There are 10 people who are each thinking of a positive real number. You can approach any 2 of them, and they will tell you the product of their numbers.
What is the minimum number of pairs that you have to approach in order to figure out all the individual numbers?
If you think this cannot be done, enter the answer as -1.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Does this not necessitate that all the numbers are positive? Or at the least non-zero?
I've been told many times that we need n linear equations in order to solve n variables. However, by now I still haven't found a proof. Can you give me one?
Log in to reply
Are you familiar with linear algebra ? The ideas there would explain why (esp the conditions) under which we need exactly n linear equations to solve for n variables.
Alternatively, you can convince yourself that this is true by using induction , though it's harder to see what the necessary conditions are.
Log in to reply
Well, I am familiar (and the lemma is quite obvious and trivial for me), but I don't think I can make a formal proof of it.
Let the numbers thought by the 1 0 people be a , b , c , d , e , f , g , h , i , j respectively.Now lets first focus on how to determine the numbers of first three people ( i e . a , b , c ) . So,after inquiring we get a b = x , b c = y , c a = z where x , y , z are numbers[which we will know after inquiry].By this we will be able to determine the numbers a , b , c individually.So we needed 3 pairs for this.We do the same for ( d , e , f ) and ( g , h , i ) . After doing all this,we get to know 9 numbers.So we need one last pair- i j so as to determine j . Therefore,totally 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 = 1 0 pairs are required to know all the 1 0 numbers.
Why is that the minimum? Why can't it be done in 5 pairs?
Log in to reply
bcoz at first the min possible way to find 3 numbers is 3 ways.we can never find 2 numbers at the first attempt.
Log in to reply
Doesn't quite work. For example, how do you know that we cannot "find 4 numbers in 4 pairs and find 6 numbers in 5 pairs"?
Arguments that are heavily reliant on "this is the constructive approach that I took" are often susceptible to "why isn't there a better way?". As such, they often require a different approach, like one which points out an invariant to show that "No matter what, you need at least k pairs to get k numbers".
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – https://i.imgsafe.org/86fb7d0700.png check this out sir
@Calvin Lin – Well i didnt say anything like "we cannot find 4 numbers in 4 pairs and find 6 numbers in 5 pairs".Well u rather have a good point that "We need at least k pairs to get k numbers".I tried it and it works.So i took a special case of it ie. by taking 3 numbers.Well i think i must work on the generalized form.
Log in to reply
@Ayush G Rai – In order to show that we have a minimum, we have to show that 1) It is a lower bound, 2) It exists.
What you've shown is 2) It exists, because "I have found a way that 10 pairs is sufficient".
What we need to show is that 1) It is a lower bound - Why can't we do better than 10?
@Ayush G Rai – https://i.imgsafe.org/86fb7d0700.png
check it out iu have sent it to calvin sir
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – I think you completely misunderstood the question. The question is not "How many pairs of people are there". It is "How many pairs do we have to ask, in order to figure out their individual numbers".
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – 3 pairs , thats right
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – that is the minimum
We need that these numbers are positive. Otherwise, − a , − b , − c , … , − i is a valid solution set. I've edited this requirement into the problem.
Can you update your solution to explain how "we will be able to determine the numbers a, b, c individually", and why the positive requirement is needed?
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Most people would be able to guess that the answer is 10, which can be obtained in a variety of ways. The harder part is to explain why we need at least 10, or why it cannot be done with 9 or fewer pairs. More generally, we need to ask n questions (where n ≥ 3 ).
Showing that n questions is a lower bound
Let each of the numbers that they are thinking of be denoted by a i . Then, when we ask person i and j , we are given information of P i j = a i × a j . We have n variables, and naively speaking we would expect that we need at least n equations in order to solve this. However, this is only true if we were restricted to linear equations. For example, if we were told ∑ ( a i − i ) 2 = 0 in 1 equation, we can immediately conclude that a i = i . Hence, it is not immediately obvious that we need at least n equations.
How then do we convert this into a linear equation? Well, we simply take the logarithm of each equation. Set b i = lo g a i , which is allowed since a i is positive. Now, when we're told the product, we know that lo g P i j = b i + b j , which is a linear equation. Now, it is obvious that with n variables, we need at least n linear equations to obtain a unique solution, and thus n is a lower bound.
Showing that n questions is sufficient
It remains to show that for n ≥ 3 , by asking certain n pairs, we can obtain all of the individual values. We pick the first 3 people, and ask for their pairwise product. Then, we know the value of b 1 + b 2 , b 2 + b 3 , b 3 + b 1 , from which we can easily determine b 1 , b 2 , b 3 and hence a 1 , a 2 , a 3 . For example, b 1 = lo g P 1 2 + lo g P 1 3 − lo g P 1 2 .
Now, for each of the remaining n − 3 people, we ask for the product P 1 i of person 1 and person i . Since we already know b 1 = lo g a 1 , we can calculate that b i = lo g P 1 i − b 1 and hence a i .
Hence, since n is a lower bound that can be achieved, it is the minimum.