Stay ahead of learning milestones! Enroll in a class over the summer!

G
Topic
First Poster
Last Poster
k a May Highlights and 2025 AoPS Online Class Information
jlacosta   0
May 1, 2025
May is an exciting month! National MATHCOUNTS is the second week of May in Washington D.C. and our Founder, Richard Rusczyk will be presenting a seminar, Preparing Strong Math Students for College and Careers, on May 11th.

Are you interested in working towards MATHCOUNTS and don’t know where to start? We have you covered! If you have taken Prealgebra, then you are ready for MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Basics. Already aiming for State or National MATHCOUNTS and harder AMC 8 problems? Then our MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Advanced course is for you.

Summer camps are starting next month at the Virtual Campus in math and language arts that are 2 - to 4 - weeks in duration. Spaces are still available - don’t miss your chance to have an enriching summer experience. There are middle and high school competition math camps as well as Math Beasts camps that review key topics coupled with fun explorations covering areas such as graph theory (Math Beasts Camp 6), cryptography (Math Beasts Camp 7-8), and topology (Math Beasts Camp 8-9)!

Be sure to mark your calendars for the following upcoming events:
[list][*]May 9th, 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, Casework 2: Overwhelming Evidence — A Text Adventure, a game where participants will work together to navigate the map, solve puzzles, and win! All are welcome.
[*]May 19th, 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET, What's Next After Beast Academy?, designed for students finishing Beast Academy and ready for Prealgebra 1.
[*]May 20th, 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Mathcamp 2025 Qualifying Quiz Part 1 Math Jam, Problems 1 to 4, join the Canada/USA Mathcamp staff for this exciting Math Jam, where they discuss solutions to Problems 1 to 4 of the 2025 Mathcamp Qualifying Quiz!
[*]May 21st, 4:00pm PT/7:00pm ET, Mathcamp 2025 Qualifying Quiz Part 2 Math Jam, Problems 5 and 6, Canada/USA Mathcamp staff will discuss solutions to Problems 5 and 6 of the 2025 Mathcamp Qualifying Quiz![/list]
Our full course list for upcoming classes is below:
All classes run 7:30pm-8:45pm ET/4:30pm - 5:45pm PT unless otherwise noted.

Introductory: Grades 5-10

Prealgebra 1 Self-Paced

Prealgebra 1
Tuesday, May 13 - Aug 26
Thursday, May 29 - Sep 11
Sunday, Jun 15 - Oct 12
Monday, Jun 30 - Oct 20
Wednesday, Jul 16 - Oct 29

Prealgebra 2 Self-Paced

Prealgebra 2
Wednesday, May 7 - Aug 20
Monday, Jun 2 - Sep 22
Sunday, Jun 29 - Oct 26
Friday, Jul 25 - Nov 21

Introduction to Algebra A Self-Paced

Introduction to Algebra A
Sunday, May 11 - Sep 14 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Wednesday, May 14 - Aug 27
Friday, May 30 - Sep 26
Monday, Jun 2 - Sep 22
Sunday, Jun 15 - Oct 12
Thursday, Jun 26 - Oct 9
Tuesday, Jul 15 - Oct 28

Introduction to Counting & Probability Self-Paced

Introduction to Counting & Probability
Thursday, May 15 - Jul 31
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Wednesday, Jul 9 - Sep 24
Sunday, Jul 27 - Oct 19

Introduction to Number Theory
Friday, May 9 - Aug 1
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Monday, Jun 9 - Aug 25
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Tuesday, Jul 15 - Sep 30

Introduction to Algebra B Self-Paced

Introduction to Algebra B
Tuesday, May 6 - Aug 19
Wednesday, Jun 4 - Sep 17
Sunday, Jun 22 - Oct 19
Friday, Jul 18 - Nov 14

Introduction to Geometry
Sunday, May 11 - Nov 9
Tuesday, May 20 - Oct 28
Monday, Jun 16 - Dec 8
Friday, Jun 20 - Jan 9
Sunday, Jun 29 - Jan 11
Monday, Jul 14 - Jan 19

Paradoxes and Infinity
Mon, Tue, Wed, & Thurs, Jul 14 - Jul 16 (meets every day of the week!)

Intermediate: Grades 8-12

Intermediate Algebra
Sunday, Jun 1 - Nov 23
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Nov 18
Wednesday, Jun 25 - Dec 10
Sunday, Jul 13 - Jan 18
Thursday, Jul 24 - Jan 22

Intermediate Counting & Probability
Wednesday, May 21 - Sep 17
Sunday, Jun 22 - Nov 2

Intermediate Number Theory
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Wednesday, Jun 18 - Sep 3

Precalculus
Friday, May 16 - Oct 24
Sunday, Jun 1 - Nov 9
Monday, Jun 30 - Dec 8

Advanced: Grades 9-12

Olympiad Geometry
Tuesday, Jun 10 - Aug 26

Calculus
Tuesday, May 27 - Nov 11
Wednesday, Jun 25 - Dec 17

Group Theory
Thursday, Jun 12 - Sep 11

Contest Preparation: Grades 6-12

MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Basics
Friday, May 23 - Aug 15
Monday, Jun 2 - Aug 18
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

MATHCOUNTS/AMC 8 Advanced
Sunday, May 11 - Aug 10
Tuesday, May 27 - Aug 12
Wednesday, Jun 11 - Aug 27
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

AMC 10 Problem Series
Friday, May 9 - Aug 1
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Tuesday, Jun 17 - Sep 2
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15
Tues & Thurs, Jul 8 - Aug 14 (meets twice a week!)

