Challenge Micromass' big July Challenge

Click For Summary
Micromass' July Challenge features a variety of mathematical problems across different disciplines, requiring full derivations or proofs for solutions. Participants can utilize common knowledge results but must cite them, and they are allowed to use external resources without directly searching for specific questions. Several problems have already been solved, including calculating average lengths in a unit square, summing reciprocals of various number types, and exploring properties of groups and functions. The challenge encourages rigorous mathematical exploration and collaboration among participants. Overall, the thread fosters a vibrant environment for tackling complex mathematical concepts.
  • #61
PeroK said:
In fact, the probability that ##n## people have birthdays covering exactly any ##x## days is:

$$ \binom{d}{x} \sum_{j=1}^{x}(-1)^{j+x} \binom{x}{j} \left(\frac j d \right)^n$$

It's only when ##x = d## that the initial binomial term disappears.

Note also, a minor point, that it should be in general ##(-1)^{j+x}##. It's only ##(-1)^{j+1}## when ##x## is odd.

PeroK said:
Here's a counting argument that I think works:

Let ##N_i## be the number of ways that exactly any ##i## days can be birthdays:

##\binom{d}{2} 2^n = N_2 + 2\binom{d}{2}##

As all the ##N_2## cases are covered and every pair chosen generates ##2## cases where only 1 day is covered. Hence:

##N_2 = \binom{d}{2} (2^n - 2) = \binom{d}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{2} (-1)^{j+2} \binom{2}{j} j^n##

And:

##\binom{d}{3} 3^n = N_3 + \binom{d}{3}(3(2^n) - 3) ##

All the ##N_3## cases are generated, plus for every triple there are 3 sets of ##2^n## cases where at most 2 days are covered, but this counts twice each of the three cases where only day is covered. Hence:

##N_3 = \binom{d}{3}(3^n - 3(2^n) + 3) ##

And, in general - or for the last day - we get the series of alternating inclusions and exclusions.

I think everything you've mentioned is correct. Brain fade on my wording, especially since I had done this back in 1992 where I first determined this series based on observation, and ended up with a similar description of the terms of the series as alternating corrections (inclusions and exclusions).

http://rcgldr.net/misc/prob.rtf

I also posted here about that series back in 2012, the series is shown in posts #1 and #12, wondering if there was a better way than the alternating series. It includes some of the observation process, with comments on the series in posts 16 through 19.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/permutation-7-identical-items-32-distinct-containers.588810

I've got some notes about this, but haven't found them yet.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I will give solution of Problem 4. I use andrewkirks notation:

andrewkirk said:
Is the following then an accurate representation of what the set ##\mathcal B## is intended to be in problem 4?

Let ##C^0## be the set of all continuous functions from ##\mathbb R\to \mathbb R##.
Given a set ##S## of functions ##\mathbb R\to\mathbb R##, we say ##S## is 'pointwise closed' if, for any countable subset ##(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}## of ##S## that converges pointwise to a function ##f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R##, the function ##f## is also in ##S##.

Then ##\mathcal B## is defined to be the intersection of all sets of functions ##S## that contain ##C^0## and are pointwise closed.

micromass says that this is correct.

Here is my solution:

Since all continuous functions are Borel measurable, and all pointwise limits of Borel measurable functions are Borel measurable (W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd ed, Corollary (a), p. 15, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1986), it follows that all functions in ##\mathcal B## are Borel measurable functions.

Conversely, let ##\Omega## be the set of all countable ordinals.

We define ##C^\alpha##, for ##\alpha\in \Omega##, by recursion thus:
##C^0## is as above. For ##\alpha>0##, ##C^\alpha## is the set of all pointwise limits of functions in ##\cup_{\beta<\alpha} C^\beta##.

We prove that ##\mathcal B=\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha##.

To see this, we first notice that by transfinite induction, any pointwise closed set ##S## of real valued functions on ##\mathbb R## which contains ##C^0## contains ##C^\alpha## for all ##\alpha\in\Omega##. This means that ##\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha\subset\mathcal B##.

Conversely, ##C^0\subset\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha##. Also, for any sequence ##(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}## of functions in ##\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha##, there is a sequence of countable ordinals ##(\alpha_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}##, such that ##f_n\in C^{\alpha_n}## for all ##n\in\mathbb N##.
The supremum of any countable subset of ##\Omega## is a countable ordinal (a consequence of ##\aleph_0^2=\aleph_0##), so there is an ##\alpha\in \Omega## such that ##f_n\in C^\alpha## for all ##n\in\mathbb N##. Therefore, if such a sequence ##(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}## is pointwise convergent, its limit lies in ##C^{\alpha+1}##. It follows that ##\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha## is pointwise closed.
This means that ##\mathcal B\subset\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha##.

