Pigeon hole principle: Prove that any set of six positive integers whose sum is 13 must contain at least one...
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Prove that any set of six positive integers whose sum is 13 must contain at least one subset whose sum is three.
My work. I am trying by using the Pigeon hole principle. I have proved that at least two non-empty disjoint subsets have the same sum but can't go any further.
discrete-mathematics pigeonhole-principle
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Prove that any set of six positive integers whose sum is 13 must contain at least one subset whose sum is three.
My work. I am trying by using the Pigeon hole principle. I have proved that at least two non-empty disjoint subsets have the same sum but can't go any further.
discrete-mathematics pigeonhole-principle
New contributor
Can you show your work? You will get better help.
– tarit goswami
13 hours ago
The question specifically asks for the use of Pigeon hole principle. Since each of the six numbers is not distinct, and a subset need not be of consecutive numbers, I couldn't really apply the principle. So far, I have established that there are 63 non-empty subsets, the sum of each of which lies between 1 and 13. Therefore, at least 5 subsets have the same sum. Removing the common elements from any two, we can get a pair of disjoint sets. But the problem is still not solved.
– Divyansh Hardia
12 hours ago
1
There are no sets of positive integers with six members whose sum is 13. (The elements of a set are distinct by definition.)
– David Hartley
8 hours ago
Please consider identical elements.
– Divyansh Hardia
7 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Prove that any set of six positive integers whose sum is 13 must contain at least one subset whose sum is three.
My work. I am trying by using the Pigeon hole principle. I have proved that at least two non-empty disjoint subsets have the same sum but can't go any further.
discrete-mathematics pigeonhole-principle
New contributor
Prove that any set of six positive integers whose sum is 13 must contain at least one subset whose sum is three.
My work. I am trying by using the Pigeon hole principle. I have proved that at least two non-empty disjoint subsets have the same sum but can't go any further.
discrete-mathematics pigeonhole-principle
discrete-mathematics pigeonhole-principle
New contributor
New contributor
edited 12 hours ago
Robert Z
90.3k1056128
90.3k1056128
New contributor
asked 13 hours ago
Divyansh Hardia
141
141
New contributor
New contributor
Can you show your work? You will get better help.
– tarit goswami
13 hours ago
The question specifically asks for the use of Pigeon hole principle. Since each of the six numbers is not distinct, and a subset need not be of consecutive numbers, I couldn't really apply the principle. So far, I have established that there are 63 non-empty subsets, the sum of each of which lies between 1 and 13. Therefore, at least 5 subsets have the same sum. Removing the common elements from any two, we can get a pair of disjoint sets. But the problem is still not solved.
– Divyansh Hardia
12 hours ago
1
There are no sets of positive integers with six members whose sum is 13. (The elements of a set are distinct by definition.)
– David Hartley
8 hours ago
Please consider identical elements.
– Divyansh Hardia
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Can you show your work? You will get better help.
– tarit goswami
13 hours ago
The question specifically asks for the use of Pigeon hole principle. Since each of the six numbers is not distinct, and a subset need not be of consecutive numbers, I couldn't really apply the principle. So far, I have established that there are 63 non-empty subsets, the sum of each of which lies between 1 and 13. Therefore, at least 5 subsets have the same sum. Removing the common elements from any two, we can get a pair of disjoint sets. But the problem is still not solved.
– Divyansh Hardia
12 hours ago
1
There are no sets of positive integers with six members whose sum is 13. (The elements of a set are distinct by definition.)
– David Hartley
8 hours ago
Please consider identical elements.
– Divyansh Hardia
7 hours ago
Can you show your work? You will get better help.
– tarit goswami
13 hours ago
Can you show your work? You will get better help.
– tarit goswami
13 hours ago
The question specifically asks for the use of Pigeon hole principle. Since each of the six numbers is not distinct, and a subset need not be of consecutive numbers, I couldn't really apply the principle. So far, I have established that there are 63 non-empty subsets, the sum of each of which lies between 1 and 13. Therefore, at least 5 subsets have the same sum. Removing the common elements from any two, we can get a pair of disjoint sets. But the problem is still not solved.
– Divyansh Hardia
12 hours ago
The question specifically asks for the use of Pigeon hole principle. Since each of the six numbers is not distinct, and a subset need not be of consecutive numbers, I couldn't really apply the principle. So far, I have established that there are 63 non-empty subsets, the sum of each of which lies between 1 and 13. Therefore, at least 5 subsets have the same sum. Removing the common elements from any two, we can get a pair of disjoint sets. But the problem is still not solved.