AMC 10 Final Fives
Sunday, May 11 - Jun 8
Tuesday, May 27 - Jun 17
Monday, Jun 30 - Jul 21

AMC 12 Problem Series
Tuesday, May 27 - Aug 12
Thursday, Jun 12 - Aug 28
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21
Wednesday, Aug 6 - Oct 22

AMC 12 Final Fives
Sunday, May 18 - Jun 15

AIME Problem Series A
Thursday, May 22 - Jul 31

AIME Problem Series B
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 21

F=ma Problem Series
Wednesday, Jun 11 - Aug 27

WOOT Programs
Visit the pages linked for full schedule details for each of these programs!


MathWOOT Level 1
MathWOOT Level 2
ChemWOOT
CodeWOOT
PhysicsWOOT

Programming

Introduction to Programming with Python
Thursday, May 22 - Aug 7
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14 (1:00 - 2:30 pm ET/10:00 - 11:30 am PT)
Tuesday, Jun 17 - Sep 2
Monday, Jun 30 - Sep 22

Intermediate Programming with Python
Sunday, Jun 1 - Aug 24
Monday, Jun 30 - Sep 22

USACO Bronze Problem Series
Tuesday, May 13 - Jul 29
Sunday, Jun 22 - Sep 1

Physics

Introduction to Physics
Wednesday, May 21 - Aug 6
Sunday, Jun 15 - Sep 14
Monday, Jun 23 - Sep 15

Physics 1: Mechanics
Thursday, May 22 - Oct 30
Monday, Jun 23 - Dec 15

Relativity
Mon, Tue, Wed & Thurs, Jun 23 - Jun 26 (meets every day of the week!)
0 replies
jlacosta
May 1, 2025
0 replies
k i Adding contests to the Contest Collections
dcouchman   1
N Apr 5, 2023 by v_Enhance
Want to help AoPS remain a valuable Olympiad resource? Help us add contests to AoPS's Contest Collections.

Find instructions and a list of contests to add here: https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c40244h1064480_contests_to_add
1 reply
dcouchman
Sep 9, 2019
v_Enhance
Apr 5, 2023
k i Zero tolerance
ZetaX   49
N May 4, 2019 by NoDealsHere
Source: Use your common sense! (enough is enough)
Some users don't want to learn, some other simply ignore advises.
But please follow the following guideline:


To make it short: ALWAYS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IF POSTING!
If you don't have common sense, don't post.


More specifically:

For new threads:


a) Good, meaningful title:
The title has to say what the problem is about in best way possible.
If that title occured already, it's definitely bad. And contest names aren't good either.
That's in fact a requirement for being able to search old problems.

Examples:
Bad titles:
- "Hard"/"Medium"/"Easy" (if you find it so cool how hard/easy it is, tell it in the post and use a title that tells us the problem)
- "Number Theory" (hey guy, guess why this forum's named that way¿ and is it the only such problem on earth¿)
- "Fibonacci" (there are millions of Fibonacci problems out there, all posted and named the same...)
- "Chinese TST 2003" (does this say anything about the problem¿)
Good titles:
- "On divisors of a³+2b³+4c³-6abc"
- "Number of solutions to x²+y²=6z²"
- "Fibonacci numbers are never squares"


b) Use search function:
Before posting a "new" problem spend at least two, better five, minutes to look if this problem was posted before. If it was, don't repost it. If you have anything important to say on topic, post it in one of the older threads.
If the thread is locked cause of this, use search function.

Update (by Amir Hossein). The best way to search for two keywords in AoPS is to input
[code]+"first keyword" +"second keyword"[/code]
so that any post containing both strings "first word" and "second form".


c) Good problem statement:
Some recent really bad post was:
[quote]$lim_{n\to 1}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{n}-lnn$[/quote]
It contains no question and no answer.
If you do this, too, you are on the best way to get your thread deleted. Write everything clearly, define where your variables come from (and define the "natural" numbers if used). Additionally read your post at least twice before submitting. After you sent it, read it again and use the Edit-Button if necessary to correct errors.


For answers to already existing threads:


d) Of any interest and with content:
Don't post things that are more trivial than completely obvious. For example, if the question is to solve $x^{3}+y^{3}=z^{3}$, do not answer with "$x=y=z=0$ is a solution" only. Either you post any kind of proof or at least something unexpected (like "$x=1337, y=481, z=42$ is the smallest solution). Someone that does not see that $x=y=z=0$ is a solution of the above without your post is completely wrong here, this is an IMO-level forum.
Similar, posting "I have solved this problem" but not posting anything else is not welcome; it even looks that you just want to show off what a genius you are.

e) Well written and checked answers:
Like c) for new threads, check your solutions at least twice for mistakes. And after sending, read it again and use the Edit-Button if necessary to correct errors.



To repeat it: ALWAYS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IF POSTING!


Everything definitely out of range of common sense will be locked or deleted (exept for new users having less than about 42 posts, they are newbies and need/get some time to learn).

The above rules will be applied from next monday (5. march of 2007).
Feel free to discuss on this here.
49 replies
ZetaX
Feb 27, 2007
NoDealsHere
May 4, 2019
IMO Shortlist 2011, G2
WakeUp   30
N 2 minutes ago by ezpotd
Source: IMO Shortlist 2011, G2
Let $A_1A_2A_3A_4$ be a non-cyclic quadrilateral. Let $O_1$ and $r_1$ be the circumcentre and the circumradius of the triangle $A_2A_3A_4$. Define $O_2,O_3,O_4$ and $r_2,r_3,r_4$ in a similar way. Prove that
\[\frac{1}{O_1A_1^2-r_1^2}+\frac{1}{O_2A_2^2-r_2^2}+\frac{1}{O_3A_3^2-r_3^2}+\frac{1}{O_4A_4^2-r_4^2}=0.\]

