Have You Thought About Slicing Cubes?

1 x , y , z 10 min ( x , y , z ) = ? \large \sum_{1\leq x,y,z\leq 10}\min(x,y,z) = \, ?

Clarification : ( x , y , z ) (x,y,z) is an ordered triple of integers.

Bonus : The answer is a Stirling number; coincidence?


Inspiration


The answer is 3025.

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.

3 solutions

Arjen Vreugdenhil
Mar 30, 2016

I ended up with the same calculation as Otto here, but used a geometric model, thinking of the numbers to be added as elements in a 10 × 10 × 10 10\times 10\times 10 grid.

Consider a set of nested cubes:

  • cube 1 is the entire 10 × 10 × 10 10\times 10\times 10 grid;

  • cube 2 is the 9 × 9 × 9 9\times 9\times 9 grid consisting of all elements with x , y , z 2 x, y, z \geq 2 ;

  • cube 3 is the 8 × 8 × 8 8\times 8\times 8 grid consisting of all elements with x , y , z 3 x, y, z \geq 3 ;

  • etc. until cube 10, which consists only of ( 10 , 10 , 10 ) (10, 10, 10) .

It is not difficult to see that min ( x , y , z ) \text{min}(x,y,z) is equal to the number of cubes in which ( x , y , z ) (x,y,z) is contained. Therefore x , y , z min ( x , y , z ) = x , y , z # of cubes containing ( x , y , z ) = n = 1 10 elements contained in cube n = n = 1 10 n 3 = ( n = 1 10 n ) 2 = 5 5 2 = 3025 . \sum_{x,y,z} \text{min}(x,y,z) = \sum_{x,y,z} \text{\# of cubes containing}\ (x,y,z) \\ = \sum_{n=1}^{10} \text{elements contained in cube}\ n \\ = \sum_{n=1}^{10} n^3 = \left(\sum_{n=1}^{10} n\right)^2 = 55^2 = \boxed{3025}.

Moderator note:

Nice approach to count this!

Yes, that's a very nice way to think about it (and a great figure)! (+1)

I wonder whether this method works here ;)

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 2 months ago

How did you approach the 3rd step?

Saurabh Chaturvedi - 5 years, 2 months ago
Otto Bretscher
Mar 29, 2016

We can show that 1 x , y , z N min ( x , y , z ) = k = 1 N k 3 = ( N ( N + 1 ) 2 ) 2 \sum_{1\leq x,y,z\leq N}\min(x,y,z)=\sum_{k=1}^{N}k^3=\left(\frac{N(N+1)}{2}\right)^2

For N = 10 N=10 this gives 3025. \boxed{3025.}

By induction, it suffices to show that max ( x , y , z ) = N min ( x , y , z ) = N 3 \sum_{\max(x,y,z)=N}\min(x,y,z)=N^3 . Indeed, paying attention to the number of N s N's in ( x , y , z ) (x,y,z) , we find this sum to be N + 3 k = 1 N 1 k + 3 k = 1 N 1 k 2 = N 3 N+3\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}k+3\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}k^2=N^3 .

(See my alternative solution here .)

Ezequiel Heredia
Mar 28, 2016

Very interesting problem. I divided the sum according to the value of min (x,y,z). If min (x,y,z) is "n", then it is because only one of the three numbers is n [ (3(10-n)^2) cases], two of them are n [3(10-n) cases] or the three of them are n [1 case]. If we multiply the number of cases were min (x,y,z) is n, by the value of n, and we sum it for n=1 to n=10, we get the solution :)

Yes that's exactly how I did it initially! Thanks! (+1)

Now 3025 is the Stirling Number of the Second Kind S ( 9 , 3 ) S(9,3) ... coïncidence?

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

It is a coincidence, because if you replace 10 with 9 in your problem, then the answer is not S(8,3)

Tran Hieu - 5 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Exactly! Thank you!

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 2 months ago

coïncidence?

Why the weird looking "I"?

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

I guess it's the French spelling ; I did not realize that it's not used in English (remember, English is my third language). The word is not pronounced like "coin", after all...

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

@Otto Bretscher Dang it. I thought I'm about to crack one of your weird obscure hints.

Pi Han Goh - 5 years, 2 months ago

@Otto Bretscher In Dutch one would write "coïncidentie", except we prefer "toevalligheid".

Arjen Vreugdenhil - 5 years, 2 months ago

I did not have time to pursue it but it seems that the equation could be "easily" generalised. Perhaps when doing so, a relation to the Stirling numbers can be substantiated and even explained. Have you seen any more values of "n" for which that is true?

Ezequiel Heredia - 5 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

See my solution.

Otto Bretscher - 5 years, 2 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...