Simple Proof for A-H Array Puzzle

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on a brain teaser involving arranging the letters A-H in a 2x4 array without adjacent or diagonal letters differing by one unit. The author proposes that using modular logic, it can be proven that H must be adjacent to A, making it impossible to fill the array without violating the adjacency rule. A proof is presented, demonstrating that each number in the array must have neighbors that differ by 1, leading to a contradiction when trying to fill the boxes. The conclusion emphasizes that the arrangement cannot satisfy the conditions due to parity issues and the limited combinations available in a 2x4 grid. This logical reasoning highlights the inherent challenges in solving the puzzle.
ramsey2879
Messages
841
Reaction score
3
I was doing a brain treaser where the letters A-H had to be put into an array 2 by 4 such that no letter is adjacent or diagonal to a letter one unit different. That is a C can't be above, below, to one side of, or diagonal from a B or D. I solved the problem but the thought occurred to me that using modular logic it can easily be proven that the H has to be above,below,to one side of, or diagonal to the A. In other words, it is immposible to put the numbers 1-8 into an 2 by 4 square box array, such that where each every set of boxes that touch either by a side
or corner the difference between the 2 boxes mod 8 is more than 1. Does anyone care to give a simple proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ramsey2879 said:
I was doing a brain treaser where the letters A-H had to be put into an array 2 by 4 such that no letter is adjacent or diagonal to a letter one unit different. That is a C can't be above, below, to one side of, or diagonal from a B or D. I solved the problem but the thought occurred to me that using modular logic it can easily be proven that the H has to be above,below,to one side of, or diagonal to the A. In other words, it is immposible to put the numbers 1-8 into an 2 by 4 square box array, such that where each every set of boxes that touch either by a side
or corner the difference between the 2 boxes mod 8 is more than 1. Does anyone care to give a simple proof?
Proof:let the two rows of boxes be numbered 1-2 and the 4 boxes on each row be numbered 1-4. If the boxes are filled with numbers 0-7, each number except the 0 and seven have two neighboring numbers which differed by 1, but the numbers in boxes (1,2) and (2,2) both touch all boxes but (1,4) and (2,4). Mod 8 each number has two neighbors, if the numbers in boxes (1,2) and (2,2) share a neighbor, there are still three numbers but only two boxes to fill. Thus it is impossible to fill the 8 boxes with numbers 0-7 so that no two touching boxes have a neighboring numbers in the boxes. But mod 9, 0 is not a neighbor to 7, thus 0 and 2 can be placed in boxes (1,2) and (2,2) and the two neighbors, 1 and 3 can be placed in boxes (1,4) and (2,4). Likewise, 7 and 5, can be placed in boxes (2,3) and (1,3) and the two neighbors, 4 and 6 can be placed in boxes (1,1) and (2,1). 0 corresponds to "A" and 7 corresponds to "H".
 
Assume it is possible. Then every 2x2 square must be filled with numbers, no two of which are consecutive mod 8. Since the square contains 4 numbers, and the 4 gaps between the numbers are all at least 2, and sum to 8, we conclude that all the numbers in the square have the same parity, which then also holds for the entire array, and we have a contradiction.
 
Norwegian said:
Assume it is possible. Then every 2x2 square must be filled with numbers, no two of which are consecutive mod 8. Since the square contains 4 numbers, and the 4 gaps between the numbers are all at least 2, and sum to 8, we conclude that all the numbers in the square have the same parity, which then also holds for the entire array, and we have a contradiction.
In other words, a 2X2 square must have only the numbers 0,2,4,6 or 1,3,5,7 since there is always a 3 gap difference between the smallest and largest number. However, when you note that there are 3 such 2 by 2 squares in a 2 by 4 array and only 2 possible sets of 4, then you have a contridiction. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
235
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K