Proposed by Alexey Gladkich, Israel
30 replies
WakeUp
Jul 13, 2012
ezpotd
2 minutes ago
2-var inequality
sqing   1
N 22 minutes ago by sqing
Source: Own
Let $ a,b\geq 0 ,\frac{a}{b+2}+\frac{b}{a+2}+ \frac{ab}{3}\leq 1.$ Prove that
$$ a^2+b^2 +\frac{5}{3}ab \leq 4$$
1 reply
1 viewing
sqing
an hour ago
sqing
22 minutes ago
Rational Points in n-Dimensional Space
steven_zhang123   0
an hour ago
Let \( T = (x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n) \), where \( x_i \) is rational for \( i = 1, 2, \ldots, n \). A vector \( T \) is called a rational point in \( n \)-dimensional space. Denote the set of all such vectors \( T \) as \( S \). For \( A = (x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n) \) and \( B = (y_1, y_2, \ldots, y_n) \) in \( S \), define the distance between points \( A \) and \( B \) as \( d(A, B) = \sqrt{(x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2 + \cdots + (x_n - y_n)^2} \). We say that point \( A \) can move to point \( B \) if and only if there is a unit distance between two points in \( S \).

Prove:
(1) If \( n \leq 4 \), there exists a point that cannot be reached from the origin via a finite number of moves.
(2) If \( n \geq 5 \), any point in \( S \) can be reached from any other point via moves.
0 replies
1 viewing
steven_zhang123
an hour ago
0 replies
Inspired by old results
sqing   5
N an hour ago by sqing
Source: Own
Let $a,b,c $ be reals such that $a^2+b^2+c^2=3$ .Prove that
$$(1-a)(k-b)(1-c)+abc\ge -k$$Where $ k\geq 1.$
$$(1-a)(1-b)(1-c)+abc\ge -1$$$$(1-a)(1-b)(1-c)-abc\ge -\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt 2$$
5 replies
sqing
Yesterday at 7:36 AM
sqing
an hour ago
equation in integers
Pirkuliyev Rovsen   2
N 2 hours ago by ytChen
Solve in $Z$ the equation $a^2+b=b^{2022}$
2 replies
Pirkuliyev Rovsen
Feb 10, 2025
ytChen
2 hours ago
Inequality for Sequences
steven_zhang123   0
3 hours ago
Given a positive number \( t \) and integers \( m, n \geq 2 \), prove that for any \( n \) positive numbers \( a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n \) satisfying \( a_j - a_{j-1} \leq t \) for \( j = 1, 2, \ldots, n \) (with the convention \( a_0 = 0 \)), the following inequality holds:
\[
\sum_{j=1}^n a_j^{2m-1} \leq \frac{mt}{2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^n a_j^{m-1} \right)^2.
\]
0 replies
steven_zhang123
3 hours ago
0 replies
Circumcircle of ADM
v_Enhance   70
N 3 hours ago by Shan3t
Source: USA TSTST 2012, Problem 7
Triangle $ABC$ is inscribed in circle $\Omega$. The interior angle bisector of angle $A$ intersects side $BC$ and $\Omega$ at $D$ and $L$ (other than $A$), respectively. Let $M$ be the midpoint of side $BC$. The circumcircle of triangle $ADM$ intersects sides $AB$ and $AC$ again at $Q$ and $P$ (other than $A$), respectively. Let $N$ be the midpoint of segment $PQ$, and let $H$ be the foot of the perpendicular from $L$ to line $ND$. Prove that line $ML$ is tangent to the circumcircle of triangle $HMN$.
70 replies
v_Enhance
Jul 19, 2012
Shan3t
3 hours ago
Prove this relation in triangle ABC
Entrepreneur   1
N 3 hours ago by MathIQ.
Source: Conjectured by me
In $\Delta ABC,$ prove that$$\color{blue}{2\angle A=3\angle B\implies c^3a^3(c+a)^2=b^2(c^2+a^2-b^2+2ca)(c^2+a^2-b^2)^2.}$$
1 reply
Entrepreneur
Aug 1, 2024
MathIQ.
3 hours ago
45 degrees everywhere
Rijul saini   12
N 3 hours ago by guptaamitu1
Source: India IMOTC 2024 Day 2 Problem 2
Let $ABC$ be an acute angled triangle with $AC>AB$ and incircle $\omega$. Let $\omega$ touch the sides $BC, CA,$ and $AB$ at $D, E,$ and $F$ respectively. Let $X$ and $Y$ be points outside $\triangle ABC$ satisfying \[\angle BDX = \angle XEA = \angle YDC = \angle AFY = 45^{\circ}.\]Prove that the circumcircles of $\triangle AXY, \triangle AEF$ and $\triangle ABC$ meet at a point $Z\ne A$.

Proposed by Atul Shatavart Nadig and Shantanu Nene
12 replies
Rijul saini
May 31, 2024
guptaamitu1
3 hours ago
equation 2025
mohamed-adam   1
N 4 hours ago by MathIQ.
Source: own
Find all positive integers $a,b$ such that $$a^8-2b^5=2025b$$
1 reply
mohamed-adam
Yesterday at 7:49 PM
MathIQ.
4 hours ago
Graph Theory
ABCD1728   1
N 4 hours ago by ABCD1728
Can anyone provide the PDF version of "Graphs: an introduction" by Radu Bumbacea (XYZ press), thanks!
1 reply
ABCD1728
Yesterday at 5:10 AM
ABCD1728
4 hours ago
Rectangles of grid cells
tapir1729   11
N 4 hours ago by Mathandski
Source: TSTST 2024, problem 9
Let $n \ge 2$ be a fixed integer. The cells of an $n \times n$ table are filled with the integers from $1$ to $n^2$ with each number appearing exactly once. Let $N$ be the number of unordered quadruples of cells on this board which form an axis-aligned rectangle, with the two smaller integers being on opposite vertices of this rectangle. Find the largest possible value of $N$.