Hence, ##\mathcal B=\cup_{\alpha\in\Omega}C^\alpha##.

Next, we prove by transfinite induction that if ##f,g\in C^\alpha##, then ##f+g\in C^\alpha## and ##\min(f,g)\mathcal \in C^\alpha## for all ##\alpha\in \Omega##: This is true for ##\alpha=0##. Assume that it holds for all ##\beta<\alpha##, for some ##\alpha>0## (##\alpha\in\Omega##). Let ##f,g\in C^\alpha##. Then there are two sequences ##(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}## and ##(g_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}## of functions in ##\cup_{\beta<\alpha}C^\beta## which converge pointwise to ##f## and ##g##, respectively. Then, to each ##n\in \mathbb N## there are ##\gamma_n<\alpha## and ##\delta_n<\alpha## such that ##f_n\in C^{\gamma_n}## and ##g_n\in C^{\delta_n}##. With ##\beta_n=\max(\gamma_n,\delta_n)##, ##f_n,g_n\in C^{\beta_n}##, and, by the induction hypothesis, ##f_n+g_n\in C^{\beta_n}## and ##\min(f_n,g_n)\in C^{\beta_n}##. Since ##(f_n+g_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}## and ##\min (f_n,g_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}## converge pointwise to ##f+g## and ##\min(f,g)##, respectively, those limit functions lie in ##C^\alpha##.
The conclusion now follows by transfinite induction.

It follows that if ##f,g\in \mathcal B##, then ##f+g\in \mathcal B## and ##\min(f,g)\in\mathcal B##.

By a similar, somewhat simpler, argument, ##f \in \mathcal B## implies ##rf\in \mathcal B## for all ##r\in \mathbb R##.

Next, let ##\mathcal E## be the family of all sets ##E\subset\mathbb R## such that ##\chi_E\in\mathcal B##, where ##\chi_E## is the characteristic function of ##E##.

Then, ##\mathcal E## contains all bounded open intervals ##(a,b)\subset \mathbb R##, for if we put
f_n(x)=\begin{cases} 0, \qquad x\le a\\ \frac{2n}{b-a}(x-a), \qquad a&lt;x&lt;a+\frac{b-a}{2n}\\1,\qquad a+\frac{b-a}{2n}\le x\le b -\frac{b-a}{2n}\\<br /> \frac{2n}{b-a}(b-x),\qquad b-\frac{b-a}{2n}&lt;x&lt;b\\0,\qquad x\ge b\end{cases}
for all ##n\in \mathbb N##, then ##(f_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}## is a sequence in ##C^0## which converges pointwise to ##\chi_{(a,b)}##.

If ##E,F\in\mathcal E##, then, by the above, ##\chi_{\mathbb R\setminus E}=1-\chi_E\in\mathcal B## and ##\chi_{E\cup F}=\min(\chi_E+\chi_F,1)\in \mathcal B##, so ##\mathbb R\setminus E\in \mathcal E## and ##E\cup F\in\mathcal E##.
Assume that ##E_n\in\mathcal E##, for all ##n \in \mathbb N##. Then, by induction, ##\cup_{k=1}^n E_k\in\mathcal E##, for all ##n\in \mathbb N##.
It follows that ##\chi_{\cup_{n=1}^{\infty} E_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty} \chi_{\cup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_k}## (pointwise), so ##\chi_{\cup_{n=1}^{\infty} E_n}\in \mathcal B## and ##\cup_{n=1}^{\infty} E_n\in \mathcal E##.
This means that ##\mathcal E## is a ##\sigma##-algebra which contains all bounded open intervals in ##\Bbb R##. It follows that ##\mathcal E## contains all Borel sets.

From this and the above, it follows that ##\mathcal B## contains all simple Borel measurable functions, since these are linear combinations of characteristic functions of Borel sets.
Now, if ##f:\mathbb R\to [0,\infty)## is a positive Borel measurable function, then there is a sequence ##(s_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}## of simple Borel meaurable functions which converges pointwise to ##f## (W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd ed, Theorem 1.17, p. 15, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1986). Hence ##f\in \mathcal B##. Every real Borel measurable function ##f## can be written as a difference ##f_+-f_-##, where

##f_+(x)=\begin{cases}f(x),\qquad f(x)\ge 0\\ 0,\qquad f(x)<0\end{cases}## and ##f_-=f-f_+##, and ##f_+## and ##f_-## both are positive Borel measurable functions, so ##f\in \mathcal B##.
It follows that ##\mathcal B## contains all Borel measurable functions.

