Yet Another Math Puzzle - Page 3
Blogs > Muirhead |
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
flag
United States228 Posts
| ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
to find a point or points with rational co-ordinates that uniquely denotes a particular spider + Show Spoiler + Let a spider consist of line segments A, B, and C. Draw three line segments A', B', and C' with the following properties:
Any leg of a spider has breadth in at least one dimension (horizontal or vertical), and if two legs have breadth in only one (and the same) dimension then the third leg must have breadth in the other dimension. This allows us to find A' B' and C' with rational endpoints for every spider. For a given set of horizontal and vertical segments A' B' and C', no more than one spider can be drawn whose legs intersect the given segments. Two such spiders would intersect each other at some point. Later edit: I drew a picture of the construction with a few different cases of spiders. Some of the cases are a little bit different from what I described here, although the general idea is the same. I'll write some text later; for now I will just add in the picture.+ Show Spoiler + (If you actually draw it out, I think it's fairly convincing. There are only a couple of cases to look at: e.g. all legs of spider point down (/|\), two point up and one points down (Y), maybe the famous T as well. For all of them, I think the construction works.) | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
It doesn't use any very advanced mathematics, but it is quite long and cumbersome. I think it is free from flaws, but I am not 100%, can someone please have a look? EDIT: added pictures!!!!!! + Show Spoiler [solution] + Lemma 1: you cannot fit an uncountable number of open, pairwise disjoint, sets on the real line. + Show Spoiler [proof] + each open set contains a rational number. since the sets are disjoint, you can enumerate the sets with the rational numbers, proving the lemma. Assume there are an uncountable number of disjoint spiders in the plane. Then there exists a line parallel to the x-axis that intersects an uncountable number of spider legs. + Show Spoiler [proof] + At least one leg of each spider, projected to the y-axis, covers an open set, since the three disjoint lines cannot all fit onto a line parallel to the x-axis. That means that all spiders have legs that intersect with some horisontal line y = q, with q a rational number, since all open sets contains a rational number. Since the rationals are countable, at least one of the lines y = q must intersect an uncountable number of spiders, otherwise the spiders could be enumerated by QxQ. + Show Spoiler [pedagodical picture] + The spiders that has a leg that intersects that line (these spiders will henceforth be referred to as just "the spiders") has their center (where the three lines meet) above or below the line. There will be an uncountable amount of spiders either above or below the line. By symmetry it doesn't matter which, so lets for simplicity assume that there are an uncountable number of centers above the line. now look at the endpoints of the two legs that do not intersect. It is possible that 2 or more of the legs intersect the line, but in that case count only the leftmost intersecting leg, and study the two other legs. These two points can be either both above the center (type 1), one above and one below (type 2) or both below the center (type 3). + Show Spoiler [pedagodical picture] + again, an uncountable amount of spiders will fall into at least one of these categories. In case all but a countable number of spiders have their endpoints at exactly the same y as the center, the solution can be transformed by y - q --> (y-q)*e^x, which will maintain the property of intersecting the line (since y = q will not move), but will shift the points that are on the same y as their center, making them type 2. I will now prove that you end up with contradictions with an uncountable numbers of any of these types. case 1: an uncountable number of spiders are of type 1. + Show Spoiler [case 1] + Look at only the spiders of type 1. There exists a line that intersect the two upper legs of uncountably many spiders. These spiders will in this spoiler be referred to as "the spiders". + Show Spoiler [proof] + A line of constant y between the center of a spider, and the lowest of the two upper endpoints will intersect both upper legs of that spider. This range of y values will cover an open set in y for each spider. In the same way as above, this uncountable number of open sets in y will have a point that belongs to uncountably many open sets. A line with y constantly equal to the number will intersect the two upper legs of an uncountable number of spiders. + Show Spoiler [pedagodical picture] + The intersection of a spiders two upper legs with that line will span an open set in x on that line. If a leg intersects the line many times, chose the first time it intersects it, that is closest to the center on the line along the leg. These open sets for the spiders are pairwise disjoint, which should be obvious if one draws a figure. To get intersect the line in the other spiders open set, you will have to first cross the line to get there, and your open set will be disjoint. Now according to lemma 1, since we have a uncountable set of open disjoint sets, this is absurd. Case 1 do not allow uncountably many spiders. case 2: an uncountable number of spiders are of type 2. + Show Spoiler [case 2] + Look at only the spiders of type 2. There exists a line that intersect