Anonymous
11 replies
tapir1729
Jun 24, 2024
Mathandski
4 hours ago
Interesting problem from a friend
v4913   11
N 5 hours ago by YaoAOPS
Source: I'm not sure...
Let the incircle $(I)$ of $\triangle{ABC}$ touch $BC$ at $D$, $ID \cap (I) = K$, let $\ell$ denote the line tangent to $(I)$ through $K$. Define $E, F \in \ell$ such that $\angle{EIF} = 90^{\circ}, EI, FI \cap (AEF) = E', F'$. Prove that the circumcenter $O$ of $\triangle{ABC}$ lies on $E'F'$.
11 replies
v4913
Nov 25, 2023
YaoAOPS
5 hours ago
Curious inequality
produit   2
N 5 hours ago by RainbowNeos
Positive real numbers x_1, x_2, . . . x_n satisfy x_1 + x_2 + . . . + x_n = 1.
Prove that
1/(1 −√x_1)+1/(1 −√x_2)+ . . . +1/(1 −√x_n)⩾ n + 4.
2 replies
produit
May 10, 2025
RainbowNeos
5 hours ago
Multiple equality cases
whatshisbucket   26
N Jul 19, 2023 by ChanandlerBong
Source: 2017 ELMO #5
The edges of $K_{2017}$ are each labeled with $1,2,$ or $3$ such that any triangle has sum of labels at least $5.$ Determine the minimum possible average of all $\dbinom{2017}{2}$ labels.

(Here $K_{2017}$ is defined as the complete graph on 2017 vertices, with an edge between every pair of vertices.)

Proposed by Michael Ma
26 replies
whatshisbucket
Jun 26, 2017
ChanandlerBong
Jul 19, 2023
Multiple equality cases
G H J
G H BBookmark kLocked kLocked NReply
Source: 2017 ELMO #5
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
whatshisbucket
975 posts
#1 • 6 Y
Y by Tawan, centslordm, megarnie, thedragon01, Adventure10, Mango247
The edges of $K_{2017}$ are each labeled with $1,2,$ or $3$ such that any triangle has sum of labels at least $5.$ Determine the minimum possible average of all $\dbinom{2017}{2}$ labels.

(Here $K_{2017}$ is defined as the complete graph on 2017 vertices, with an edge between every pair of vertices.)

Proposed by Michael Ma
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
bern-1-16-4-13
28 posts
#2 • 6 Y
Y by vjdjmathaddict, Generic_Username, Tawan, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
Let $V$ be the set of vertices, $E$ be the set of edges and for $i=1,2,3$ let $E_i$ be the set of edges of $K_{2017}$ which are labelled with number $i$. Finally let $G_1$ be the subgraph of $K_{2017}$ which have all vertices in $V$ end all edges in $E_1$.
Lemma: considering the graph $G_1$ (it may be disjoint) let's define a function $f:V\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ which associates each vertex with the maximum degree of vertices connected to it.
Then $$\sum_{v\in V}f\left(v\right)\ge 2\left|E_1\right|$$
proof:
considering $G_1$, define a function $g:V\rightarrow\mathbb{Q}$ which associates each vertex with the average of the degrees of vertices connected to it. Obviously $g\left(v\right)\le f\left(v\right)$ so if we show that $\sum_{v\in V}g\left(v\right)\ge\sum_{v\in V}\deg\left(v\right)=2\left|E_1\right|$ we are done (remember that in this case degrees are defined on $G_1$).
Indeed it's evident that if $S$ is the set of ordered couples of connected vertices in $G_1$, we have that $$\sum_{v\in V}g\left(v\right)=\sum_{\left(u,v\right)\in S}\frac{\deg\left(u\right)}{\deg\left(v\right)}$$so if $S_1$ is the set of non ordered couples of connected vertices in $G_1$ (actually $S_1\equiv E_1$), $$\sum_{v\in V}g\left(v\right)=\sum_{\left(u,v\right)\in S_1}\frac{\deg\left(u\right)}{\deg\left(v\right)}+\frac{\deg\left(v\right)}{\deg\left(u\right)}\stackrel{AM-GM}{\ge}\sum_{\left(u,v\right)\in S_1}2=2\left|S_1\right|=2\left|E_1\right|\ \ \blacksquare$$
Now let's go back to the main problem.
Considering $K_{2017}$, let $h$ be a function that associates each vertex to the number of edges in $E_3$ which starts from it. Clearly $$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{v\in V}h\left(v\right)=\left|E_3\right|$$Besides note that $h\left(v\right)\ge f\left(v\right)-1$ (remember that $f$ is defined on $G_1$ and not on $K_{2017}$), infact consider the vertex $u$ such that $\left(u,v\right)\in E_1$ and such that its degree in $G_1$ is $f\left(v\right)$. Now let's define $V_{1,u}$ as the set of vertices which are connected to $u$ in $G_1$. Hence $\left\{v\right\}\times \left(V_{1,u}\setminus v\right)\subseteq E_3$ (obviously we are considering each edge as a couple of vertices) in order to respect the hypothesis that any triangol has sum of labels at least $5$.
So we can say that $$\left|E_3\right|=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{v\in V}h\left(v\right)\ge\frac{1}{2}\sum_{v\in V}\left(f\left(v\right)-1\right)=-\frac{2017}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{v\in V}f\left(v\right)\stackrel{\text{lemma}}{\ge}\left|E_1\right|-\frac{2017}{2}$$Hence, since $\left|E_3\right|$ is integer, it must be at least $\left|E_1\right|-1008$. So, since if we fix $\left|E_1\right|$ then the minimum average of labels of edges in $K_{2017}$ is reached when $\left|E_3\right|$ is minimum, we can say that the minimum average is at least $$\frac{3\left(\left|E_1\right|-1008\right)+\left|E_1\right|+2\left(\binom{2017}{2}-2\left|E_1\right|+1008\right)}{\binom{2017}{2}}=\frac{4033}{2017}$$Calling $v_1,v_2,...,v_{2017}$ the edges of $K_{2017}$ this optimal situation is effectively reached if all edges of graph $K_{2017}$ are labelled with $2$ except for edges connecting $v_{2i-1}$ and $v_{2i}$ for $i=1,...,1008$ which will be labelled with $1$.
It's easily verifiable that in this case the hypothesis are respected so we are done.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by bern-1-16-4-13, Jun 26, 2017, 7:22 AM
Reason: Typos
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
shinichiman
3212 posts
#3 • 7 Y
Y by Ankoganit, Generic_Username, Zawadx, Tawan, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
Remark 1. If a triangle has $2$ of its edges both labelled $1$ then the other edge must be labelled $3$.