– Divyansh Hardia
12 hours ago
1
1
There are no sets of positive integers with six members whose sum is 13. (The elements of a set are distinct by definition.)
– David Hartley
8 hours ago
There are no sets of positive integers with six members whose sum is 13. (The elements of a set are distinct by definition.)
– David Hartley
8 hours ago
Please consider identical elements.
– Divyansh Hardia
7 hours ago
Please consider identical elements.
– Divyansh Hardia
7 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Hint. Let $1leq a_1leq a_2leq a_3leq a_4leq a_5leq a_6$. We know that $sum_{k=1}^n a_k=13$.
Now consider the following cases:
1) If $a_4geq 4$ then $$10=13-1-1-1geq 13-a_1-a_2-a_3\=a_4+a_5+a_6geq 4cdot 3=12$$
which is a contradiction.
2) If $a_4=3$ then ...
3) If $a_4leq 2$ then ...
I don't think that the Pigeonhole principle is strictly necessary here.
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
(Not pigeonhole)The numbers in the set $S$ cannot all be distinct, because you will get more than 13 as sum otherwise. So there has to have repeat. The only way to get 3 is $1+2$, $1+1+1$ or $3$. so It suffices to show $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Suppose not,
case 1: $S$ contains no 3 and less than three 1 and no 2. Then $S$ contains at most two 1 and the rest are at least 4 which is not possible.
case 2: $S$ contains no 3 and no 1. It is not possible again.
So $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Then you can get a subset whose sum is 3?
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Clearly, some of the elements in the set must be below $4$. (Otherwise, the sum would be at least $4 cdot 6 =24$.)
Now we argue by contradiction. Suppose no subset has sum $3$. Then in particular, $3$ cannot occur in the set, and either $1$ or $2$ may not occur.
Suppose $1$ does not occur. If all elements equal $2$, the sum is $12$ instead of $13$. If at least one element is at least $4$, then the sum is at least $2+2+2+2+2+4=14$, contradiction.
Suppose $2$ does not occur. Note that there can be at most two $1$'s. So the total sum is at least $1+1+4+4+4+4=18$, contradiction.
As each case leads to a contradiction, we conclude that our initial assumption that no subset has sum $3$ must be false.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The set cannot contain the number 3.
Now consider how many of the numbers can be $ge 4$. Clearly there can not be more than three of them, or the sum would be $ge 13$. There can not be three either, because the sum of the other three numbers would be $ge 3$ and the sum of all 6 would be $ge 15$.
So there are at most 2 numbers $ge 4$, i.e. there are at least 4 numbers $le 2$.
If any of those four numbers is $1$, there is a subset ${1,2}$ or ${1,1,1}$ which sums to $3$.
Therefore, there are at least $4$ numbers equal to $2$, and the other numbers are all $ge 4$.
But that is impossible, because if all six numbers are equal to $2$ the sum is $12$, and if four or five are equal to 2 the sum is $ge 13$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Represent the problem in the following manner.
You have 6 pigeonholes (representing each integer) and 13 pigeons (the total sum). Each hole must have at least one pigeon for the integers to be positive, so you can equivalently consider a problem with 6 pigeonholes and 7 pigeons (with some holes possibly having zero pigeons). Hey, that's kinda familiar...
By PHP, in the equivalent problem at least one hole must have 2 pigeons. Further, that hole can't have exactly 2 (since that'd represent 3 as a number), so it has to have at least 3.
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: is another hole is forced to have an exact number of pigeons now?
New contributor
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Hint. Let $1leq a_1leq a_2leq a_3leq a_4leq a_5leq a_6$. We know that $sum_{k=1}^n a_k=13$.
Now consider the following cases:
1) If $a_4geq 4$ then $$10=13-1-1-1geq 13-a_1-a_2-a_3\=a_4+a_5+a_6geq 4cdot 3=12$$
which is a contradiction.
2) If $a_4=3$ then ...
3) If $a_4leq 2$ then ...
I don't think that the Pigeonhole principle is strictly necessary here.
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Hint. Let $1leq a_1leq a_2leq a_3leq a_4leq a_5leq a_6$. We know that $sum_{k=1}^n a_k=13$.
