MHB Among 2n-1 integers summation of some n of these is divisible by n.

  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers Summation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that from a set of \(2n-1\) positive integers, where \(n=2^{k-1}\), one can select \(n\) integers such that their sum is divisible by \(n\). The proof uses induction, starting with a base case for \(k\) and extending it to \(k+1\). By dividing the \(2n_{k+1}-1\) integers into two sets of size \(2n_k-1\) and one singleton, it demonstrates that \(n_k\) integers can be selected from each of the two larger sets, ensuring their sums are divisible by \(n_k\). This leads to a combined selection of \(2n_k\) integers, which is equal to \(n_{k+1}\). The discussion concludes with a note on the potential typo regarding the term "equal to," emphasizing that the focus should remain on divisibility.
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Let $k$ be a positive integer. Let $n=2^{k-1}$. Prove that, from $2n-1$ positive integers, one can select $n$ integers, such that their sum is divisible by $n$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
Let $k$ be a positive integer. Let $n=2^{k-1}$. Prove that, from $2n-1$ positive integers, one can select $n$ integers, such that their sum is divisible by $n$.
Suppose this true for some \(k\).

Now consider the case for \(k+1\), then \(n_{k+1}=2n_k\) and any set of \(2n_{k+1}-1\) positive integers. Now split the \(2n_{k+1}-1\) positive integers into three sets two of size \(2n_k-1\), and one of size \(1\).

We can select \(n_k\) integers from the first set with sum divisible by \(n_k\), and a set of \(n_k\) integers from the second set with sum divisible by \(n_k\). So we have a combined set of \(2n_k=n_{k+1}\) integers from the set of 2n_{k+1}-1 integers with sum equal to 2n_k=n_{k+1}.

The rest of the details for a proof by induction I leave to the reader.

CB
 
CaptainBlack said:
Suppose this true for some \(k\).
We can select \(n_k\) integers from the first set with sum divisible by \(n_k\), and a set of \(n_k\) integers from the second set with sum divisible by \(n_k\). So we have a combined set of \(2n_k=n_{k+1}\) integers from the set of $2n_{k+1}-1$ integers with sum equal to $2n_k=n_{k+1}$.
I think "equal to" is a typo. What you probably intended was "divisible by". But even that is not guaranteed (at least I am not convinced). Divisibility by $n_k$ is guaranteed though.
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
925
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K