There is a way to label $K_{2017}$ so that the average of labels of edges $T$ is minimum. In such labelling, consider edges $BC$ so $BC$ is labelled $3$. Consider all triangles $ABC$ so $CA,CB$ are both labelled $1$. If we change the labels of edges of $\triangle ABC$ from $1,1,3$ to $1,2,2$ ($BC$ is changed to $2$) then the average of labels $T$ remains the same and is still minimum. We do the same for all triangles $XBC$ with $XB,XC$ labelled $1$ then move on to other edges like $BC$ whose original label is $3$.

After this, we obtain a new label $\mathcal{T}$ for $K_{2017}$ so that no edge is labelled $3$ and the average of labels $T$ is still minimum. Since no edge is labelled $3$ in this configuration $\mathcal{T}$ so according to remark 1, there doesn't exist two edges sharing same endpoint and are both labelled $1$. This follows, number of edges labelled $1$ is at most $\frac{2016}{2}=1008$, the remaining edges are labelled $2$. Thus, the minimum average of labels is $$T= \frac{1}{ \binom{2017}{2}} \left[ 2 \cdot \left( \binom{2017}{2}-1008 \right)+1008 \right]= 2- \frac{1008}{\binom{2017}{2}}=2-\frac{1}{2017}.$$Construction: Consider $2017$ vertices $A_1, \ldots, A_{2017}$ with $A_1A_2,A_3A_4, \ldots, A_{2015}A_{2016}$ are labelled $1$. The remaining edges are labelled $2$.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
rkm0959
1721 posts
#4 • 4 Y
Y by FISHMJ25, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
Bern's first lemma is also important in this problem.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
bern-1-16-4-13
28 posts
#5 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
shinichiman wrote:
We do the same for all triangles $XBC$ with $XB,XC$ labelled $1$
Maybe I misunderstood but how can you do the same if you have already changed the label of BC into 2?
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
shinichiman
3212 posts
#6 • 3 Y
Y by Tawan, centslordm, Adventure10
bern-1-16-4-13 wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood but how can you do the same if you have already changed the label of BC into 2?
Yes, $BC$ is already changed to $2$ so you only need to change one of $XB,XC$ to $2$. Sorry for my bad English.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
bern-1-16-4-13
28 posts
#7 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
but in this way the average doesn't remain unchanged, because the sum of labels increase by $1$
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
shinichiman
3212 posts
#8 • 3 Y
Y by Tawan, centslordm, Adventure10
bern-1-16-4-13 wrote:
but in this way the average doesn't remain unchanged, because the sum of labels increase by $1$

No. First, you find all edges labelled $3$ and change to $2$. Next, you find all $\triangle XBC$ where $BC$ is originally $3$ and $XB,XC$ are both $1$. Since $BC$ is already changed to $2$, you change one of $XB,XC$ from $1$ to $2$. Hence, $XBC$ will from $1,1,3$ to $1,2,2$ which still has the sum of labels $5$ and therefore the sum of labels of $\binom{2017}{2}$ edges is still minimal.
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by shinichiman, Jun 26, 2017, 10:17 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
bern-1-16-4-13
28 posts
#9 • 5 Y
Y by shinichiman, Tawan, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
No!
Suppose $XB$,$XC$,$AB$,$BC$ worth $1$. Then if you change wlog $XB$ into $2$, $AB$ into $2$, and $BC$ into $2$ the sum increases by $1$ so the average changes.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
vjdjmathaddict
502 posts
#10 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
To bern what was the motivation for such a brilliant proof.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
bern-1-16-4-13
28 posts
#11 • 3 Y
Y by vjdjmathaddict, centslordm, Adventure10
First of all one should guess how looks like the cases of equality (there are many as the title of the topic says XD).
Since the average of labels depends just on the difference of number of labels $1$ and number of $3$, you'd love to find a lower bound for the number of labels $3$ in function of the number of labels $1$. So it could be a good idea to count how many labels $3$at least start from a fixed vertice (in this way you come across the function $f$ I've defined, and you are happy because $f$ gives you a very good bound in the cases of equality). Now since you can see the number of labels $1$ as the half of the sum of degrees in $G_1$ you must try to find a relation between this quantity and the sum of $f\left(v\right)$ over all vertices. The final idea is to minorize $f$ with the function $g$, and it may be suggested by the fact that the sum of degrees in $G_1$ is completely simmetric over the vertices, and $g$ has more simmetry than $f$ so it could be esier to work on it.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
FedericoII
8 posts
#12 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
There is one simpler motivation.

Bern is a very smart guy, he easily solves even the hardest math olympiad problems.
He is surely going to win a gold medal at IMO, and mental processes of IMO gold medalists cannot be understood by us common mortals.
I give my congratulations to him for his solution, and for his IMO gold medal in advance.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
bern-1-16-4-13
28 posts
#13 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
It's so enjoyable when you jinx in italian, but in english it's even more "lovely" :wallbash:

The truth is that YOU're simply gonna take a perfect score :D

But let's not go OT
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
61plus
252 posts
#15 • 4 Y
Y by Zawadx, DVDthe1st, centslordm, Adventure10
Suppose we have a labelling which gives the minimum sum of labels.

