Difference between revisions of "2017 USAMO Problems/Problem 5"
(→Solution (INCOMPLETE)) |
(→Solution (INCOMPLETE)) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The largest distance between any two points in the entire grid is <math>\sqrt{2}\left(2^{k+1} - 1\right) < c^{k+3}</math> for all <math>c\ge 2.</math> Therefore, the label <math>L</math> cannot be used anywhere else in the grid. However, <math>B, C,</math> and <math>D</math> each require at least <math>k+3</math> distinct labels as well by the inductive hypothesis. Thus, they must use at least one label that is not used in <math>A.</math> It follows that the entire grid requires at least <math>k+4</math> distinct labels. This completes the inductive step, and thus we conclude that no labeling as desired exists for any <math>c\ge 2.</math> | The largest distance between any two points in the entire grid is <math>\sqrt{2}\left(2^{k+1} - 1\right) < c^{k+3}</math> for all <math>c\ge 2.</math> Therefore, the label <math>L</math> cannot be used anywhere else in the grid. However, <math>B, C,</math> and <math>D</math> each require at least <math>k+3</math> distinct labels as well by the inductive hypothesis. Thus, they must use at least one label that is not used in <math>A.</math> It follows that the entire grid requires at least <math>k+4</math> distinct labels. This completes the inductive step, and thus we conclude that no labeling as desired exists for any <math>c\ge 2.</math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | I have heard from others that the actual bound is <math>c=\sqrt{2},</math> i.e. a labeling as desired exists for <math>c\le\sqrt{2}</math> and does not exist for <math>c\ge\sqrt{2}.</math> I think achieving this bound from the lower end requires some significantly non-trivial labeling. The inductive argument above seems fairly loose, so I think that it can be sharpened to bring the upper bound down to <math>\sqrt{2},</math> but I am not sure yet how exactly to do so. |
Revision as of 02:07, 3 May 2017
Problem
Let denote the set of all integers. Find all real numbers such that there exists a labeling of the lattice points with positive integers for which: only finitely many distinct labels occur, and for each label , the distance between any two points labeled is at least .
Solution (INCOMPLETE)
For we can label every lattice point For we can make a "checkerboard" labeling, i.e. label with if is even and if is odd. One can easily verify that these labelings satisfy the required conditions. Therefore, a labeling as desired exists for all
We now prove that no labeling as desired exists for any To do this, we will prove that labeling a -by- square grid of lattice points requires at least distinct labels for all natural numbers ; hence for a sufficiently large section of the lattice plane the number of distinct labels required grows arbitrarily large, so the entire lattice plane cannot be labeled with finitely many distinct labels. We will prove this using induction.
For the base case, we have four points in a square of side length The maximum distance between any two of these points is for all so all four points must have different labels. This completes the base case.
Now, for the inductive step, suppose that labeling a -by- square grid of lattice points requires at least distinct labels for some natural number We will now prove that labeling a -by- square grid of lattice points requires at least distinct labels.
Take a -by- square grid of lattice points. Divide this grid into four quadrants, and By the inductive hypothesis, requires at least distinct labels. At least one of these labels must be or greater; take one such label and call it
The largest distance between any two points in the entire grid is for all Therefore, the label cannot be used anywhere else in the grid. However, and each require at least distinct labels as well by the inductive hypothesis. Thus, they must use at least one label that is not used in It follows that the entire grid requires at least distinct labels. This completes the inductive step, and thus we conclude that no labeling as desired exists for any
I have heard from others that the actual bound is i.e. a labeling as desired exists for and does not exist for I think achieving this bound from the lower end requires some significantly non-trivial labeling. The inductive argument above seems fairly loose, so I think that it can be sharpened to bring the upper bound down to but I am not sure yet how exactly to do so.