the upper leg of uncountably many spiders. These spiders will in this spoiler be referred to as "the spiders". + Show Spoiler [proof] + It is identical as the corresponding theorem in case 1, but only the one upper leg is used, rather than the lower of the two upper ones for case 1. There exists another line that intersects the lower line, and the original line of uncountably many of the spiders. This is proved in the same way as above. + Show Spoiler [pedagodical picture] + we now have two lines, one which intersects one of the legs, and another line which intersects the two others. This is the very same situation as in case 1, only upside down, and the same argument can be applied, showing that this case can not hold uncountably many disjoint spiders. case 3: an uncountable number of spiders are of type 3. + Show Spoiler [case 3] + Look at only the spiders of type 3. There exists a line with constant y that intersects all three legs of uncountably many spiders. These spiders will in this spoiler be referred to as "the spiders". Proof is identical as that in case 1, only exchange "above" with "below", and count in also the original line. For each leg consider only the first intersection of that line. A spider is "covered" by another spider if all the three intersections are between the two outer intersections of the other spider. The spiders are "disjoint" if no spider covers the other. A spider "covers" an interval on the x-axis which is the distance between the two outer intersections. Taking the set of each open set that each spider covers, we get an uncountable set of open sets, which again has a point on x that is covered by an uncountable number of spiders. Call A the set of spiders that cover this point. + Show Spoiler [pedagodical picture] + Look at spider S, the point will be either to the left or to the right of the middle leg. Let's say its on the left side. The interval from the middle leg to the right leg, that do not contain the point, is named the "free set". All spiders in A are either covered by S, in which case they must on the left side of the middle leg so that they can cover the point and will be disjoint from the free set. Or they are covering A, in which case THEIR free set will be disjoint from A, and specially from As free set. In conclusion, the free sets of the spiders in A are all pairwise disjoint. Now, again, we have created an uncountable set of open sets that are pairwise disjoint, which concludes that also case 3 can not have uncountably many spiders. This concludes the proof. for qrs: + Show Spoiler + hmm, I don't understand your construction. What would the endpoints of A', B' and C' be, and how do you know that they are unique for that spider? Also, if you have a leg that is diagonal, and the other legs approach that first leg with a sin(1/r) behavior from each side, will it not be impossible to draw a horisontal or vertical line that intersects only the first leg? i'm confused... | ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 13 2009 23:26 Cascade wrote: for qrs: + Show Spoiler [picture inside] + hmm, I don't understand your construction. What would the endpoints of A', B' and C' be, and how do you know that they are unique for that spider? The endpoints: one co-ordinate would be some rational co-ordinate of either x or y found on some point of the corresponding leg, and the other would be some convenient rational number. You know they are unique for that spider because: well, again, I'm not putting this in a rigorous form, but the idea is, draw a spider through those lines. Now try to draw another spider through those lines: I believe you will not be able to do so without intersecting the first. The reason is that A' B' and C' shepherd the legs into tracks. It's a little like the squeeze theorem in calculus: let's say A'', B'' and C'' are the legs of the second spider you are drawing. A'' must be either inside or outside A, C'' must be either inside or outside C, and both B and B'' have to be between both A-A'' and C-C''. This forces an intersection. Here's a picture: I may have omitted some necessary conditions. For example, we can also specify the shape of the spider (in very general terms: do all legs go down/up (or left/right, whichever way is more convenient) from the origin [/|\], or does one leg go in a different direction from the others [Y]) and orientation of the spider (is the "origin" of the spider above or below the intersecting lines). On second look, I think that you do have to specify the orientation when dealing with a spider with three legs going down/up (/|\), in order to rule out a similar "upside-down spider" penetrating it from the open side. That should be sufficient. Also, if you have a leg that is diagonal, and the other legs approach that first leg with a sin(1/r) behavior from each side, ... I'm not sure (although I don't see why that would be), but in any case I had assumed that the legs in question were rectilinear. Maybe that should be clarified?I'd like to read through your proof at some point, but it looks like it will take me some time (which I don't have at the moment.) | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