Consider a vertex $V$. If there are as many edges labelled $3$ as that of $1$ coming out of $V$, change all of them to $2$. Clearly this can only decrease the sum, and the condition of problem is still satisfied. Call this $(1)$.

Hence for each vertex, there are more $1$ edges than $3$ edges. Say for a vertex $A$ there are $n$ edges labelled $1$. Then the $n$ endpoints of these edges exluding $A$ forms a $K_n$, whose labels are all $3$.

Let one of these endpoints be $B$. Then from $(1)$, $B$ must have at least $n$ edges labelled $1$. Let the endpoints of these edges, excluding $A$, form a group $S$ (so $|S|\geq n-1$). This means that any edge conencting $A$ to a vertex $C$ in $S$ is labelled $3$. (Consider triangle $ABC$). Combined with $(1)$, $A$ must have exactly $n-1$ edges labelled $3$.

Thus for each vertex $A$ the sum of labels $S_A$ of its edges is minimally $2\cdot 2016-1$. As the sum of all $S_A$ must be even, one of them is at least $2\cdot 2016$, giving the lower bound for the question.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
vjdjmathaddict
502 posts
#16 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
disregard
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by vjdjmathaddict, Jun 28, 2017, 12:28 PM
Reason: wrong thread
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
v_Enhance
6877 posts
#17 • 5 Y
Y by A_Math_Lover, v4913, centslordm, Adventure10, bin_sherlo
In general, the answer for $2m+1$ is $2 - \frac{1}{2m+1}$.

We prove the lower bound by induction on $m$: assume some edge $vw$ is labeled $1$. Then we delete it, noting that edges touching $v$ and $w$ contribute a sum of at least $4 \cdot (2m-1) = 8m-4$. Thus by induction hypothesis the total is at least \[ \binom{2m-1}{2} \left( 2 - \frac{1}{2m-1} \right) 	+ (8m-4) + 1 	= \binom{2m+1}{2} \left( 2 - \frac{1}{2m+1} \right) \]as desired.

Interestingly, there are (at least) two equality cases. One is to have all edges be $2$ except for $m$ disjoint edges, which have weight $1$. Another is to split the vertex set into two sets $A \cup B$ with $|A| = m$ and $|B| = m+1$, then weight all edges in $A \times B$ with $1$ and the remaining edges with $3$.

Remark: In fact, given any equality case on $c$ vertices, one can generate one on $c+2$ vertices by two vertices $u$ and $v$, connected to the previous $c$ vertices with weight $2$, and then equipping $uv$ with weight $1$.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by v_Enhance, Mar 6, 2019, 3:45 AM
Reason: fix indexing error
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Zawadx
38 posts
#18 • 4 Y
Y by A_Math_Lover, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
My solution involved deleting one vertex at a time. The key idea is to consider the sum of the weights attached to any vertex: if this is at least $2n$ for even $n$ and $2n-1$ for odd $n$, we can remove and proceed by induction. If not, then it violates the minimum total weight for $n-1$ (usually). Since the answer for $2m$ is also $2 - \frac{1}{2m-1}$, this created some bounding complications for the even case of the inductive step. Thankfully there is only one exact configuration with any issues, and it can easily be disproved due to needing more $3$ weighted edges than it can sustain. Of course if I'd just noted the relation between $1$s and $3$s used there worked generally, the proof would've taken 10 minutes instead of the 2.5 hours :(

Very nice idea, bern. How long did that take to develop and write? The solution provides nice insights, but if it took you too long you might have been hoodwinked just like I was xD
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
smy2012
688 posts
#19 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
:( Among all 6 problems, it's the only problem I didn't solve. I found about $n/2$ case of equality case. I have no clue where I should adjust the problem to.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by smy2012, Jun 29, 2017, 8:48 AM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
rmtf1111
698 posts
#20 • 4 Y
Y by fastlikearabbit, centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
I have a solution using weight shifting like arguments. First let's prove the following lemma which kills the problem:
Lemma: Given a $C_3$-free graph on $2017$ vertices and $k>1008$ edges. We call a pair of vertices $(u,v)$ fat if there exists a vertex $x$ adjacent to both $u$ and $v$. There exist at least $k-1008$ different fat pairs.
Proof: We will prove this algorithmically. Start with a $C_2$-free( :P ) graph on $2017$ vertices. Now we will add in our $k$ edges, but we will start by adding first all the non-adjacent edges(call them initial edges), which are at most $1008$ at number. It is clear that any edge we will add from this point(call those edges - babies) will be adjacent to at least one initial edge. Everytime we add a baby, let's say $uv$ we pick exactly one segment, $vr$ and color it in red, if it isn't already painted in red, where $ur$ is an initial edge, if there are more segments that we can choose, we pick one randomly. Suppose that at a certain point, after adding a baby , let's say $uv$, we can't pick any non-red segment and paint it, this means that the segment $vr$ is already red, where $ur$ is an initial edge, this means that there exists a vertex $t$ for which $vt$ is an initial edge and $rt$ is a baby, but this means that segment $ut$ is also already painted in red, which means that there is an initial edge different from $ur$ and $vt$ which is adjacent to either $u$ or $t$, but this is impossible. Note that the two endpoints of a red segment form a fat pair, and also note that we have painted exactly $k-1008$ segments in red, thus the lemma is proven.
Back to the problem: We prove that the minimum average is $2-\frac{1}{2017}$. To show this, first of all label all the edges with $2$, now start re-labelling some with $1$, suppose that we have re-labelled $m$ edges, now from lemma we have that we are required to re-label from $2$ to $3$ at least $m-1008$ edges, which implies that the minimum sum of the labels that we can achieve is $\dbinom{2017}{2}-1008$, and hence the conclusion.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by rmtf1111, Jun 7, 2018, 5:31 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
yayups
1614 posts
#21 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
v_Enhance wrote:
Official Solution: In general, the answer for $2m+1$ is $2 - \frac{1}{2m+1}$.

