4

I have a problem I don't seem to be able to solve other than by brute force.

Consider the increasing sequences of $n$ positive integer numbers such that all the $n−1$ differences between any two consecutive numbers of the sequence are different from one other and from any number in the sequence.

For example, if we have a sequence of 3 numbers $\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}$, the numbers $a_1, a_2, a_3, (a_2−a_1)$ and $(a_3−a_2)$ must be all different, as in $\{2,3,7\}$, because $2 \neq 3 \neq 7 \neq 3−2 \neq 7−3$.

For each $n$, find the minimum possible value of the sum of all numbers of a sequence.

In the example above, $2+3+7=12$ but $\{1,4,6\}$ has sum $11$, so for $n=3$ the minimum sum is $11$.

Can you find the value for $n=15$? can you find a general formula?

Update 1:

The values I've found are $1,4,11,22,39,63$ for $n=1$ to 6 respectively.

In some cases the sequences with minimum sum are unique. For example, $n=4$ only $\{1,4,6,11\}$ adds up to 22; for $n=5$ only $\{1,5,7,10,16\}$ has sum 39.

For others values of $n$, there are multiple minimal sequences. For $n=3$, besides the sequence in the example above, $\{1,3,7\}$ adds up to 11 as well. For $n=6$ there are 4 sequences whose sum is 63.

For $n=7$ the best I could do is 94 (6 distinct sequences, 2 starting with 3), but I'm not sure it is minimal.

Update 2:

OESIS A005228 (thanks @JwJJJJ) provides sequences that respect the rules, but are not minimal, hence their sum is an upper bound.

For the term $a_n$ of A005228 (as shown by @C Squared in the answer below, thanks):

$0 ≤ a_{n+2} − 2 a_{n+1} + a_n − 1 ≤ 1$

It looks like that for the sum of the first $n$ terms $S_n$:

$0 ≤ S_{n+3} − 3 S_{n+2} + 3 S_{n+1} − S_n − 1 ≤ 1$

Solving the difference equation, we find that the upper bound is:

$\frac {1} {6} (6 − 7 n + 6 n^2 + n^3) ≤ S_n ≤ \frac{1}{3} (2 n + n^3)$

I'm confident one can find a better estimate than $n^3$, but not sure that the exponent could reach as low as 2.

geon
  • 41
  • Maybe someone can, but what have you tried? – Ishraaq Parvez Apr 06 '21 at 02:02
  • My first try, which might not work, would be to assume that $a_1 = 1.$ Then, when calculating $a_{n+1}$, look for the minimum possible value. For example, since $a_1 = 1, a_2$ can't equal $(2)$. With $a_2 = 3, a_3$ can't equal $4,5,$ or $6$. Following this road, try to manually calculate $a_3, a_4, a_5, a_6,$ and $a_7$. Try to form a hypothesis about the minimum value of $a_n$, in terms of $n$. Try to prove your hypothesis, which won't be easy. For example, what happens if $a_2$ is set to $4$, instead of $3$. Please edit your query to show all of your work. – user2661923 Apr 06 '21 at 02:15
  • Please do not respond with a comment. – user2661923 Apr 06 '21 at 02:16
  • @user2661923 is essentially saying use a greedy approach, which is what comes to mind naturally. – fwd Apr 06 '21 at 02:17
  • 2
    @fwd except that proving that the greedy approach is optimal seems like it may be difficult. – user2661923 Apr 06 '21 at 02:18
  • It may be a trap to think that you can use induction to prove that the greedy approach is optimal. Just because you minimize the next term in the sequence and minimize the next partial sum of the elements in the sequence may not be sufficient to prove that the greedy approach is optimal. – user2661923 Apr 06 '21 at 02:22
  • In fact, now that I think about it, I think that the OP needs to share the background of this problem. That is, if the problem is from a book/class, what theorems, worked examples, or previously solved problems do you, the OP, think might be relevant. This background may help ferret out the intent of the problem composer, which may facilitate the necessary analysis. – user2661923 Apr 06 '21 at 02:26
  • 2
    I only managed to do it by brute force and I don't see a pattern in solutions I've found so far. The values I've found are 1,4,11,22,39,63 for n from 1 to 6 respectively. In some cases the sequences with minimum sum are unique (for example n=4 only {1,4,6,11} adds up to 22; for n=5 only {1,5,7,10,16} has sum 39) while others are not (for n=3, {1,3,7} adds up to 11 too; for n=6 there are 4 sequences whose sum is 63). For 7 the best I could do is 94 (6 distinct sequences, 2 starting with 3), but I'm not sure it is minimal. – geon Apr 06 '21 at 03:17
  • 1
    @geon, maybe you can find some useful information on https://oeis.org/A005228 – JwJJJJ Apr 06 '21 at 04:02
  • If this problem is from a book/class, then I suggest that it is time to play poker. What this means, is (re my previous comment) try to use the tools to determine the intent of the composer (or have mathSE reviewers try to determine the intent of the composer). – user2661923 Apr 06 '21 at 05:23
  • 1
    I'm not a student, this problem was non proposed in a book or class. It was proposed by a friend who often comes up with little problems like this but this turned out to be more complicated than he anticipated. – geon Apr 06 '21 at 10:13
  • @fwd indeed! OESIS A005228 (thanks @JwJJJ) provides sequences that respect the rules, but are not minimal, hence their sum is an upper bound. It looks like (i.e. I have not formally proved yet) that, for the term a(n) of A005228, 0 ≤ a(n+2) − 2 a(n+1) + a(n) − 1 ≤ 1, and, for the sum of the first n terms S(n), 0 ≤ S(n+3) − 3 S(n+2) + 3 S(n+1) − S(n) − 1 ≤ 1. Solving the difference equation, we find that the upper bound is 1/6 (6 − 7 n + 6 n² + n³) ≤ S(n) ≤ 1/3 (2 n + n³). I'm confident one can find a better estimate than n³, but not sure that the exponent could reach as low as 2. – geon Apr 06 '21 at 13:13