EDIT: ok, so I hadn't looked into your solution properly, and the below arguments are not directed at the solutuion as you formulated it, sorry. + Show Spoiler + first counterexamples for your picture. So drawing them randomly according to your criterion will not work in general. I am not even sure if it can be done for any spider to block off every other possible spider, even if you manually choose the straight lines. So if you want to "block off" so that you cant create another spider that shares the lines, you will have to find an exact algorithm for how to make the extra lines in a unique way from a given spider, and then prove that no two other spider will create the same three lines. That is a lot of work and I wish you good luck with that if you choose to try. But I am not convinced it is possible at all with this approach, even for straight lines, so don't waste too much times trying. I think I'll update my solution with pictures as well, to make it more readable. also, I have to save my 1000:th post, so feel free to troll me as much as you want DeathSpank, I cannot retaliate. | ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 14 2009 01:50 Cascade wrote: ok, I didn't use that the lines were straight in my solution, but I allowed any form of the curves (which was a pain in the ass btw ). But even with straight line, you still have a lot to work on for your approach to work. + Show Spoiler + first counterexamples for your picture. So drawing them randomly according to your criterion will not work in general. I am not even sure if it can be done for any spider to block off every other possible spider, even if you manually choose the straight lines. So if you want to "block off" so that you cant create another spider that shares the lines, you will have to find an exact algorithm for how to make the extra lines in a unique way from a given spider, and then prove that no two other spider will create the same three lines. That is a lot of work and I wish you good luck with that if you choose to try. But I am not convinced it is possible at all with this approach, even for straight lines, so don't waste too much times trying. I think I'll update my solution with pictures as well, to make it more readable. I don't think curved lines actually matter to my approach. After all, the closer you approach the limit of a curve, the closer it is to a straight line. edit: well, no, I take that back: if you are talking about curves that actually curve back on themselves (i.e. two points on the curve share an x-co-ordinate or a y-co-ordinate), which I now realize is probably what you meant, then, agreed: my approach would need some extra work, at the least. Regarding your counter-examples, both of them are addressed by the conditions that I added in my reply to you above (+ Show Spoiler + specifying shape and orientation specifying the shape of the spider: i.e. two lines point up from the origin and one line points down. I don't think the algorithm needs to be made very much more elaborate. Your two counter-examples are similar: both are examples of categories that can be addressed by one or two extra checkable specifications. The main idea, which you haven't attacked, is that + Show Spoiler + given multiple pairs of lines that converge in the same direction, the inner lines will always meet before the outer lines. Therefore there is no way to assign them to create two "spiders" that do not overlap. Here's an illustration: . So I don't need to prove that "prove that no two other spider will create the same three lines", as you said. The lines are fairly arbitrary: each spider has (infinitely) many lines that will work, and each set of lines will work for (infinitely) many spiders. All I need to show is that no two spiders in the same plane can go through these lines without the two spiders intersecting. As long as we ensure that we specify the direction towards which the legs converge (using the two general attributes of shape [2 possibilities] and orientation [2 possibilities], I believe that my method works. Granted, I have not proved it rigorously, and it is possible that I have overlooked something, but I think that this groundwork is enough to build a rigorous proof on if I needed to. Edit: edit-to-edit: (On second thought, this rambling, partially-thought-through addendum is probably not worth reading; it confuses the point more than it clarifies it. I won't actually delete it, though. The gist is that my HVH/VHV condition is probably not the right one. Instead, the important thing to make sure is that A' B' and C' don't overlap.) + Show Spoiler [not really worth reading, tbh] + In fact, now that you have forced me to think about a little more, and I had to add the extra factors that I was trying to avoid for simplicity's sake, I may be able to simplify the other part of it: forget the condition of V(ert)HV or HVH. The segments can face in any direction, subject to one or two conditions: for instance the two or possibly three segments corresponding to the converging lines must not share an x-co-ordinate or else a y-co-ordinate (depending on the direction the lines converge). IOW, their projections onto the x-axis or the y-axis must be disjunct. The reason for that condition is to ensure that each line passing through A' is in the same position relative to each line passing through C', at that point; i.e. that if you went through all those lines in order (top-bottom or left-right, depending on orientation), you would encounter all A's before any C's or vice versa. In the case of the Y shape (or equivalent) you really only need two segments (to identify two converging lines) + a point (on the third line, lying beyond the point of convergence). However, I still need to think a bit more about exactly what conditions are necessary to ensure that the lines converge in the correct order. I think I need one more condition: the HVH VHV condition is not necessary and may or may not have been sufficient. Picture above is updated. As I said, this is still more of a proof idea than a formal proof, but the more I think about it, the more details I pin down. Maybe at some point I will try to fully formalize it. (Right now, it is just sucking me into wasting more time that I really can't afford to at the moment. When I do have the time, I'll try to take a good look at your proof as well.) Thanks for looking at it. edit: edited part inside last spoiler (updated picture, clarified details of construction). Darn you, Muirhead for posing this problem, which I have now wasted multiple hours on! | ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