We prove the lower bound by induction on $m$: assume some edge $vw$ is labeled $1$. Then we delete it, noting that edges touching $v$ and $w$ contribute a sum of at least $4 \cdot 2m = 8m$. Thus by induction hypothesis the total is at least \[ \binom{2m-1}{2} \left( 2 - \frac{1}{2m-1} \right) 	+ 8m + 1 	= \binom{2m+1}{2} \left( 2 - \frac{1}{2m+1} \right) \]as desired.

Interestingly, there are (at least) two equality cases. One is to have all edges be $2$ except for $m$ disjoint edges, which have weight $1$. Another is to split the vertex set into two sets $A \cup B$ with $|A| = m$ and $|B| = m+1$, then weight all edges in $A \times B$ with $1$ and the remaining edges with $3$.

Remark: In fact, given any equality case on $c$ vertices, one can generate one on $c+2$ vertices by two vertices $u$ and $v$, connected to the previous $c$ vertices with weight $2$, and then equipping $uv$ with weight $1$.

I think this solution is slightly wrong. The edges would contribute $4(2m-1)$ since there are only $2m-1$ vertices when we delete the edge. Then, we compute
\[ \binom{2m-1}{2} \left( 2 - \frac{1}{2m-1} \right) + 8m - \mathbf{3} = \binom{2m+1}{2} \left( 2 - \frac{1}{2m+1} \right), \]so fortunately the solution works out. This is a funny case of two wrongs luckily (or unluckily depending on how you look at it) making the solution not fundamentally wrong.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
WolfusA
1900 posts
#22 • 3 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10, Mango247
No induction
Let $A$ be a set of all edges labeled with $1$ or $3$ such that for every edge in $A$ there exists other edge in $A$ such that numbers on these edges give sum $4$ and they have exactly one common vertice. In other words: take any vertice and if it has at least one edge $1$ and at least one edge $3$, then put into $A$ all these edges labeled with $1$ or $3$ connected to this vertice. Repeat this for all vertices and in final set we consider each element to appear only once (though edge could be connected to two vertices satisfying conditions).
Now divide $A$ into $2$ element subsets of such that "in every subset we have two different edges from $A$ sharing one common vertice and they labels sum to $4$ (i.e. one is 1-labeled and second is 3-labeled)". There's one restriction: some edges in $A$ may be left if and only if they have no partner with which they could satisfy this "in every...". So actually the partition is a little bit random but is absolutely complete (i.e. after this process we are unable to make another required 2-element subset from so far unused elements of $A$).
We can vanish all $1$'s and $3$'s written on edges from $2$-element required subsets and replace them with $2$'s. (In this place a reader is committed to do the casework and see that this operation doesn't harm the condition "any triangle has sum of labels at least $5.$")
Now we are very satisfied to see that no vertice has two edges with $1$ and $3$. So if you did the casework you would see that these triangles with at least one edge $3$ are the following types $2+2+3,2+3+3$ or $3+3+3 $ (as there's no $1$-labeled edge) thus each $3-$labelled edge can be now modified into $2$-labeled and still our labeling is fine and sum of all labels decreased (or remained the same).
At this moment all labels are equal to $1$ or $2$. Observe all $1$ edges are by above algorithm disjoint. By PIE there can be at most $1008$ disjoint edges. So the sum of all labels is now $2\cdot\left(\dbinom{2017}{2}-k\right)+1\cdot k\ge 2\cdot\left(\dbinom{2017}{2}-1008\right)+1\cdot 1008$.
Limit is attainable: you make edges $\lbrace{1,2}\rbrace,\lbrace{3,4}\rbrace,...,\lbrace{2015,2016}\rbrace$ labeled with ones and the rest with twos.
I'd like to know if you found any faults or doubts.
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by WolfusA, May 21, 2019, 8:17 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
yayups
1614 posts
#23 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
We claim the minimum is $2-1/2017$, achieved when we have a matching of $1008$ edges all $1$ and the rest of the edges at $2$.

We prove by induction that for all odd $n\ge 3$, the minimum average of the $\binom{n}{2}$ labels in a $K_n$ is $2-1/n$. The case $n=3$ is trivial to verify.

Now suppose the statement is true for $n-2$, and we want to show it for $n$. If there is no edge labeled $1$ in the $K_n$, then we are done as the average is already $\ge 2$. Otherwise, there is an edge $e=uv$ labeled $1$. For any edge $ux$ incident to it that is also a $1$, the edge $xv$ must be labeled $3$. Thus, the average of all edges incident to $e$ is $2$, so the average of all the edges is at least
\[\frac{\left(2-\frac{1}{n-2}\right)\binom{n-2}{2}+2\cdot(n-2)+1}{\binom{n}{2}}=2-1/n,\]which completes the induction and the proof.
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
BOBTHEGR8
272 posts
#24 • 2 Y
Y by centslordm, Adventure10
Perform the following operation. If there are two adjacent edges labelled 1 , the third edge completing the triangle will be labelled 3. Now change this 1,1,3 to 1,2,2 .Note that the average is unchanged. Now continue this process till there are no adjacent edges labelled 1. Now in this configuration we can easily see that the minimum occurs when there max allowed 1's that is 1008. And rest are 2. The corresponding average comes $2-\frac{1}{2017} $
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
IAmTheHazard
5003 posts
#25 • 1 Y
Y by centslordm
The answer is $2-\tfrac{1}{2017}$. The following construction works: have every edge be weight $2$, except for $1008$ disjoint edges which have a weight of $1$. Hence it suffices to prove that a lower average is impossible.
In fact, for $n=2m+1$, the answer is $2-\tfrac{1}{2m+1}$, with the construction eing the same.. I will prove this by induction on $m$. For $m=1$, we can manually check that having one edge with weight $1$ and two with weight $2$ works, giving an average of $2-\tfrac{1}{2(1)+1}$ which fits. Now suppose that $2m+1$ works, and consider $2m+3$. By averaging the average weight of each $K_{2m+1}$ subgraph of the $K_{2m+3}$, the answer must be at least $2-\tfrac{1}{2m+1}$. On the other hand, since we divide the integer edge weight sum by the number of edges, which is $(m+1)(2m+3)$, we can improve this answer by forcing the denominator to be a factor of $(m+1)(2m+3)$. Since
$$2-\frac{m+2}{(m+1)(2m+3)}<2-\frac{1}{2m+1}<2-\frac{m+1}{(m+1)(2m+3)},$$this means that the average for $2m+3$ must be at least $2-\tfrac{m+1}{(m+1)(2m+3)}=2-\tfrac{1}{2m+3}$, completing the induction. $\blacksquare$
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by IAmTheHazard, Jun 26, 2021, 2:02 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
squareman
966 posts
#26
Y by
The answer is $2-\frac{1}{2017}.$ Construction is $1008$ disjoint edges have label $1$ and rest have label $2.$