We have proved that ##\mathcal B## is the set of Borel measurable functions.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and micromass
  • #63
I am a bit late to the party but none the less for Problem 6 I wrote a script to serve as a way to get experimental probability

function birthday(people, trials) {

var k;
var f;
var total = 0;

for (k = 0; k < trials; k++) {

var success = true;
var days = [];

for (f = 0; f < people; f++) {
days[f] = Math.floor(Math.random()*365);
}

for (f = 0; f < 365; f++) {
if (days.indexOf(f) == -1) {
success = false;
f = 365;
}
}

if (success === true) {
total++;
}
}

var chance = total / trials;

console.log(chance);

}

Entering in birthday(2016, 1000000) to the console served as a way to run 1000000 trials
This returned a value of 0.23017 probability
This is close to some of the other values I have seen in the thread so it might be close to the answer
If my code if incorrect for the situation please tell me
Also if you want to run the code for yourself in the console I would advise setting the trails parameter to 10000 or less as it more can take forever to run
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #64
Kaura said:
This is close to some of the other values I have seen in the thread so it might be close to the answer
We have the analytic answer already.
Here are more digits, all correct unless WolframAlpha has a bug:
0.23098718155802874302697567890329631779588686618349968487
 
  • #65
mfb said:
Go to polar coordinates for the "1" term.
So, to complete the calculation:
1.
##I_1=\int\int\sqrt{x^2+y^2}=\int_{\theta=0}^{\pi/2}\int_{r=0}^{1}r^2drd\theta+2\int_{\theta=0}^{\pi/4}\int_{r=0}^{\sec(\theta)}r^2drd\theta##
##=\pi/6+\frac 23\int_0^{\pi/4}(\sec^3(\theta)-1)d\theta=\pi/6+\frac 13\left[\sec(\theta)\tan(\theta)+\ln|\sec(\theta)+\tan(\theta)|-2\theta\right]_0^{\pi/4}##
##=\frac 13\sqrt 2+\frac 13\ln(1+\sqrt 2)##
2. The 'x' and 'y' terms are equivalent, so we combine them:
##I_2=2\int\int x\sqrt{x^2+y^2}=\frac 23\int((1+y^2)^{\frac 32-y^3}dy=\frac 23\int_0^{\pi/4}\sec^5(\theta)d\theta-1/6##
Writing ##s=\sin(\theta)##:
##\int_0^{\pi/4}\sec^5(\theta)d\theta=\int_0^{1/\sqrt 2}(1-s^2)^{-3}ds##
The integrand can be written ##\frac 1{16}(3(1-s)^{-1}+3(1+s)^{-1}+3(1-s)^{-2}+3(1+s)^{-2}+2(1-s)^{-3}+2(1+s)^{-3})##
whence ##I_2=\frac 14\ln(1+\sqrt 2)+\frac 5{12}\sqrt 2-\frac 16##
3. ##I_3=\int\int xy\sqrt{x^2+y^2}=\frac 14\int\sqrt{x+y}=\frac 14\frac 23\frac 25 2^{\frac 52}=\frac 4{15}\sqrt 2##

Pulling the three integrals together, I1-I2+I3, and applying the normalisation factor of 4:
average length of line ##=\frac 13\ln(1+\sqrt 2)+\frac {11}{15}\sqrt 2-\frac 23##
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
  • #66
mfb said:
0.23098718155802874302697567890329631779588686618349968487

0.3537% error on my part then which makes me happy
 
  • #67
Erland said:
I will give solution of Problem 4.
That's an interesting approach. I've only read part of it so far, as other distractions keep butting in. I have a question on what I've read thus far, re the following:
We define ##C^\alpha##, for ##\alpha\in \Omega##, by recursion thus:
##C^0## is as above. For ##\alpha>0##, ##C^\alpha## is the set of all pointwise limits of functions in ##\cup_{\beta<\alpha} C^\beta##.
This is a recursive definition. Don't we need well-orderedness of ##\Omega##, or some similar constraint, for a recursive definition to be meaningful? Can you demonstrate, or provide a reference, supporting the well-orderedness of the countable ordinals?

