2

Let $(x_1,x_2,x_3,\dots,x_{77})$ be positive numbers. Use the pigeonhole principle to show that, if $\sum_{i=1}^{77}{x_{i}} = 140$, then there exist $j$ and $k$ such that $\sum_{i=j}^{k}{x_{i}} = 13$.

madprob
  • 2,865
roi
  • 21

1 Answers1

2

Consider the fact that $\sum\limits_{k=i}^{j}x_{k}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{j}x_{k}-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{i-1}x_{k}$. In other word, you only need to care about the partial sum $s_{i}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{i}x_{k}$.

Possible value of all $s_{i}$ and $s_{i}+13$ run from $1$ to $140+13=153$. No 2 partial sum have the same value. Assuming there is no 2 partial sum with a difference of $13$, then every partial sum with value $s_{i}$ will rule out 1 more possible value $s_{i}+13$ in the range from $1$ to $153$. Hence each $s_{i}$ would rule out a total of $2$ value.

There are $77$ possible partial sum. If each of them rule out $2$ possible value among $153$ possible value, then there would be contradiction since $77\times 2=154>153$.

Gina
  • 5,338
  • There can be overlaps that rule out the same sums. If there are sequences that sum to 11,37,63,99,125 we only rule out five others, not 10 – Ross Millikan Jan 03 '14 at 12:18
  • @RossMillikan: no: 11 rule out 11 and 24; 37 rule out 37 and 50; 63 rule out 63 and 76; 99 rule out 99 and 112; 125 rule out 125 and 138. 5 other, but total is 10. We only rule out upward, so there is no overlap. Your comment would have applied if all 3 $s_{i}-13,s_{i},s_{i}+13$ are ruled out; which is why I only rule out $s_{i},s_{i}+13$ to avoid overlap issue. – Gina Jan 03 '14 at 12:31
  • @roi: each number is positive. In fact, the partial sums are strictly increasing. – Gina Jan 03 '14 at 12:44
  • oops.... I missunderstood the meaning.... – roi Jan 03 '14 at 12:45
  • thank you very much. but I didn't fully understand the final prove. I would say that if we rule out every s+13, we will have maximum 76 sums but there are 77 so 1 sum must be s+13 and we proved it.. – roi Jan 03 '14 at 13:03
  • Well it's essentially the same thing. Since you want to use pigeon hole, which I why I wrote that way. – Gina Jan 03 '14 at 13:09
  • I did use it . 77>75... – roi Jan 03 '14 at 13:13