to 1 and x[i] running from 0 to x[i-1]. q[j] is zero in some of this region and nonzero is other parts, let us identify exactly where q[j] is nonzero. It is exactly the negation of conditions 1) and 2) earlier, that is
1) x[j+2] > 2x[j+1]-x[j]
2) x[j+1] < x[j-1]-2x[j]

This actually needs to break into a few cases, the first inequality is trivial if 2x[j+1] < x[j], since x[j+2] is always positive. The second case depends on whether x[j-1] is greater than or less than 3x[j] (because if x[j-1] is more than 3 times x[j] then the second inequality is made trivial by the fact that x[j+1] < x[j]).

So the integration region over dx[j-1] until dx[j+2] breaks up into many smaller pieces that one can cleanly write out with this information, but its fairly lengthy, so I'm not going to bother here. In this region, q[j]=d[j] so you simply integrate x[j]-x[j+1] in this region. This integral is most easily done in Maple (or whatever other math program you like) by first doing the integrals from dx[N] to dx[j+3] (the function is constant there and the integration region is simple) then doing the next four integrals carefully, then finishing it off integrating to x[1].

In the end, you get a somewhat awful function of N and j. You then sum j going from 1 to N-1 and multiply by N!. You will get something somewhat less awful, but a still terrible function of N. Finally, you must take the limit of N going to infinity (this step will be easy enough to do by hand, but by this point you already have Maple open anyway, and your spirit will have been far too crushed to do such a limit) and in then end you get 11/18. This was the unshaded region (the shaded region was 1-(the integral of q[j])) so the shaded region is given by 7/18.

Next time I'll go into a bit of the analysis by the other solutions found at the cut the knot page. One of them I found to be particularly interesting so I wanted to show it in detail, but I wanted to demonstrate my own horrible method first.

Also, I expect the date on this post will be confusing, I started writing it some time ago, but it took me more than a month to get around to finishing it.

Dots On A Line

Alright, I think I've finally run out of puzzles if I'm going to post this one. It is a rather crazy one that I solved with Matt many years ago and I absolutely love the answer to it. Sadly there isn't really a clean way to solve the puzzle, you have to do it the hard way, and its really not very illustrative of why the final answer is what it is, but thats just life. I initially found this puzzle at cut the knot:
Consider the unit interval between 0 and 1. Select N points randomly on that interval (random with uniform distribution). From each selected point "color in" the part of the interval between it and the closest neighboring point. In the limit as N goes to infinity, what fraction of the interval is colored in on average?

Terrible, I know. To clarify, suppose we had N=5 and selected the points 1/10, 2/10, 4/10, 7/10 and 8/10. Then from 1/10 we would color to 2/10, from 2/10 we would color back to 1/10 (not that that does anything), from 4/10 we color back to 2/10, from 7/10 we color to 8/10 and from 8/10 we color back to 7/10 (again does nothing). Then the colored region would be [1/10,4/10] ∪ [7/10,8/10] so in total 4/10 of the interval was colored in, in this case.

Balancing It Out

Time for the solution to the recent balance scale puzzle.

First, notice that there is a symmetry in the problem that needs to be broken, specifically there is no real distinction between "fake" and "genuine", if you swapped those labels the problem is identical. Let us break that symmetry by selecting a single coin and then we are going to show that all the other coins weigh the same as that special one. In effect, I will declare any coin with the same mass as that one to be "genuine" and a coin of any other mass to be "fake".

Now that we have one genuine coin, take the other nine coins and divide them up into three disjoint sets, one of two coins, one of three coins, and one of four coins. We will denote these sets of coins as 1, 2, 3, and 4, so if I say we weigh 3 vs 1+2 I mean to take the set of three coins and weigh them against the set of two coins plus the single genuine coin.

Naturally, our three weighings are going to be some coins against some other coins, equal in number, such that if a weighing is ever imbalanced we are done immediately (we would have proven there is at least one fake and one genuine coin), so we are free to assume that all weighings are balanced (as opposed to other balance scale problems where you have to divide up the tree into "if left heavy", "if right heavy", and "if balanced").

First weighing, 3 vs 1+2. When this is balanced, we know that the number of fakes in 2 (call that x) equals the number of fakes in 3 (so, x is also the number of fakes in 3). Second weighing, 4 vs 1+3. When this is balanced, we know the number of fakes in 4 is also x. Finally, we weigh 1+4 vs 2+3. When this is balanced we know that x=x+x, guaranteeing that x is 0 and there are no fake coins.

It is sort of neat that you can do those weighings in any order you want, since you don't gain information after a weighing (or rather if you did, you were done right away). But if you do the weighings in another order the information is a bit less natural to analyze.

More Masses?

Alright, new puzzle I found today at Tanya Khovanova’s Math Blog:
Consider you have a collection of 10 coins. The coins can either be genuine or fake, a fake coin weights a slightly different amount than a genuine coin. All fake coins weigh the same and all genuine coins weigh the same. Using three measurements on a balance scale, prove either that all the coins have the same mass or that they do not.

For the balance scale rules, see the old counterfeit masses puzzle. These constant balance scale problems and total lack of hat problems are making me want to rename the blog "Standard Balance Scale Rules Apply".

All Drunk

So, whats the solution to running out of interesting puzzles? Stop posting. I guess the other solution is to post non-interesting puzzles, or possibly interesting non-puzzles, but that seems like so much more work than not posting at all. Anyway, I guess one should post the solution to the drinking game puzzle from last time.

First of all, it is obvious that Alice can get a 1/2-1/2 split with Bob if she wants, so the only question is if she can do any better than that. Bob being forced to drink from the bottle at least once is a disadvantage for him, if not for that rule it is clear that the optimal strategy is 1/2-1/2 in general. Since Bob being forced to drink from the bottle is a disadvantage, we can assume he will try to get rid of that, specifically if the bottle ever has less poison than the cup, Bob will immediately drink from the bottle and the remaining bottles will get split 1/2-1/2.

As soon as Bob has drank from the bottle, the remaining bottles get split 1/2-1/2. If we get to the last bottle and Bob has not yet drank from the bottle, Alice will do a 1-0 split, forcing Bob to drink all of the poison in the bottle. Thus, if there are two bottles left, let us assume Alice does an x-y split (x>y and x is the amount in the bottle). If Bob choses x, he will have free choice on the next one and in the end Bob will have drank x+1/2 and Alice will have drank y+1/2. If Bob choses y, Alice will be able to force him to drink all of the last bottle and so Bob will drink y+1 and Alice will drink x. Bob will see this coming and choose whichever one is lower, so Alice does best to make them equal.

We have x+1/2=y+1 and x+y=1, so we get x=3/4 y=1/4, so if there are two bottles left and Bob must still drink from a bottle once, Alice splits 3/4-1/4 and forces Bob to drink 5/4. Obviously if there are two bottles left and Bob does not have to drink from a bottle, then Bob drinks half of each of the remaining bottles for a total of 1.

Now, if there are three bottles left and Bob must drink from the bottle once (the original problem), then Alice splits the first bottle x-y (x>y and x the bottle) and Bob can select either x+1 or y+5/4. Setting those equal and using x+y=1 we get x=5/8 y=3/8. So Alice divides up the first bottle 5/8-3/8 and forces Bob to drink 13/8 in total, whereas Alice only drinks 11/8.