I suck at combo
by math154, Aug 25, 2010, 10:41 PM
(2004 ISL C5.) Let
be a positive integer. Two players
and
, taking
turns, write numbers from the set
on a blackboard.
begins
the game by writing
on his first move. Then, if a player has written
on
a certain move, his adversary is allowed to write
or
(provided the
number he writes does not exceed
). The player who writes
wins. We
say that
is of type
or of type
according as
or
has a winning
strategy.
(a) Determine whether
is of type
or of type
.
(b) Find the least
whose type is different from that of
.
Solution



turns, write numbers from the set


the game by writing


a certain move, his adversary is allowed to write


number he writes does not exceed


say that





strategy.
(a) Determine whether



(b) Find the least


Solution
Note: This is written pretty badly since I have homework to do.
Feel free to point out typos and stuff.
Define
so that
if
can force a win for
, and
otherwise. Obviously
and
(for convenience take
). Let
(with
) be the sequence of numbers that
writes down and
(with
) be the sequence of numbers that
writes down.
Lemma 1: If
, then for any
, so that
writes numbers so that
, there exists an index
such that
can write down
with
(The analogous result for
also holds.)
Proof: Assume otherwise. Let
Say that a player writes a number that lies in
. Then the other player writes a number either in
or
. We let
for all
so that
is always odd and
is always even. For some index
, either
or
. In the former case, we have an obvious contradiction. In the latter case,
is even whence it's at most
and we can take
, we get another contradiction.
Lemma 2: If
, then for any
, so that
writes numbers so that
, there exists an index
such that
can write down
with
(The analogous result for
also holds.)
Proof: Assume otherwise. Let
Say that a player writes a number that lies in
. Then the other player writes a number either in
or
. So for some index
, either
or
. In the former case, we can take even
, a contradiction. In the latter case,
can write down even
, which allows
to eventually write down
(for
,
is forced to repeatedly write one more than
), contradicting
.
Lemma 3: If
is odd (
), then
![\[f(N)=f(2k+1)=A.\]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/3/1/8/3186f878dbf39f4a3473ef4abdffcfe0b7c2ac80.png)
Proof: Note that
, so
must be even and thus strictly less than
. Thus we can take
with
. (We start with
, which is odd and at most
.)
Lemma 4: If
is even (
), then
Proof: This is obviously true for
, so now assume
. Consider the intervals
WLOG assume that
can find a sequence of moves with
and
by the first and second lemmas. Parity tells us that
will be forced to write down some
, whence
, which is of course even, allows
to win.
Thus
,
,
, so the rest is trivial.
Motivation: Since combinatorial insights take forever for me to see, the
part motivates the consideration of the intervals
![\[\left(\frac{N}{2},N\right],\left(\frac{N}{4},\frac{N}{2}\right],\left(\frac{N}{8},\frac{N}{4}\right],\ldots.\]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/0/e/10e4f537ae475025693257b21bcc473203070725.png)

Define














Lemma 1: If







![\[a_i\in\left(\frac{2t+1}{2},2t+1\right],\quad a_i\equiv2t+1\equiv1\pmod2.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/3/7/9/3793bba9a827d7c26847d2a6bb64bf7a3eaf7253.png)

Proof: Assume otherwise. Let
![\[I_1=\left(\frac{2t+1}{2},2t+1\right],I_2=\left(\frac{2t+1}{4},\frac{2t+1}{2}\right],\ldots.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/e/8/9e84339a655ea58fd26a3931d1c6a31481a7e16a.png)














Lemma 2: If







![\[a_i\in\left(t,2t\right],\quad a_i\equiv2t\equiv0\pmod2.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/f/7/d/f7d75dffc6a47d9461ac3c4050c7ba7895156c3c.png)

Proof: Assume otherwise. Let
![\[I_1=\left(t,2t\right],I_2=\left(\frac{t}{2},t\right],\ldots.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/4/2/8/4283853afc15205cfb15e887beb17d783197cccf.png)
















Lemma 3: If


![\[f(N)=f(2k+1)=A.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/3/1/8/3186f878dbf39f4a3473ef4abdffcfe0b7c2ac80.png)
Proof: Note that








Lemma 4: If


\[f(N)=f(2k)=f\left(\left\lfloor{\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor\right).\]
Proof: This is obviously true for


![\[I_1=(k,2k=N],I_2=\left(\frac{k}{2},k\right],I_3=\left(\frac{k}{4},\frac{k}{2}\right].\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/b/7/6/b76ed2433ea8f4ddabd01129021dbedeec774cbf.png)
\[f\left(\left\lfloor{\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor\right)=A,\]so








Thus



Motivation: Since combinatorial insights take forever for me to see, the

![\[\left(\frac{N}{2},N\right],\left(\frac{N}{4},\frac{N}{2}\right],\left(\frac{N}{8},\frac{N}{4}\right],\ldots.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/0/e/10e4f537ae475025693257b21bcc473203070725.png)
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by math154, Aug 26, 2010, 1:17 AM