Let a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , . . . , a 1 6 be 1 6 distinct positive integers that have the following property:
There is at least one way in which the 1 6 integers can be arranged in eight pairs, such that there are 2 5 6 distinct sums that can be obtained by choosing one integer from each of the eight pairs.
Find the least possible value of a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + . . . + a 1 6 .
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.
Why is the lowest possible sum of the 16 integers when the b-set is equal to the minimum powers of 2? How is this solution guaranteeing that there are 256 distinct sums?
Log in to reply
You want to make the b-set as small as possible while guaranteeing 256 distinct sums—meaning you want the sums to be every number from 0 to 255. Think about these numbers in binary representation: from 00000000 (or simply 0) to 11111111. As the lowest powers of 2 are equal to 1, 10, 100,..., 10000000 in binary representation, you can get every number from a combination of these powers of 2. E.g. 2 0 0 = 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 + 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 + 1 0 0 0 2 = 1 2 8 + 6 4 + 8 .
I did similar thing. i made mistake in case of choosing a1,a2,...a8.
I did the same but had { 9 , 1 0 } , { 6 , 8 } , { 7 , 1 1 } . . .
I originally misread the question (the question is clearly stated, that is my own fault) in that I was looking for 256 distinct sums of the subsets when the 16 integers are separated into pairs (including the zero subset and subsets of single integers). Meaning you separate into 8 pairs and choosing an integer from each pair produces 256 distinct values for the subsets. That is an interesting question in itself to find the lowest possible sum of a1, a2,....,a16.
Anyway, when I finally figured out what the question was here I looked at the most optimal set of sums when we have 3 pairs.
I found two ways to arrange the pairs with integers 1 to 6. {1,6} {2,5} {3,4} and {1,3} {2,6} {4,5}.
The latter is the more optimal.
In the latter pairing the 8 sums produced are consecutive integers (7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14).
Whereas in the former pairing the sums produced are not consecutive (6,7,9,10,11,12,14,15).
Therefore considering the most optimal pairing with 3 pairs we can make a logical guess of what the most optimal would be with 4 pairs.
We would convert {1,3} {2,6} {4,5} to {2,4} {3,7} {5,6} and add {1,9} as the next pair. This would give us 16 consecutive sums for 4 pairs. Therefore we can continue this process.
So for 5 pairs we would convert {1,9} {2,4} {3,7} {5,6} to {2,10} {3,5} {4,8} {6,7} and we would add {1,17} as our 5th pair.
So by the 8th pair we have {1,129} {2,66} {3,35} {4,20} {5,13} {6,8} {7,11} {9,10}
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let the eight pairs be { a 1 , a 1 + b 1 } , { a 2 , a 2 + b 2 } , { a 3 , a 3 + b 3 } , . . . , { a 8 , a 8 + b 8 } , where b 1 , b 2 , b 3 , . . . , b 8 are positive integers.
The sum obtained by choosing one integer from each pair is equal to the sum obtained from { 0 , b 1 } , { 0 , b 2 } , { 0 , b 3 } , . . . , { 0 , b 8 } plus a 1 + a 2 + a 3 + . . . + a 8 .
The lowest possible sum of the 1 6 integers can be found when b 1 , b 2 , b 3 , . . . , b 8 are equal to the minimum powers of 2 - i.e. 1 , 2 , 4 , 8 , . . . , 1 2 8 .
Then we need to find a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , . . . , a 8 . Setting them as the first eight natural numbers would not work, but they can be 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 . In this case, the eight pairs would be:
{ 7 , 8 } , { 9 , 1 1 } , { 6 , 1 0 } , { 5 , 1 3 } , { 4 , 2 0 } , { 3 , 3 5 } , { 2 , 6 6 } , { 1 , 1 2 9 }
Giving the sum of 3 2 9 .