Help me with Combinatorics

Can you please help me with this problem?

There are nn persons which live on a planet. It is known that their planet has 66 languages and each of the nn persons knows every language. It is also known that any two people communicate with just one of the six languages. What is the minimum value of nn such that there always exists a trio which mutually communicates with each other in the same language?

Note by Vikram Waradpande
5 years, 8 months ago

No vote yet
20 votes

</code>...<code></code> ... <code>.">   Easy Math Editor

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold

- bulleted
- list

  • bulleted
  • list

1. numbered
2. list

  1. numbered
  2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1

paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
    # 4 spaces, and now they show
    # up as a code block.

    print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in </span>...<span></span> ... <span> or </span>...<span></span> ... <span> to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 2×3 2 \times 3
2^{34} 234 2^{34}
a_{i-1} ai1 a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3} 23 \frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2} 2 \sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3 i=13 \sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta sinθ \sin \theta
\boxed{123} 123 \boxed{123}

Comments

Sort by:

Top Newest

Check out Ramsey numbers. See also here.

In the case where there are 2 languages, the number R(m,n)R(m,n) is the smallest positive integer NN such that if among NN people, any two people communicate with exactly one of the two languages, then one of the following must happen:

  • you can find mm people who communicate in language 1, or
  • you can find nn people who communicate in language 2.

The simplest non-trivial case is R(3,3)=6R(3, 3) = 6. It's also known that R(3,4)=9R(3,4) = 9 and R(4,4)=18R(4,4) = 18. But in general, not much is known except a rather weak upper bound.

For 3 languages, we have R(3,3,3)=17R(3,3,3) = 17. Even less is known in the general case.

For 4 languages, the case of R(3,3,3,3)R(3,3,3,3) is open as far as I know. What you're asking for is R(3,3,3,3,3,3)R(3,3,3,3,3,3) which I doubt is anywhere close to being known.

C Lim - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

that should be 5

Kshitij Khandelwal - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Generalizing the problem a bit, assuming that there are mm different languages it can be shown quite straightforwardly (using a trick, called Local Lemma) that for all n<m212+3n < \frac{m^2}{12}+3 there exists a language assignment such that no trio is formed. Hence necessarily we have to consider nm212+3n \geq \frac{m^2}{12}+3, that is n6n\geq 6 in this case.

Abhishek Sinha - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

I doubt your answer n = 6. Here, below is a list to show why I think you are wrong. Let the 6 people of the planet be represented by 6 integers from 1 to 6 and the six languages be represented by first 6 alphabets of English. Each item below represents the language a particular pair speaks.

['a', 1, 2]

['a', 2, 4]

['a', 4, 5]

['b', 1, 3]

['b', 2, 5]

['b', 4, 6]

['c', 1, 4]

['c', 2, 6]

['c', 5, 6]

['d', 1, 5]

['d', 3, 4]

['e', 1, 6]

['e', 3, 5]

['f', 2, 3]

['f', 3, 6]

In the above example are provided all the pairs of the population possible and in which language they talk with each other. For a trio that speaks the same language, at least three of the persons must communicate with each other using the same language which is not so.

Lokesh Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

I didn't say n=6n=6. I said n6n \geq 6.

Abhishek Sinha - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Abhishek Sinha Opps! I didn't quite see that. I thought you meant that it's true for any n in n6n \geq 6.

Lokesh Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Isn't (1,2,4) ( 1, 2, 4 ) a trio that speaks a 'a' in your example?

Christopher Johnson - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Christopher Johnson No because 1-4 communicates in language.

Rushi Rokad - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Christopher Johnson No, because 1-4 communicate in language c'c'.

Lokesh Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Lokesh Sharma Gotcha. I somehow missed the "mutual" part.

Christopher Johnson - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Assuming I understand the problem correctly, given n n people, there are (n2) {n \choose 2} couplings of people who speak a single language with each other. Since there are 6 6 languages, the first n n for which (n2)>6 {n \choose 2} > 6 should be the answer. (42)=6 {4 \choose 2} = 6 and (52)=10 {5 \choose 2} = 10 , so 5 5 .

Perhaps it's supposed to be a bit of a surprise that it can be 5 people when there's 6 languages?

Christopher Johnson - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

I do not understand what you are trying to say, and I think that you misunderstood the question. You are supposed to find 3 people who pairwise communicate in the same language, and not show that the number of pairs of people is more than 6.

For example, in a group of 5 people, labelled p1,p2,p3,p4,p5 p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4, p_5 , if the pairs pi,pi+1 p_i, p_{i+1} communicate in the English language, and pairs pi,pi+2 p_{i}, p_{i+2} communicate in the Chinese language, then you cannot find 3 people, such that each pair communicates in the exact same language. Hence, n>5 n > 5 .

Calvin Lin Staff - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

I believe what Calvin meant is: If Tom speaks english to Susan and Tom speaks english to Bob, we don't nessecarily have that Susan speaks english to Bob.

Ton de Moree - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

@Ton de Moree Yeah, the "mutual" part didn't fully register the first time I read the question. I was just looking for two pairs of people who speak the same language and have a common member (a "chain" instead of a "triangle," so to speak).

Christopher Johnson - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

hey! i m new in this.... i wil be back after a day!

Abdul Saboor Khan - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

I thought designing an algorithm that does the job to find the right answer but couldn't do it due to one problem. The algorithm does the following things step by step.

  1. For a given nn, it randomly divides all the possible pairs into 66 sets. Each set include all those pairs that speak the same language.

  2. Secondly, it looks into every set one at a time.

  3. In every set it looks for a trio. A trio is like this (a,b)(a, b), (b,c)(b,c) , (a,c)(a, c). The presence of a trio provide evidence that a trio exists.

  4. It runs this process this process a thousand or million times and returns the number of times such a trio is found or not. Even if a single time there is not a trio found, it discard the number and turns to another higher value of nn and repeats the whole process once again.

The problem I am facing is in third step in which it searches a trio. Need some help figuring out an algorithm that takes a set and returns True if there is a trio formed.

Lokesh Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

I was going to write a bunch of advice here, but it struck me that this problem would be ideal for a Brilliant contest! "Find the lowest N N you can for R(3,3,3,3,3,3) R(3,3,3,3,3,3) ." It's apparently an open problem and quite hard. Plus, since we could submit just our data (arrangement of pairs into languages), it would be programming language agnostic, and a daily leaderboard could be computed. Something for the Brilliant folks to consider.

Christopher Johnson - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

I agree. The complexity of problem is tremendously high, making it hard to solve using customary methods. This makes it optimal for a challenge.

Lokesh Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

What is love?

Gautam Singhania - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

No point asking it here.

Lokesh Sharma - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Baby don't hurt me, baby don't hurt me... no more... But seriously, why did you post this irrelevant comment?

Daniel Liu - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

It means nothing to a tennis player. That's as far as I can help.

Dan Krol - 5 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...