Thanks

Andrew
 
  • #68
andrewkirk said:
This is a recursive definition. Don't we need well-orderedness of ##\Omega##, or some similar constraint, for a recursive definition to be meaningful? Can you demonstrate, or provide a reference, supporting the well-orderedness of the countable ordinals?
All sets of ordinals are well ordered. In fact, if we use von Neumann's definition of ordinals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number#Von_Neumann_definition_of_ordinals

an ordinal ##\alpha## is identical to the set of all ordinals smaller than ##\alpha##. This means that ##\Omega## is the same as the smallest uncountable ordinal, which is also the smallest uncountable cardinal ##\aleph_1##.
 
  • #69
I'll try to finish it (somehow - and hope I haven't forgotten some cases).

5.
Notation: ##G## is a ##p##-group, and in our case of order ##p^2## or ##p^3 \; , \; Z = Z(G)## its center and ##G' = [G,G]## its commutator subgroup. ##<a_i>## will denote a subgroup generated by elements ##a_i## of ##G## and ##|H| , |a|## the order of a group ##H## or an element ##a##, resp. The cyclic group of order ##n## will be denoted ##C_n##. (And ##\times## will be the direct product, as usual.)

First of all:
All ##p##-groups are nilpotent (the upper central series terminate and have abelian quotients) and therefore have a non-trivial center. If ##G \diagup Z## is cyclic, then ##G## is abelian, because all elements could be written ##g = a^n \cdot z## with a generator ##aZ## of ##G \diagup Z## and a center element ##z##.

If ##|G| = p^2## then ##G \diagup Z## is either ##\{1\}## or isomorphic to ##C_p## In both cases ##G## is abelian. (The second case can therefore not appear, but it doesn't matter.) I.e. all groups of order ##p^2## are abelian and thus all subgroups are normal and the only possibilities are ##G ≅ C^2_p## or ##G ≅ C_{p^2}.##

From now on let us assume ##|G| = p^3.## Again ##Z ≠ \{1\}## which leaves the cases ##|Z| \in \{p,p^2,p^3\}##.
##|Z|=p^2## is impossible for ##G \diagup Z ≅ C_p## and ##G## would be abelian, i.e. ##|Z| = |G| = p^3##.
If ##|Z|=p^3## then ##G## is abelian, all subgroups are normal and ##G## has to be isomorphic to one of ##C_{p^3} \; , \; C_{p^2} \times C_{p} \; , \; C_p^3##

So we are left with the following situation: ##|G| = p^3 \; , \; |Z| = p## and ##G \diagup Z## is not cyclic of order ##p^2##. Thus ##G \diagup Z ≅ C_p \times C_p## by the previous result, which is abelian. Furthermore ##G' = [G,G] \subseteq Z## which is only possible for ##G' = Z ≅ C_p##. (##G' = \{1\}## would imply ##G## abelian.)

All group elements beside ##1## have orders ##p## or ##p^2##. There is at least one element of order ##p## in ##G \diagup Z ≅ C_p \times C_p## so we have two non-central elements ##a## and ##b## of order ##(|a|,|b|) = (p,p)## or w.l.o.g. ##(|a|,|b|) = (p^2,p)## and a central element in ##G'## of order ##p##. So either ##G ≅ A := <a,b \; | \; a^p = b^p = [a,b]^p = 1>## or ##G ≅ B := <a,b \; | \; a^{p^2} = b^p = 1 , [a,b] = a^p>.##
The group ##D := <a,b \; | \; a^{p^2} = b^p = [a,b] = 1>## is isomorphic to ##B## by interchanging the generators.

In case ##p=2 \; ,\; A## are the quaternions ##Q_8## with ##a = i \; , \; b= j \; , \; ab = k## and ##B## is the dihedral group ##D_4## (with ##8## elements).
 
Last edited:
  • #70
fresh_42 said:
So either ##G ≅ A := <a,b \; | \; a^p = b^p = [a,b]^p = 1>## or ##G ≅ B := <a,b \; | \; a^{p^2} = b^p = 1 , [a,b] = a^p>.##

If you write groups as a presentation, then you risk the groups to be trivial, or not having the order you want. So how are you sure that ##A## and ##B## have order ##p^3##?
 
