INTRODUCTION
As we know, many tough combinatorial problems are based on a very basic step or strategy which can simplify the problem upto a tremendous extent. One of our important strategies in proving combinatorial problems is using
colourings; i.e., to use colours to paint the problem and then proving it using a semi-contradictory argument.
Before proving colouring problems we must first come to some important terms that we need to know.
1. Colourings Of Graphs
First of all, I will introduce you briefly to the
colourings of graphs. Though it is not very related to problem-solving, still we need to have some basic knowledge on this.
Before that, we need to know what a
graph is. I will introduce us to the idea of a graph in brief. Actually; a graph

is defined as a figure, which can be 2-Dimensional (planar) or 3-Dimensional, which
must consist of a set
of vertices, a set
of edges. We denote

as an edge with

as
endpoints; and in order for the figure to be a graph we must have a mapping from each sets of vertices to the endpoints.
An edge is called a
loop whenever we have

identical with
. A graph is called
simple when it has
no loops, and no two edges having the same set of endpoints. Not that every polygon can be called a simple graph.We will come to graphs later again.
We say that a graph

is
properly coloured if we have no edge having two endpoints of the same colour. We denote the set of colurs with

and hence for a polygon with an odd number of sides we have

where

denotes the cardinality of

or the number of elements in
We denote

i.e. the minimum number of colours required for a proper colouring. If we denote

as the polygon with number of sides
, then we have

This

is said to be the
chromatic number of a graph

We also have the
Four Colour Theorem, which can be stated equivalently as; if

is planar we must have
$ \ka\chi (G)\leq 4.$ We will discuss about this later too, but now let us come to our main focus.
2. COLOURINGS
In case of combinatorial problems, the simpler, the better. Therefore we will show why colurings are simple.
We can cover up a chessboard with

numbers of
dominoes in finitely many ways. A physicist M.E. Fischer calculated this number to be

But that is not our point of concern. We try to modify the problem a bit. If

diagonally opposite squares are cut off from this chessboard, then in how many ways can we do the covering with

dominoes?
Though it looks tough, we can explain it with a simple combinatorial argument. Let us consider the number of black and white squares. First of all, we had

squares;

black and

white. If we take out two diagonally opposite squares, then let both the squares be white in colour (WLOG). In that case, we see that in our newly arranged chessboard, we have

white squares and

black squares. If we were to cover it up with

dominoes, it would have covered

white and

black squares. but we don't have

white squares, we have only

of them left. Therefore the colouring is not possible.
Like this, we can prove many problems by just colouring and then contradicting.
A
chessboard cannot be covered by
straight tetrominoes.
Solution
We colour our

board with

(Orange, green, blue, ash/grey) as follows:

Here each horizontal straight tetromino covers four squares of different colours, while the vertical ones cover four squares of the same colour each. After all horizontal tetominoes have been placed, we are left with

squares of colours

respectively. If such a complete covering would have existed, then we must have had

which is not possible. Therefore we are done.
A
rectangle can be covered by
rectangles if and only if
Solution(from A. Engel-P.S.S)
We have,if

then our covering is obvious.
So we consider the case when

Now colour the board accordingly as in our previous diagram using the colours

There are

squares of each of the colours

and

squares of each of the colours
. The

horizontal

tiles each covering one square of each colour, after being placed, we will have

squares of each of the colours

and

of each of the colours

Thus

must divide their difference.
Note
We can also state this for the space, whereas if an

block can be covered with

bricks we have

An art gallery is the shape of an
-gon. Find the minimum number of watchmen needed to guard the gallery.
Solution
This is known as the
Art Gallery problem.
We join non-intersecting diagonals to form disjoint triangles. Now we colour the vertices of each triangle with distinct colours, so that we can make a proper colouring of each of the triangles (recall this term and prove it using induction). Now, the colour used least number of times will be our required number, which is equal to

This solution or theorem is known as
Chvátal's art gallery theorem.
For further research you can visit the wikipedia link I gave above
.
I will post more problems soon, I have to leave now. I am posting some Exercises and post more within 5-8 hours.
3. Exercises
1. Consider the following figure, where 14 cities are connected by roads.
Find a path passing through each city exactly once.
Note
In case of graphs, a path or walk means a proper way of starting from a vertex of a graph

and walking along the edges, to reach a final point

is called a path. Thus a path can be written as

A path is said to be simple if
, and a closed path if

I will come back to this topic again in future when discussing about graphs.
2. Every point in the space is coloured with exactly one of the colours Red, Green, or Blue. The sets

consist of the lengths of those segments in space with both endpoints red, green, and blue respectively. Show that at least one of these sets contain all non-negative integers.
Experiment with an equilateral triangle
About a month ago, I was researching with colouring problems that are solved using the Pigeonhole principle and can be proved elegantly. However, I have only dealt with planar figures and there colourings only, so I hope to present my little (and flop) experiment that I made about a month ago.
But before that, I want you to get used to some problems on colourings that require the PHP to be proved elegantly.
The PHP states that if

balls are put into

boxed, we must have a box with more than

ball. This can be generalised as follows:
1. If we put

balls into

boxes, we must have a box with more than

balls.
2. If the average of

positive numbers

is

then at least one of the numbers is greater than or equal to

As a consequence we must have at least one of the numbers less than or equal to

However, our main point of concern is the first and most elementary form of PHP. In order to prove these theorems, we can assume the converse, and show that it leads to a contradiction. The proof is left to the readers.
Now, we might be given problems on colourings like:
If the plane is coloured with two colours, then there exists at least one line with its endpoints and its midpoint of the same colour.
Solution
After drawing a diagram it is obvious. Since there are infinitely many points in the plane, we can get two points of the same colour always in the plane.
Denote them by

