A group of 2014 friends (a huge friend circle) discuss the number of times they've played poker with each other. They always play poker in a one on one (1:1) style. Each person has played every other person at least one time and at most n times. As they were talking, they noticed that there existed three people A , B , and C who pairwise played each other the same number of times.
X , the mathematician of the group, noticed that no matter how they played each other, there always will exist three people who pairwise played the same number of games.
Find the maximum possible value of n .
Details and Assumptions
A one on one style means that exactly two people play each other in each game.
Suppose A and B played 3 games together, B and C played 3 games together, and A and C played 3 games together. Then A , B , and C pairwise played the same number of games together: 3 games.
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.
We can phrase the problem in terms of graph theory: Take a complete graph K 2 0 1 4 on 2014 vertices. We color every edge one of n colors. What is the largest value of n , such that for any coloring, there exists a monochromatic triangle?
For a positive integer n , let R n ( 3 ) = R ( 3 , 3 , … , 3 ) (where there are 3 n 's) be the smallest positive integer m , such that if the edges of K m are colored with n colors, then there always exists a monochromatic triangle. (This is known as a multi-color Ramsey number .)
Your argument only shows that R n ( 3 ) ≤ a n , where a n is the sequence you have constructed. Remember that to establish that R n ( 3 ) = m , you have to show two things:
It is known that R 2 ( 3 ) = 6 and R 3 ( 3 ) = 1 7 . (The Wikipedia entry on Ramsey's theorem has a coloring of K 1 6 with three colors and no monochromatic triangles.) Beyond that, no exact values are known, only bounds. (In general, it is very difficult to get the exact values of Ramsey numbers.)
Strictly speaking, we don't need to know the exact values of these Ramsey numbers to solve the problem. All we need to do is find an n such that R n ( 3 ) ≤ 2 0 1 4 and R n + 1 ( 3 ) > 2 0 1 4 .
You know that R 6 ( 3 ) ≤ 2 0 1 4 . However, the best lower bound on R 7 ( 3 ) I can find is R 7 ( 3 ) ≥ 1 6 8 2 :
If we can't say that R 7 ( 3 ) is greater than 2014, then we can't say that the answer to the problem is 6.
Log in to reply
That's strange. What's wrong with my solution then? Is the way I found the minimum number of people not strict enough? It seemed to be strict...
EDIT: hmm... I guess I see why my sequence isn't strict enough. Should I delete the problem?
Log in to reply
That's up to you. One way to salvage the problem would be to change 2014 to a much smaller number.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
This problem seems like a generalization of the famous 6-person friend/enemy problem. Thus, we will try to find a general formula or something like that to find out the maximum value of n .
To make things simpler, let's call three people who have pairwise played the same number of games a "triangle".
Trivial case: n = 1 .
We need at least 3 people to have a triangle (duh).
First case: n = 2 .
This case is equivalent to the friend/enemy problem. We know that the minimum number of people we need to have a triangle is 6 . Let's look at the proof:
Suppose A played 1 games with B , C , and D . Then B , C , and D cannot play 1 games with any of the others or else there would be a 1 -game triangle. However, that would mean that B , C , and D for a 2 -game triangle. Thus, we know that A cannot play 1 game against three different people: A must have played 1 game with at most 2 people.
But this argument also works for 2 games: thus, A played 2 games with at most 2 people. However, that means A played at most 4 games total. Thus, if there were 6 people, then A would have to play 5 people, thus forcing a triangle.
Second case: n = 3
We can use our previous cases to our advantage. Suppose A played 1 game with 6 people. Then out of these 6 people, nobody can play 1 game with any other or else it would form a 1 -game triangle. Thus, they all must have played 2 or 3 games with each other. However, our previous case says that there must exist either a 2 -game triangle or a 3 -game triangle in these 6 people. Thus, we know that A played 1 game with at most 5 people.
Similarly, A played 2 and 3 games with at most 5 people. Thus, A played at most 1 5 games. Thus, if there were 1 7 people, then the group is forced to have a triangle.
General case:
Let the minimum number of people needed to ensure a triangle with k possible number-of-games-played be a k . We see that a 1 = 3 , a 2 = 6 , and a 3 = 1 7 .
Suppose there are n possible number-of-games-played. If A played 1 game with a n − 1 people, then we know that a triangle is forced. Thus, we know that A played 1 game with at most a n − 1 − 1 people. This is also true for playing i games, where i = 2 → n .
Thus, we know that A played with at most n ( a n − 1 − 1 ) people. Thus, if there were n ( a n − 1 − 1 ) + 2 people, then there will be a forced triangle.
Thus, a n = n ( a n − 1 − 1 ) + 2 . This works out: a 2 = 2 ( a 1 − 1 ) + 2 = 6 a 3 = 3 ( a 2 − 1 ) + 2 = 1 7
We can continue on: a 4 = 4 ( a 3 − 1 ) + 2 = 6 6 a 5 = 5 ( a 4 − 1 ) + 2 = 3 2 7 a 6 = 6 ( a 5 − 1 ) + 2 = 1 9 5 8 a 7 = 7 ( a 6 − 1 ) + 2 = 1 3 7 0 1
We see that at n = 7 , we need at least 1 3 7 0 1 people to guarantee a triangle. In addition, at n = 6 , we need at least 1 9 5 8 people. Thus, the maximum possible value of n is 6 .