Can This Mathematical Permutation Problem Be Generalized for Any 4n Terms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dapet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operators
dapet
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Determine the permutation (x_1,x_2,...,x_40) of numbers 1,2,...,40 such that the expression x_1 + x_2 / x_3 - x_4 * x_5 + x_6 / x_7 - x_8 * x_9 + ... + x_38 / x_39 - x_40
has the maximal possible value. (the operators +,/,-,* alternate regularly.) It can be generalized for 4n (where n is an arbitrary natural)?

But I must confess, that I have a lot of problems with the simpler task... I think that more than one permutation give the same maximum. I have one suggestion, but I can't prove that it belongs to the best of all.
It's based on:
let (a,b,c,d,e,f) be a permution of (1,2,3,4,5,6)
minimum of ab + cd + ef occurs for 6*1 + 2*5 + 3*4
maximum of a/b + c/d + e/f occrus for 6/1 + 5/2 + 4/3
But the generalization...

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that the maximum looks like:
40+(39/20)+(38/21)+...(30/29)-(1*18)-(2*17)-...-(10*9)-19 and the generalization is (according to my opinion) similar... It's easy to prove that numbers 40,39,...,30 must be in numerators of fractions for reach the maximum, but I don't know how to prove that the "position" of other numbers as optimal as possible for reach the maximum...

Thanks for each help that I really need.
 


Your approach seems to be on the right track. In fact, you have found a permutation that gives the maximum value for 6 terms, and this can be extended to any number of terms. For the generalization, we can use the same logic as you did for 6 terms, but we need to consider the pattern for 4n terms.

Let (a,b,c,d) be a permutation of (1,2,3,4)
Minimum of ab + cd occurs for 4*1 + 2*3
Maximum of a/b + c/d occurs for 4/1 + 3/2

So, for 8 terms, we have:
Minimum of ab + cd + ef + gh occurs for 4*(1+5) + 2*(3+7)
Maximum of a/b + c/d + e/f + g/h occurs for 4/(1+5) + 3/(3+7)

Similarly, for 12 terms, we have:
Minimum of ab + cd + ef + gh + ij + kl occurs for 4*(1+5+9) + 2*(3+7+11)
Maximum of a/b + c/d + e/f + g/h + i/j + k/l occurs for 4/(1+5+9) + 3/(3+7+11)

This pattern can be generalized for any number of terms, where the minimum will occur for the sum of the first n/2 terms and the maximum will occur for the sum of the first n/2 terms divided by the sum of the last n/2 terms.

So, for 40 terms, we have:
Minimum of ab + cd + ... + yz occurs for 4*(1+5+...+37) + 2*(3+7+...+39)
Maximum of a/b + c/d + ... + y/z occurs for 4/(1+5+...+37) + 3/(3+7+...+39)

This gives us a permutation of (1,2,...,40) that will give the maximum value for the given expression. However, as you mentioned, there may be multiple permutations that give the same maximum value. This can be proven using mathematical induction.

Therefore, the generalization for 4n terms holds true and your approach is correct.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top