Now consider the following cases:
1) If $a_4geq 4$ then $$10=13-1-1-1geq 13-a_1-a_2-a_3\=a_4+a_5+a_6geq 4cdot 3=12$$
which is a contradiction.
2) If $a_4=3$ then ...
3) If $a_4leq 2$ then ...
I don't think that the Pigeonhole principle is strictly necessary here.
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Hint. Let $1leq a_1leq a_2leq a_3leq a_4leq a_5leq a_6$. We know that $sum_{k=1}^n a_k=13$.
Now consider the following cases:
1) If $a_4geq 4$ then $$10=13-1-1-1geq 13-a_1-a_2-a_3\=a_4+a_5+a_6geq 4cdot 3=12$$
which is a contradiction.
2) If $a_4=3$ then ...
3) If $a_4leq 2$ then ...
I don't think that the Pigeonhole principle is strictly necessary here.
Hint. Let $1leq a_1leq a_2leq a_3leq a_4leq a_5leq a_6$. We know that $sum_{k=1}^n a_k=13$.
Now consider the following cases:
1) If $a_4geq 4$ then $$10=13-1-1-1geq 13-a_1-a_2-a_3\=a_4+a_5+a_6geq 4cdot 3=12$$
which is a contradiction.
2) If $a_4=3$ then ...
3) If $a_4leq 2$ then ...
I don't think that the Pigeonhole principle is strictly necessary here.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
Robert Z
90.3k1056128
90.3k1056128
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
add a comment |
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
I tried to do something similar, but starting with $a_1ge3$ and $a_1lt3$. However, the case ${2,2,2,2,2,3}$ was quite boring to solve. Does assuming properties on $a_3$ rather than $a_1$ help proving it quickly?
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
@F.Carette See my edit. Is it quicker?
– Robert Z
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
A bit quicker indeed! +1
– F.Carette
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
(Not pigeonhole)The numbers in the set $S$ cannot all be distinct, because you will get more than 13 as sum otherwise. So there has to have repeat. The only way to get 3 is $1+2$, $1+1+1$ or $3$. so It suffices to show $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Suppose not,
case 1: $S$ contains no 3 and less than three 1 and no 2. Then $S$ contains at most two 1 and the rest are at least 4 which is not possible.
case 2: $S$ contains no 3 and no 1. It is not possible again.
So $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Then you can get a subset whose sum is 3?
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
(Not pigeonhole)The numbers in the set $S$ cannot all be distinct, because you will get more than 13 as sum otherwise. So there has to have repeat. The only way to get 3 is $1+2$, $1+1+1$ or $3$. so It suffices to show $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Suppose not,
case 1: $S$ contains no 3 and less than three 1 and no 2. Then $S$ contains at most two 1 and the rest are at least 4 which is not possible.
case 2: $S$ contains no 3 and no 1. It is not possible again.
So $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Then you can get a subset whose sum is 3?
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
(Not pigeonhole)The numbers in the set $S$ cannot all be distinct, because you will get more than 13 as sum otherwise. So there has to have repeat. The only way to get 3 is $1+2$, $1+1+1$ or $3$. so It suffices to show $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Suppose not,
case 1: $S$ contains no 3 and less than three 1 and no 2. Then $S$ contains at most two 1 and the rest are at least 4 which is not possible.
case 2: $S$ contains no 3 and no 1. It is not possible again.
So $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Then you can get a subset whose sum is 3?
(Not pigeonhole)The numbers in the set $S$ cannot all be distinct, because you will get more than 13 as sum otherwise. So there has to have repeat. The only way to get 3 is $1+2$, $1+1+1$ or $3$. so It suffices to show $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Suppose not,
case 1: $S$ contains no 3 and less than three 1 and no 2. Then $S$ contains at most two 1 and the rest are at least 4 which is not possible.
case 2: $S$ contains no 3 and no 1. It is not possible again.
So $S$ contains at least one 3 or at least three 1's or at least one 1 and one 2. Then you can get a subset whose sum is 3?
answered 12 hours ago
mathnoob
73211
73211
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Clearly, some of the elements in the set must be below $4$. (Otherwise, the sum would be at least $4 cdot 6 =24$.)
Now we argue by contradiction. Suppose no subset has sum $3$. Then in particular, $3$ cannot occur in the set, and either $1$ or $2$ may not occur.