Suppose that you have a counting method that works for everything but cases of T (for instance). Assume that the T's are uncountable. You can still count everything else. Now rotate the co-ordinate system (by a non-multiple-of-90-degrees). You haven't changed the relative positions of any spiders, but all vertical/horizontal lines are now diagonal. Count them as before. (Of course any number of previously diagonal lines may have become vertical or horizontal, but you have already counted those.) Still assuming that legs are straight, of course. | ||
ninjafetus
United States231 Posts
On May 13 2009 10:02 ShOoTiNg_SpElLs wrote: No, T is a valid spider according to the OP, so if the horizontal line lies on x = sqrt 2, the vertical line on y = sqrt 3, and the center at (sqrt2, sqrt3), then every point on the spider has at least one irrational x or y. I think we can still use this idea to get at the result.... it's just a bit more work for the T spiders. + Show Spoiler + Take the set of all spiders. Let A be the set of all spiders with some point (x,y) where both x and y rational. We can associate these spiders with QxQ, so these are countable. Let B be the set of all spiders where there does not exist some point (x,y) where both x and y are rational. It is clear that these spiders must be in some rotation of a T shape. Split these spiders up into subsets based on rotation and use the following idea for each subset. Consider the subset spiders in B oriented as the shape T. Assume towards a contradiction that there are uncountably many of these. Then, there are uncountably many points on the x-axis associated with the vertical bars of the T's. Next, note that the top (horizontal) bar of the T has positive measure. Assume that there exists some ε >0 such that there are uncountably many spiders with top bar length >= ε. (see note) If the three legs of some T spider meet at a point (x,y), then the top bar covers an interval (x-ε,x+ε) at that height y. So, for any specific value y, there can only be countably many spiders, since there are only countably many open intervals (x-ε, x-ε) on that specific 'y-axis'. Therefore, there must be uncountably many y-values associated with the top bars of spiders in order to have the assumed uncountably many spiders. However, by similar logic using the positive measure of the vertical bars, there can only be countably many spiders at any given x-value since there are only countably many intervals open intervals (y-ε, y) on that specific 'x-axis', contradicting the bolded text above. So, use this logic for each subset of B (ie- rotation of the shape T), and we can show that each subset is countable, so B is countable, and so A union B is countable, and that's all the spiders! (note: I think this is a safe assumption, since, if it were not true, then for all ε>0, there only exists countably many spiders with top length >=ε. Let ε go to zero, and we have the result we want: only countably many spiders. Now, this makes me a bit uneasy (not very rigorous), but I think it's the right idea... This whole damn problem makes me uneasy, but it's fun to think about :p) EDIT: god damn it, never mind. This doesn't work. I need to do more to show the vertical bars can't intersect the horizontal bars. Hmmm.... + Show Spoiler + Let ε also be associated with the vertical lengths in the same way (whatever, take a min between horizontal and vertical, call it ε). So, for any specific spider centered at ( x',y' ), the region R_(x',y') = {(x,y) | x \in (x'-ε, x'+ε), y \in (y', y'-ε)} cannot contain any spider centers, since any spider centered there will intersect the spider centered at ( x',y' ). So, from above, at any specific y-value, there can only exist countably many x-values associated with spider centers at that height. Which implies there are only countably many regions R_(x,y) at that height, all of which cannot contain more than one spider. These regions have positive vertical measure ε, so there are only countable many vertical regions for each horizontal spider center x. Which brings us back to the same old argument of 'each spider has some positive area which cannot have other spiders in it', but this time for a subset of specifically shaped spiders. So I've done all this complicated stuff to show nothing new. :/ WAIT: No, this works. And it's a lot simpler than I thought. As long as we can wave our hands and accept the note from above (for vertical AND horizontal), then for spiders in the shape T, we can separate the plane into countably many disjoint regions (or at least equivalence classes thereof). We don't have to worry about some clever shape fitting in between things, since each spider in this set is the shape T. Do this for each rotation so that each subset of B is countable, and then A union B is countable and we're done. Right? T_T | ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:56 ninjafetus wrote: I think we can still use this idea to get at