We show the difference $D$ between the number of $1$ edges and the number of $3$ edges is at most $1008.$

Take any edge $AB$ with label $1$ if it exists. Note that for any vertex $C \ne A,B,$ the labels of $CA$ and $CB$ sum to $\ge 4.$ So just remove $A$ and $B,$ decreasing $D$ by $\le 1.$ Repeat until no edges with label $1$ remain, the end. $\blacksquare$
This post has been edited 2 times. Last edited by squareman, Jun 11, 2022, 2:28 PM
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
China_BW
60 posts
#27
Y by
shinichiman wrote:
Remark 1. If a triangle has $2$ of its edges both labelled $1$ then the other edge must be labelled $3$.

There is a way to label $K_{2017}$ so that the average of labels of edges $T$ is minimum. In such labelling, consider edges $BC$ so $BC$ is labelled $3$. Consider all triangles $ABC$ so $CA,CB$ are both labelled $1$. If we change the labels of edges of $\triangle ABC$ from $1,1,3$ to $1,2,2$ ($BC$ is changed to $2$) then the average of labels $T$ remains the same and is still minimum. We do the same for all triangles $XBC$ with $XB,XC$ labelled $1$ then move on to other edges like $BC$ whose original label is $3$.

After this, we obtain a new label $\mathcal{T}$ for $K_{2017}$ so that no edge is labelled $3$ and the average of labels $T$ is still minimum. Since no edge is labelled $3$ in this configuration $\mathcal{T}$ so according to remark 1, there doesn't exist two edges sharing same endpoint and are both labelled $1$. This follows, number of edges labelled $1$ is at most $\frac{2016}{2}=1008$, the remaining edges are labelled $2$. Thus, the minimum average of labels is $$T= \frac{1}{ \binom{2017}{2}} \left[ 2 \cdot \left( \binom{2017}{2}-1008 \right)+1008 \right]= 2- \frac{1008}{\binom{2017}{2}}=2-\frac{1}{2017}.$$Construction: Consider $2017$ vertices $A_1, \ldots, A_{2017}$ with $A_1A_2,A_3A_4, \ldots, A_{2015}A_{2016}$ are labelled $1$. The remaining edges are labelled $2$.
This solution is absolutely wrong, how do you change 1 1 3 into 1 2 2, you haven't any proof about that is right
:blush:
Z K Y
The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
ChanandlerBong
44 posts
#28
Y by
Denote respectively by $E_1$, $E_2$ and $E_3$ the set of edges that are labeled $1$,$2$ and $3$. Obviously $|E_1|+|E_2|+|E_3|={2017 \choose 2}$. We claim that $|E_3|\geq |E_1|-1008$.

Lemma [ Friendship paradox: On average your friends are more popular than you ]:
Let $H=(V_0,E_0)$ be a simple graph. For each $u\in V_0$, define $a(u)=\frac{1}{\deg u}\sum\limits_{w\in N(u)}\deg w$ to be the average degree of the neighbors of $u$. Then
$$\sum\limits_{u\in V_0}a(u) \geq \sum\limits_{u \in V_0}\deg u$$Proof of the lemma:
\begin{align*}
    \sum\limits_{u\in V_0}a(u)&=\sum\limits_{u\in V_0}\sum\limits_{v\in N(u)}\frac{\deg v}{\deg u}  \\
    &=\sum\limits_{uv\in E_0} \frac{\deg u}{\deg v} + \frac{\deg v}{\deg u} \\
    &\geq \sum\limits_{uv\in E_0} 2  \\
    &=2|E_0| \\
    &=\sum\limits_{u\in V_0}\deg u
\end{align*}Hence the lemma. $\blacksquare$

Consider the subgraph $G=(V,E_1)$. Notice that because every triangle has sum of labels at least $5$, if $xy\in E_1$ and $xw\in E_1$, then $yw\in E_3$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
    \sum\limits_{u\in V} \deg_{E_3}u&\geq \sum\limits_{u\in V}|N(N(u))|-1 \\
    &\geq \sum\limits_{u\in V}\max_{w\in N(u)}\deg w-1 \\
    &\geq \sum\limits_{u\in V}a(u)-1 \\
    &\geq \sum\limits_{u\in V}\deg u -2017
\end{align*}Which gives us $2|E_3|\geq 2|E_1|-2017$, from here we conclude that$|E_3|\geq |E_1|-1008$.
This shows that the average of the labels is at least $2-\frac{1008}{{2017\choose 2}}=\frac{4033}{2017}$.
This post has been edited 7 times. Last edited by ChanandlerBong, Jul 20, 2023, 12:50 PM
Z K Y
N Quick Reply
G
H
=
a