1 Answers1

1

This is not an answer, just a long comment

Edit: I undeleted this just in case. If its not of any substantial use, just let me know.

From playing around with this for a bit, it seems like the first few terms of a minimal sequence would be given by the following (I add a zero term for convenience):$$0,1,3,7,12,18,26,35,45,56,69,83,98,114,131,150$$

Organizing this and looking for some more patterns, we see that

$$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline n & 0&1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 & 15\\ \hline a_n & 0 & 1 & 3 & 7 & 12 & 18 & 26 & 35 & 45 & 56 & 69 & 83 & 98 & 114 & 131 & 150\\ \hline a_{n+1}-a_n &1 & \color{blue}{2} & \color{red}4 & \color{red}5 & \color{red}6 & \color{green}8 & \color{green}9 & \color{green}{10} & \color{green}{11} & \color{orange}{13} & \color{orange}{14} & \color{orange}{15} & \color{orange}{16} & \color{orange}{17} & 19 & 20\\ \hline &\color{red}1& \color{blue}2 & \color{red}1 & \color{red}1 & \color{blue}2 & \color{red}1& \color{red}1&\color{red}1&\color{blue}2&\color{red}1&\color{red}1&\color{red}1&\color{red}1&\color{blue}2&\color{red}1&\color{red}1\\ \hline \end{array} $$

The idea is that you want to be able to list every natural number exactly once using the differences of consecutive terms along with the terms in the sequence, so the terms only increase when they are forced to. Interestingly, if we define $b_n=a_{n+1}-a_n$ and investigate $b_{n+1}-b_n$ (the last row of the array) we see that a binary sequence appears, where after $n$ consecutive $\color{red}1$'s, we flip to a $\color{blue}2$.

If we set $c_n=b_{n+1}-b_n$, then we see that, through a crafty oeis search, $$c_n=\begin{cases}2 &\text{ if }n\equiv \frac{m(m+3)}{2}\\ 1&\text{ if else}\end{cases}$$

Working backwards and expanding, we find that $$a_{n+2}=2a_{n+1}-a_n+c_n$$ which gives a solid start at a recursive definition for $a_1=1$ and $a_2=3$. If there is a closed form for $c_n$, then we would be fairly close to being done, but I highly doubt it. Some ideas I was trying for $c_n$ was to either get some function of the type $(-1)^{g(n)}$ in order to flip back and forth between $-1$ and $1$, try and come up with an expression for it in terms of the $\sin$ or $\cos$ functions, or encode $c_n$ in a polynomial.

As a closing observation, if we look at the sum over the first several terms of $a_n$, we get the partial sums given by \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline n & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 & 15\\ \hline \sum_{k=1}^{n} a_k & 0 & 1 & 4 & 11 & 23 & 41 & 67 & 102 & 147 & 203 & 272 & 355 & 453 & 567 & 698 & 848\\ \hline \end{array}

C Squared
  • 3,648
  • 1
  • 9
  • 32
  • Thank you for your reply! I was looking into the same aspects as you can read in my update above, but you are more thorough and rigorous in your analysis. The sequence you provide is OESIS A005228, but it is not minimal. It gives though an upper bound to the sums of the minimal sequence and it's a good starting point. Not sure how to move forward from this point though. – geon Apr 07 '21 at 12:48
  • your welcome. I actually really like this problem and thought i would give it a try and share what i thought would work. i was reading you new edits and i remembered that my recursive formula wasn't too far off from the one you found. hopefully you make some more progress. good luck – C Squared Apr 07 '21 at 12:52
  • 1
    You have demonstrated it, which is an important step. Let's see if someone with better mathematical knowledge than mine can move further from here. – geon Apr 07 '21 at 12:55
  • No updates... sigh. – geon Apr 10 '21 at 01:24
  • @geon have you considered placing a bounty on this problem? – C Squared Apr 10 '21 at 01:28
  • how do you mean a bounty? – geon Apr 10 '21 at 01:44
  • @geon look in the comment section underneath this question and it should say start bounty. here is a link for further details https://math.stackexchange.com/help/bounty – C Squared Apr 10 '21 at 02:00