the result.... it's just a bit more work for the T spiders. ... Let B be the set of all spiders where there does not exist some point (x,y) where both x and y are rational. It is clear that these spiders must be in some rotation of a T shape. ... Actually, this isn't clear to me. Would you mind explaining in a little more detail? It sounds like you are saying that any diagonal line segment must contain some point with two rational co-ordinates. But on what basis do you say that? In fact, consider the familiar line y = - x shifted upward by the square root of 2: y = sqr(2) - x. This intersects the x axis at (0,sqr(2)). The slope of this line is -1, so for any point on this line, if the y-coordinate is sqr(2) + a, the x-coordinate is -a. Since any two rational numbers added together make another rational number (it's just adding fractions), if sqr(2) + a = b, (i.e. b + -a = sqr(2)), if b is a rational number then a must be irrational. Then the x-coordinate, which is -a, is now the irrational one. The same reasoning applies when going back the other direction, to a point with a rational x-coordinate. This shows that no point on this line has two rational co-ordinates, even though the line is diagonal. | ||
ninjafetus
United States231 Posts
edit: to original author, please no hint yet, I'm having fun | ||
Muirhead
United States556 Posts
Here's my solution from when I first solved the problem: + Show Spoiler + Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that there are uncountably many spiders in the plane. Let the width of a spider be the minimum distance from its center to one of its three endpoints. For some positive integer N, uncountably many spiders have width at least 1/N. Erase all the spiders with width less than 1/N Cover the plane with countably many disks of diameter 1/N. At least one such disk has uncountably many centers of spiders. Erase all spiders with centers not in the disk. Each spider divides the disk into three distinct regions. Associate a triplet of rational points to the spider, one point in each region. | ||
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
For some positive integer N, uncountably many spiders have width at least 1/N Is this really true though? Couldn't it be that the spiders remain countable until you allow for infinitely small legs? | ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 14 2009 14:53 Muirhead wrote: Congratulations cascade and qrs! I hope it was entertaining and enlightening even if it took all your time. Here's my solution from when I first solved the problem: + Show Spoiler + Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that there are uncountably many spiders in the plane. Let the width of a spider be the minimum distance from its center to one of its three endpoints. For some positive integer N, uncountably many spiders have width at least 1/N. Erase all the spiders with width less than 1/N Cover the plane with countably many disks of diameter 1/N. At least one such disk has uncountably many centers of spiders. Erase all spiders with centers not in the disk. Each spider divides the disk into three distinct regions. Associate a triplet of rational points to the spider, one point in each region. Nice solution, Muirhead. Much simpler to state and prove than my approach. On May 14 2009 22:04 jtan wrote: Is this really true though? Couldn't it be that the spiders remain countable until you allow for infinitely small legs? I wondered that as well, at first glance, but no, it couldn't be. If for all positive integers N the spiders with width at least 1/N were countable, you could count all the spiders by listing the spiders of width at least 1, then the spiders of width at least 1/2 (that haven't been counted yet), and so on. Any given spider must have some finite width, and for any finite number some 1/N is smaller than it, so you will count that spider when you get to the requisite N. | ||
ninjafetus
United States231 Posts
Proof: Assume not. Then, for all integers n > 0, the set B_n = {x in A | x > 1/n} is countable. Then A = union (n goes from 1 to infinity) B_n. Since this is the countable union of countable sets, it is countable, a contradiction. (the underlined is actually independent of ZFC, but the axiom of choice is sufficient to imply this). This is good enough for the above claim in question. | ||
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
On May 14 2009 22:58 qrs wrote: Nice solution, Muirhead. Much simpler to state and prove than my approach. I wondered that as well, at first glance, but no, it couldn't be. If for all positive integers N the spiders with width at least 1/N were countable, you could count all the spiders by listing the spiders of width at least 1, then the spiders of width at least 1/2 (that haven't been counted yet), and so on. Any given spider must have some finite width, and for any finite number some 1/N is smaller than it, so you will count that spider when you get to the requisite N. Yep, you are right. Nice proof muirhead! | ||
The Raurosaur
198 Posts
| ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
actually, not quite right, on second thought. The method I gave for counting them all doesn't work (because you may never finish counting the first set of spiders), but they are still countable by other methods, e.g. count 1 from the first set, then 2 each from the first two sets, then 3 each from the first three sets, etc. It's the countable union of countable sets, like ninjafetus said. | ||
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
| ||
qrs
United States3637 Posts
| ||
| ||