12
$\begingroup$

Let $S= \left\{ 1,2,3,...,100 \right\}$ be a set of positive integers from $1$ to $100$. Let $P$ be a subset of $S$ such that any arithmetic progression of length 10 consisting of numbers in $S$ will contain at least a number in $P$. What is the smallest possible number of elements in $P$ ?

Denote $|P|$ as the number of elements in $P$. We shall find the smallest possible value of $|P|$.

For $|P|=16$, we have the answer by @RobertIsrael below.

However, for $|P|<16$, I can neither find such set $P$ nor prove that $|P|$ cannot be less than $16$. So my question is:

Is it true that $|P| \geq 16$? How can I prove it? If not, what is the minimum amount of elements in $P$ ?

Also, I am wondering that:

If we replace 10 with an even number $n$,and $100$ with $n^2$, can we find the minimum of $|P|$ ?

Any answers or comments will be appreciated. If this question should be closed, please let me know. If this forum cannot answer my question, I will delete this question immediately.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ it is not too unusual that questions here get answered, say, after a year, and not immediately. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 6:24
  • $\begingroup$ @DimaPasechnik Thanks. I just afraid that my question will be forgotten and cannot be answered. $\endgroup$
    – color
    Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 7:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ good questions don't get forgotten. they pop up in searches, etc. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 8:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This can be considered as a set-covering problem. Although set covering is NP-complete, I suspect this one is within the reach of current technology. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ For the last question (replacing 10 with $n$), have you computed the optimal number for $n\le 9$ and checked the OEIS? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 14:44

2 Answers 2

12
$\begingroup$

Considering the complement of $P$ in $[1,100]$, you are asking how large can a subset of $[1,100]$ be given that it does not contain any $10$-term arithmetic progression. The more general question

How large can a subset of $[1,N]$ be given that it does not contain any $k$-term arithmetic progression?

is one of the central problems in combinatorial number theory. There is no chance to give a precise answer, as an "explicit" function of $N$ and $k$, and it quite likely that this is impossible already in your special situation where $N=n^2$ and $k=n$.

Here is an argument showing that if $P\subset[1,n^2]$ meets every $n$-term progression contained in $[1,n^2]$, then $|P|>n+n^{0.5+o(1)}$. (See also the paragraph at the very end for the estimate $|P|\ge 12$ in your special case where $P\subset[1,100]$ and we want to block all $10$-term progressions.) It would be interesting to improve these estimates or at least to decide whether $|P|>Cn$ holds true with an absolute constant $C>1$.

Write $K:=|P|$, $\Delta:=K-n$, and $P=\{p_1,\dotsc,p_K\}$ where $1\le p_1<\dotsb<p_K\le n^2$. Notice that $p_1\le n$ and $p_K\ge n^2-(n-1)$, whence $p_K-p_1\ge(n-1)^2$.

For any $d\in[1,n]$, the set $P$ contains an element from every residue class modulo $d$, and it follows that there are at most $K-d$ pairs of consecutive elements of $P$ with the difference equal to $d$; also, if $d>n$, then there are no such pairs at all. Let $a$ and $r$ be defined by \begin{align*} K-1 &= \Delta+(\Delta+1)+\dotsb+(\Delta+(a-1))+r \\ &= a\Delta+\frac{a(a-1)}2 + r,\quad 0\le r<\Delta+a. \tag{1} \end{align*} Since there are totally $K-1$ pairs of consecutive elements of $P$, of them at most $\Delta$ pairs at distance $n$, at most $\Delta+1$ pairs at distance $n-1$, etc, we conclude that \begin{align*} p_K-p_1 &\le n\Delta+(n-1)(\Delta+1)+\dotsb+(n-(a-1))(\Delta+(a-1))+(n-a)r \\ &= \Delta na+(n-\Delta)\cdot\frac{a(a-1)}2-\frac{a(a-1)(2a-1)}{6}+(n-a)r. \end{align*} Recalling the estimate $p_K-p_1\ge(n-1)^2$, and using ($1$), we get \begin{align*} (n-1)^2 &\le \Delta na+(n-\Delta)\cdot\frac{a(a-1)}2-\frac{a(a-1)(2a-1)}{6}+(n-a)r \\ &= n\Big(a\Delta+\frac{a(a-1)}2 + r\Big) - \Delta\cdot\frac{a(a-1)}2 - \frac{a(a-1)(2a-1)}{6} - ar \\ &= n(K-1) - \Delta\cdot\frac{a(a-1)}2 - \frac{a(a-1)(2a-1)}{6} - ar. \tag{2} \end{align*}

We now assume, aiming at a contradiction, that $\Delta<n^c$ with an absolute constant $0<c<0.5$. From (1) we get then $$ K-1 \ge \Delta a + \frac{a(a-1)}2 \ge \frac12\,a^2 - 1 $$ implying $a\le\sqrt{2K}$; hence, $\Delta a=O(n^{0.5+c})$ and $r=a+\Delta=O(n^{0.5})$. As a result, $$ \frac12\,a^2 = K-1+\frac12\,a-\Delta a - r > K - O(n^{0.5+c}), $$ leading to $a>(1-o(1))\sqrt{2K}$.

With these estimates in mind, from (2) we obtain $$ n^2 + O(n) \le nK - \frac12\,\Delta a^2 - \frac13\,a^3; $$ that is, $$ \Delta n \ge \frac12\,\Delta a^2 + \frac13\,a^3 + O(n). $$ Consequently, $$ n^{1+c} \ge \Delta n \ge \frac13\,a^3 + O(n) \ge (1-o(1))(2K)^{1.5} + O(n) > n^{1.5} + O(n), $$ a contradiction.


As an illustration of this approach, let's show that one needs at least $12$ elements to block every $10$-term progression in $[1,100]$. Suppose for a contradiction that $P\subset[1,100]$ is an $11$-element set blocking all such progressions. There are $|P|-1=10$ pairs of consecutive elements of $P$. Of these ten pairs, there is at most one pair with distance $10$ between its two elements, at most two pairs with distance $9$, at most three pairs with distance $8$, and at most four pairs with distance $7$. Therefore the largest element of $P$ exceeds the smallest one by at most $1\cdot 10+2\cdot 9 + 3\cdot 8 + 4\cdot 7=80$. It follows that either the smallest element of $P$ is at least $11$, or its largest element is at most $90$; but then $P$ does not block at least one of the progressions $[1,10]$ and $[91,100]$, a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
0
11
$\begingroup$

Using a tabu search procedure, I have found a solution for $|P|=17$, namely ${1, 11, 18, 25, 31, 32, 33, 36, 44, 51, 58, 65, 69, 70, 77, 84, 91}$. I don't know if this is optimal.

EDIT: Found a solution for $|P|=16$, namely $$10, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 68, 73, 74, 84, 91$$

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm working on $|P|=16$. So far I've found a $P$ with $|P|=16$, namely $\{9, 18, 28, 29, 31, 40, 42, 51, 53, 56, 65, 69, 70, 77, 84, 91\}$, that intersects all but one of these arithmetic progressions, the exception being $({36, 43, 50, 57, 64, 71, 78, 85, 92, 99})$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ I'm using a tabu search over sets of a given size to maximize the number of a.p.'s that intersect the set. Possible moves consist of replacing a member of the set with a nonmember. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2019 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Your answer is correct. How long did it take to find those numbers? Can you find the boundary of $|P|$? $\endgroup$
    – color
    Commented Jun 28, 2019 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ So is 16 optimal? $\endgroup$
    – EGME
    Commented Jun 28, 2019 at 20:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My brute-force confirms that there no 15. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 2, 2019 at 5:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .