MHB Proving Theorem 2: At Least 2 Games Played

  • Thread starter Thread starter narledge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
narledge
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I need help with proving the theorem below

Axiom 1: Each game is played by two distinct teams.
Axiom 2: There are at least four teams.
Axiom 3: There are at least one game played by each team
Axiom 4: Each distinct team plays each of the other teams at most one time

Theorem 2: At minimum there are two games played
According to axiom 2, there are at least four teams and we will call them team A, B, C, D. Since axiom 1 requires that a game is played between two distinct games so team A could playing team C and team B could play D. Axiom 4 states that each team plays each of the other teams no more than once. Each of the four teams are playing at least one game which is required by axiom 3. Therefore, at minimum there are two games played.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
narledge said:
Since axiom 1 requires that a game is played between two distinct games so team A could playing team C and team B could play D.
What if A played B or D and the other two teams played among themselves? What if A played a team that is not B, C or D? A proof must consider all cases.

narledge said:
Axiom 4 states that each team plays each of the other teams no more than once.
This does not help advance the proof since this statement only limits the number of played games from above, while the theorem bounds them from below.

narledge said:
Each of the four teams are playing at least one game which is required by axiom 3. Therefore, at minimum there are two games played.
To justifiably say "therefore" you must consider different cases as described above, and in each case conclude that there are at least two games. Otherwise, this seems like a gap in the proof.
 
Thank you for your help, could your offer any additional assistance for how I could write it to make the proof correct?
 
I would start as you did: According to axiom 2, there are at least four teams and we will call them A, B, C, D. By Axiom 3, A played a game. Let's call its opponent in this game X. Then there is at least one team Y among B, C and D that is not X. By Axiom 3, Y also played a game, and that game must be different from the one between A and X since Y is distinct from both A and X. Thus, we found at least two games.

Note that I assume something that is not, strictly speaking, stated explicitly in the axioms, namely, that games between two different unordered pairs of teams are distinct. In other words, if X and Y played a game and U and V played a game and $\{X, Y\}\ne\{U, V\}$, then these are two different games.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Back
Top