  • #71
micromass said:
If you write groups as a presentation, then you risk the groups to be trivial, or not having the order you want. So how are you sure that ##A## and ##B## have order ##p^3##?
I don't know other group names. The case ##p=2## would suggest a generalized quaternion group for the ##A's##, but those are dicyclic, and higher dihedral groups for the ##B's##, but those contain reflexions. However, I admit I did everything to avoid group characters and the unit circle. I thought that might get too complicated, resp. too far from standard knowledge. (To be honest: it has been so long ago that I studied them that I've forgotten most of it.) Maybe there is another way to show the result by more emphasis on conjugation classes and orbits.

I know that ##G \diagup Z## is not cyclic of order ##p^2##, i.e. ##G \diagup Z ≅ C_p^2##. (The other cases have been ruled out or treated before.) So it is generated by two elements ##aZ## and ##bZ## of order ##p \, (mod \, Z)## and therefore I have ##p^2## elements modulo ##Z##.
And ##G' = [G,G] = Z## is cyclic of order ##p##. So I get ##p \cdot p^2 = p^3## elements in ##G##.

Since ##G## is not abelian and ##a \notin Z## has been chosen in the w.l.o.g statement, I can choose an element ##b \notin Z## of order ##p## that doesn't commute with ##a##, i.e. ##1 \neq [a,b] ## generates ##Z = G' ≅ C_p##. For this purpose I can take a representative ##b## of the set ##G \diagup{<a>}##. If such a ##b## would commute with ##a## it would be a central element of ##G##. If all those elements were of order ##p^2## then ##G \diagup Z \ncong C_p^2.##

Finally, the groups ##A## and ##B## cannot be isomorphic since ##B## contains an element of order ##p^2## and ##A## doesn't.
 
  • #72
You can't define a group only by giving the presentation. You have then no guarantee that ##a\neq b## as generators of the group. There are many similar issues. So what you've proven is that there are at most ##2## nonabelian groups. But a presentation alone doesn't suffice in defining a group.
 
  • #73
micromass said:
You can't define a group only by giving the presentation.
Why not? A group ##G## defined as ##<a,b \;|\; \mathcal{R}_i (a,b)>## is defined as the quotient of the free group ##\mathcal{F}(a,b)## and its normal subgroup generated by all relations ##\mathcal{R}_i (a,b)## (and their conjugates).

I have shown that ##G## of order ##p^2## is isomorphic to a group in ##\{C_p^2,C_{p^2} \}##, the abelian groups ##G## of order ##p^3## are isomorphic to a group in ##\{C_p^3,C_{p^2} \times C_p, C_{p^3} \}## and the non-abelian groups ##G## of order ##p^3## are isomorphic to ##G \cong (G\diagup Z) \ltimes Z \cong (C_p \times C_p) \ltimes C_p ## with the center ##Z=G' = [G,G]## of ##G## and cyclic groups ##C_p##. The representations only show the two basic non-abelian possibilities of the structure of the semi-direct product.

Do you mean that I have to show that ##G \diagup Z## is isomorphic to a subgroup of ##G##?
 
  • #74
fresh_42 said:
Why not? A group ##G## defined as ##<a,b \;|\; \mathcal{R}_i (a,b)>## is defined as the quotient of the free group ##\mathcal{F}(a,b)## and its normal subgroup generated by all relations ##\mathcal{R}_i (a,b)## (and their conjugates).

You have no guarantee about the order of this group, neither about whether the generators are distinct or not.

I have shown that ##G## of order ##p^2## is isomorphic to a group in ##\{C_p^2,C_{p^2} \}##, the abelian groups ##G## of order ##p^3## are isomorphic to a group in ##\{C_p^3,C_{p^2} \times C_p, C_{p^3} \}## and the non-abelian groups ##G## of order ##p^3## are isomorphic to ##G \cong (G\diagup Z) \ltimes Z \cong (C_p \times C_p) \ltimes C_p ## with the center ##Z=G' = [G,G]## of ##G## and cyclic groups ##C_p##. The representations only show the two basic non-abelian possibilities of the structure of the semi-direct product.

Right, if you say the group is ##(C_p\times C_p)\ltimes C_p##, then you know that this is a group of ##p^3##. So THAT is a good answer. Just giving the presentation gives you no guarantees about the orders.[/QUOTE]
 
  • #75
Ok, you're right. E.g. if ##a## is of order ##4## in ##D_4## then ##a^2## generates the center which isn't obvious by the representation itself. I thought I could bypass this by showing ##Z = [G,G]##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
9K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
11K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
14K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
10K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
12K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
15K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
11K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
19K