Suppose $1$ does not occur. If all elements equal $2$, the sum is $12$ instead of $13$. If at least one element is at least $4$, then the sum is at least $2+2+2+2+2+4=14$, contradiction.
Suppose $2$ does not occur. Note that there can be at most two $1$'s. So the total sum is at least $1+1+4+4+4+4=18$, contradiction.
As each case leads to a contradiction, we conclude that our initial assumption that no subset has sum $3$ must be false.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Clearly, some of the elements in the set must be below $4$. (Otherwise, the sum would be at least $4 cdot 6 =24$.)
Now we argue by contradiction. Suppose no subset has sum $3$. Then in particular, $3$ cannot occur in the set, and either $1$ or $2$ may not occur.
Suppose $1$ does not occur. If all elements equal $2$, the sum is $12$ instead of $13$. If at least one element is at least $4$, then the sum is at least $2+2+2+2+2+4=14$, contradiction.
Suppose $2$ does not occur. Note that there can be at most two $1$'s. So the total sum is at least $1+1+4+4+4+4=18$, contradiction.
As each case leads to a contradiction, we conclude that our initial assumption that no subset has sum $3$ must be false.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Clearly, some of the elements in the set must be below $4$. (Otherwise, the sum would be at least $4 cdot 6 =24$.)
Now we argue by contradiction. Suppose no subset has sum $3$. Then in particular, $3$ cannot occur in the set, and either $1$ or $2$ may not occur.
Suppose $1$ does not occur. If all elements equal $2$, the sum is $12$ instead of $13$. If at least one element is at least $4$, then the sum is at least $2+2+2+2+2+4=14$, contradiction.
Suppose $2$ does not occur. Note that there can be at most two $1$'s. So the total sum is at least $1+1+4+4+4+4=18$, contradiction.
As each case leads to a contradiction, we conclude that our initial assumption that no subset has sum $3$ must be false.
Clearly, some of the elements in the set must be below $4$. (Otherwise, the sum would be at least $4 cdot 6 =24$.)
Now we argue by contradiction. Suppose no subset has sum $3$. Then in particular, $3$ cannot occur in the set, and either $1$ or $2$ may not occur.
Suppose $1$ does not occur. If all elements equal $2$, the sum is $12$ instead of $13$. If at least one element is at least $4$, then the sum is at least $2+2+2+2+2+4=14$, contradiction.
Suppose $2$ does not occur. Note that there can be at most two $1$'s. So the total sum is at least $1+1+4+4+4+4=18$, contradiction.
As each case leads to a contradiction, we conclude that our initial assumption that no subset has sum $3$ must be false.
answered 10 hours ago
user133281
13.5k22551
13.5k22551
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The set cannot contain the number 3.
Now consider how many of the numbers can be $ge 4$. Clearly there can not be more than three of them, or the sum would be $ge 13$. There can not be three either, because the sum of the other three numbers would be $ge 3$ and the sum of all 6 would be $ge 15$.
So there are at most 2 numbers $ge 4$, i.e. there are at least 4 numbers $le 2$.
If any of those four numbers is $1$, there is a subset ${1,2}$ or ${1,1,1}$ which sums to $3$.
Therefore, there are at least $4$ numbers equal to $2$, and the other numbers are all $ge 4$.
But that is impossible, because if all six numbers are equal to $2$ the sum is $12$, and if four or five are equal to 2 the sum is $ge 13$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The set cannot contain the number 3.
Now consider how many of the numbers can be $ge 4$. Clearly there can not be more than three of them, or the sum would be $ge 13$. There can not be three either, because the sum of the other three numbers would be $ge 3$ and the sum of all 6 would be $ge 15$.
So there are at most 2 numbers $ge 4$, i.e. there are at least 4 numbers $le 2$.
If any of those four numbers is $1$, there is a subset ${1,2}$ or ${1,1,1}$ which sums to $3$.
Therefore, there are at least $4$ numbers equal to $2$, and the other numbers are all $ge 4$.
But that is impossible, because if all six numbers are equal to $2$ the sum is $12$, and if four or five are equal to 2 the sum is $ge 13$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The set cannot contain the number 3.
Now consider how many of the numbers can be $ge 4$. Clearly there can not be more than three of them, or the sum would be $ge 13$. There can not be three either, because the sum of the other three numbers would be $ge 3$ and the sum of all 6 would be $ge 15$.
So there are at most 2 numbers $ge 4$, i.e. there are at least 4 numbers $le 2$.