where

signifies red and

signifies blue. (say). Now let us see what its midpoint

is. If

is
, we are done. So WLOG assume

to be blue. Now, we produce the line

to both sides at a length of

Now we get a new line

If
, we are done since in both cases we get a lin
e
![[asy]
dot((0,0));
dot((2.5,0));
dot((5,0));
dot((-2.5,0));
dot((-5,0));
label("$D(b)$", (0,0), N);
label("$D_1(b)$", (-5,0), N);
label("$D_2(b)$", (5,0), N);
label("$A(r)$", (-2.5,0), N);
label("$B(r)$", (2.5,0), N);
draw((-5,0)--(5,0));
[/asy]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/7/2/c/72c1c7794b532210f99de6c9ae445c5079bd0985.png)
So both of

are blue and we have a new segment

of our required type. Hence proved.
If all points of the plane are coloured red or blue, show that there exists an equilateral triangle with three vertices of the same colour.
Solution
We must have a line with its endpoints and its midpoint of the same colour, as according to E1.
![[asy]
dot((0,0));
dot((2.5,0));
dot((5,0));
dot((-2.5,0));
dot((-5,0));
dot((0, 4.3));
label("$D(b)$", (0,0), S);
label("$A(b)$", (-5,0), W);
label("$B(b)$", (5,0), E);
label("$C(r)$", (0,4.3), N);
draw((-5,0)--(5,0));
draw((-5,0)--(0,4.3));
draw((0,4.3)--(5,0));
[/asy]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/f/d/dfdcd7865d224b022ae1a2dde27bdfff404d74ad.png)
Let

be a line segment with

blue. Draw an equilateral triangle

on this, forcing

to be

in colour. Now lets take the midpoints

of

respectively. Then we again have forced

to become

(else we get

and

as the required triangles). In this case too we are forced to get

as our required triangle with all vertices red in colour. Hence we are done.
(My inspiration to this experiment: Indian National MO 2008) If all the lattice points of the plane are coloured with three colours:
(standing for blue, red, green respectively) show that we have at least one right triangle with three vertices of different colours; given that
Solution(Official solution)
Consider the lattice points on the lines

and

other than

If any one of them , say

is coloured green, then we have a right triangle with

and

as vertices, all having different colours.
If not, then the lattice points on

and

are all red or blue. Now consider three different cases:
Case 1
Suppose the point

is blue. Consider a blue point

in the plane. suppose

If it's projection

on the axis is red, then

are the required vertices.
If

is blue, then we can consider the vertices

are the vertices of the required RAT.
If

then the points

form the required RAT.
Case II
A point

on the line

is red. The logic is similar to case I.
Case III
Suppose all the lattice points on the line

are red and all the points on the line

are blue.
Consider a green point

where

Consider an isosceles RAT

with

such that the hypotenuse

is a part of the x- axis. Let

intersect

in

. Then

is a red point and

is a blue point. Hence

is a desired right triangle.
My Solution

So now that we all know how I have been inspired to perform an experiment, why not lets come to the point?
Here; I thought about a small trick. The problem I thought about was to prove that:
There exists a right triangle with three vertices of the same colour, if we have the plane coloured with red and blue.
Solution
According to our above problem, there must exist an equilateral triangle with all its 3 vertices of the same colour. Refer to figure 1. Let the triangle be

and let

be the midpoint of segment

But, as we see, we must have
, because if

were to be red, we could have found a triangle

or

satisfying our requirements. Now join

and
As in our figure, let

and

be the midpoints of

and

segments respectively.Consider right triangle

If

would have been red, we would have done; since

is also an altitude of equilateral

So

is forced again.
Now let us join
; and let it intersect

at

If

were to be blue, we could have found

or

to fulfill our requirements. So again we see that

has to be red in colour.

Now, if

we would have been done. But

is equilateral, so why not find out about this angle? Well, we can let the triangle have equal sides of length

units, so that

Also
. Note that from

we have
![\[ \tan \measuredangle DOC = \frac {\frac a2}{\frac {\sqrt 3a}{4}} = \frac 2{\sqrt 3};\]](//latex.artofproblemsolving.com/f/2/7/f27beee64b3fb6f589ef189bdc3f307ae5bf1a59.png)
So we get
$ \angle DOC = \tan^{ - 1}\left(\frac 2{\sqrt 3}}\right),$ therefore we have

which is not

Damn, how can we proceed?
No, never give up hope. We now try to walk a bit farther towards our goal. Let us consider

as in Figure 2. Note that if any point on

would have been red, we would have been done. So it is completely forced that all points on

except

are blue in colour.
What else can we say? we want a right triangle, am I correct? So why not try to make one? Let us take a point

on

which satisfies

so we must have
. How funny, now we have three points in a row that are red. But have we done yet?
The answer is unfortunately "no". We still have a bit to go, but we can feel it that we are near to our goal.
OK, last try. Refer to Figure 3.
Draw a line

parallel to

such that

is on
. Again we have forced
. Now we can almost finish our proof if proceeded a bit more. Let us draw a right angle

with

on

We can show that such a point exists since

and due to the acuteness property we force

to be in the same side of

with respect to

Wow, we have proved earlier that

and in this case we see that

is our required triangle

; and we are done.
A really nice problem that I made, isn't it? The solution might be lengthy and not elegant, but still, it is an interesting solution, all the same.
(To be updated)
This post has been edited 5 times. Last edited by Potla, Mar 2, 2011, 7:01 PM