MHB What is the maximum sum of products of consecutive integers from 1 to n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ackbach
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2016
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding the maximum sum of products of consecutive integers from 1 to n, specifically expressed as x_1x_2 + x_2x_3 + ... + x_nx_1 for the set {1, 2, ..., n}. The problem is presented as this week's Problem of the Week (POTW) and is noted to have been featured in the 1996 William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition. Despite the challenge, no participants provided answers to the problem. A solution attributed to Kiran Kedlaya and his associates is mentioned as forthcoming. The focus remains on deriving the largest possible value of the expression as a function of n, where n is greater than or equal to 2.
Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
94
Here is this week's POTW:

-----

Given that $\{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n\} = \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$, find,
with proof, the largest possible value, as a function of $n$ (with $n
\geq 2$), of
\[
x_1x_2 + x_2x_3 + \cdots + x_{n-1}x_n + x_nx_1.
\]

-----

Remember to read the http://www.mathhelpboards.com/showthread.php?772-Problem-of-the-Week-%28POTW%29-Procedure-and-Guidelines to find out how to http://www.mathhelpboards.com/forms.php?do=form&fid=2!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Problem Of The Week # 226 - Jul 27, 2016

This was Problem B-3 in the 1996 William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition.

No one answered this week's POTW. The solution, attributed to Kiran Kedlaya and his associates, follows:

View $x_1, \dots, x_n$ as an arrangement of the numbers $1, 2, \dots,n$ on a circle. We prove that the optimal arrangement is
\[
\dots, n-4, n-2, n, n-1, n-3, \dots
\]
To show this, note that if $a, b$ is a pair of adjacent numbers and $c,d$ is another pair (read in the same order around the circle) with $a < d$ and $b > c$, then the segment from $b$ to $c$ can be reversed, increasing the sum by
\[
ac + bd - ab - cd = (d-a)(b-c) > 0.
\]
Now relabel the numbers so they appear in order as follows:
\[
\dots, a_{n-4}, a_{n-2}, a_n = n, a_{n-1}, a_{n-3}, \dots
\]
where without loss of generality we assume $a_{n-1} > a_{n-2}$. By considering the pairs $a_{n-2}, a_n$ and $a_{n-1}, a_{n-3}$ and using the trivial fact $a_n > a_{n-1}$, we deduce $a_{n-2} > a_{n-3}$. We then compare the pairs $a_{n-4}, a_{n-2}$ and $a_{n-1}, a_{n-3}$, and using that $a_{n-1} > a_{n-2}$, we deduce $a_{n-3} > a_{n-4}$. Continuing in this fashion, we prove that $a_n > a_{n-1} > \dots > a_1$ and so $a_k = k$ for $k = 1, 2, \dots, n$, i.e. that the optimal arrangement is as claimed. In particular, the maximum value of the sum is
\begin{aligned}
1 \cdot 2 &+ (n-1)\cdot n + 1 \cdot 3 + 2 \cdot 4 + \cdots + (n-2)\cdot n
&= 2 + n^2 - n + (1^2 - 1) + \cdots + [(n-1)^2 - 1] \\
&= n^2 - n + 2 - (n-1) + \frac{(n-1)n(2n-1)}{6} \\
&= \frac{2n^3 + 3n^2 - 11n + 18}{6}.
\end{aligned}