If any of those four numbers is $1$, there is a subset ${1,2}$ or ${1,1,1}$ which sums to $3$.
Therefore, there are at least $4$ numbers equal to $2$, and the other numbers are all $ge 4$.
But that is impossible, because if all six numbers are equal to $2$ the sum is $12$, and if four or five are equal to 2 the sum is $ge 13$.
The set cannot contain the number 3.
Now consider how many of the numbers can be $ge 4$. Clearly there can not be more than three of them, or the sum would be $ge 13$. There can not be three either, because the sum of the other three numbers would be $ge 3$ and the sum of all 6 would be $ge 15$.
So there are at most 2 numbers $ge 4$, i.e. there are at least 4 numbers $le 2$.
If any of those four numbers is $1$, there is a subset ${1,2}$ or ${1,1,1}$ which sums to $3$.
Therefore, there are at least $4$ numbers equal to $2$, and the other numbers are all $ge 4$.
But that is impossible, because if all six numbers are equal to $2$ the sum is $12$, and if four or five are equal to 2 the sum is $ge 13$.
answered 9 hours ago
alephzero
63137
63137
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Represent the problem in the following manner.
You have 6 pigeonholes (representing each integer) and 13 pigeons (the total sum). Each hole must have at least one pigeon for the integers to be positive, so you can equivalently consider a problem with 6 pigeonholes and 7 pigeons (with some holes possibly having zero pigeons). Hey, that's kinda familiar...
By PHP, in the equivalent problem at least one hole must have 2 pigeons. Further, that hole can't have exactly 2 (since that'd represent 3 as a number), so it has to have at least 3.
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: is another hole is forced to have an exact number of pigeons now?
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Represent the problem in the following manner.
You have 6 pigeonholes (representing each integer) and 13 pigeons (the total sum). Each hole must have at least one pigeon for the integers to be positive, so you can equivalently consider a problem with 6 pigeonholes and 7 pigeons (with some holes possibly having zero pigeons). Hey, that's kinda familiar...
By PHP, in the equivalent problem at least one hole must have 2 pigeons. Further, that hole can't have exactly 2 (since that'd represent 3 as a number), so it has to have at least 3.
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: is another hole is forced to have an exact number of pigeons now?
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Represent the problem in the following manner.
You have 6 pigeonholes (representing each integer) and 13 pigeons (the total sum). Each hole must have at least one pigeon for the integers to be positive, so you can equivalently consider a problem with 6 pigeonholes and 7 pigeons (with some holes possibly having zero pigeons). Hey, that's kinda familiar...
By PHP, in the equivalent problem at least one hole must have 2 pigeons. Further, that hole can't have exactly 2 (since that'd represent 3 as a number), so it has to have at least 3.
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: is another hole is forced to have an exact number of pigeons now?
New contributor
Represent the problem in the following manner.
You have 6 pigeonholes (representing each integer) and 13 pigeons (the total sum). Each hole must have at least one pigeon for the integers to be positive, so you can equivalently consider a problem with 6 pigeonholes and 7 pigeons (with some holes possibly having zero pigeons). Hey, that's kinda familiar...
By PHP, in the equivalent problem at least one hole must have 2 pigeons. Further, that hole can't have exactly 2 (since that'd represent 3 as a number), so it has to have at least 3.
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: is another hole is forced to have an exact number of pigeons now?
New contributor
New contributor
answered 5 hours ago
user619010
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Divyansh Hardia is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Divyansh Hardia is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Divyansh Hardia is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Divyansh Hardia is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3010337%2fpigeon-hole-principle-prove-that-any-set-of-six-positive-integers-whose-sum-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Can you show your work? You will get better help.
– tarit goswami
13 hours ago
The question specifically asks for the use of Pigeon hole principle. Since each of the six numbers is not distinct, and a subset need not be of consecutive numbers, I couldn't really apply the principle. So far, I have established that there are 63 non-empty subsets, the sum of each of which lies between 1 and 13. Therefore, at least 5 subsets have the same sum. Removing the common elements from any two, we can get a pair of disjoint sets. But the problem is still not solved.
– Divyansh Hardia
12 hours ago
1
There are no sets of positive integers with six members whose sum is 13. (The elements of a set are distinct by definition.)
– David Hartley
8 hours ago
Please consider identical elements.
– Divyansh Hardia
7 hours ago