1
$\begingroup$

I have already posted this question time before on stackexchange, but didn't receive a definitive solution.

So this is the game: consider a positive integer number $n$ and divide it in a finite number of parts $m$, then take the product of all the $m$ numbers you obtained and multiply them. For example for $n=10$ and $m=5$ the product will be $32$. The game consists in finding a number $m$ (positive integer) which maximize this product.

Now it's trivial to prove that the function $f(x)=(n/x)^x$, with $(0,+∞)$ as domain, increases on $(0,n/e]$ and decreases on $[n/e,+∞)$, so it has a max in $x=n/e$, thus you'll find the $m$ you're looking for by evaluating the function in the two integers nearest to $n/e$ and comparing these two values.

What is not easy to prove is that if you take the nearest positive integer to $n/e$ it will always be the best $m$ for the game, or at least for all the cases I've taken into consideration (with computational experiments too).

So my question is: how to prove (or disprove) that this fact holds for any positive integer $n$?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ What exactly is the game? Are these supposed to be $m$ equal parts? Are they supposed to be integers? Then, you also have a divisibility condition. $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2015 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, they are $m$ equal parts (but I think it could be proved this other fact: to maximize the product they have to be all equals). The single parts are not necessarily integers, for example for $n=10$ and $m=3$ you get $(10/3)^3$. $\endgroup$
    – asdfghj
    Jan 8, 2015 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, indeed, even by not mentioning that, it follows from the geometric-arithmetic means inequality that the parts must be equals. But still have no idea of how to prove the theorem I'm asking for. $\endgroup$
    – asdfghj
    Jan 8, 2015 at 19:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Suppose just for a moment that instead of taking $n$ to be an integer, you take $n=ke/2$, where $k$ is an odd integer. Then $n/e$ is a half-integer, so the two choices for $m$ are equally close, but the higher of the two choices always gives a (slightly) better payoff --- in fact the ratio of the two payoffs goes rapidly to $1$ from above. This suggests that when your $n/e$ is very close to a half-integer, there should be a slight preference for the larger of the two $m$'s, which is almost always outweighed by the strong preference for the closer one.....continued $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2015 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ continued --- so you might expect to find rare counterexamples when $n/e$ is just slightly less than a half-integer. $\endgroup$ Jan 8, 2015 at 21:10

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Good rational approximations to $e$ of the form $2n/(2m+1)$ provide candidates for counterexamples. These are known from the continued fraction for $e$: $$ 2 + \dfrac{1}{1 + \dfrac{1}{2+\dfrac{1}{1+\dfrac{1}{1+\dfrac{1}{4+\dfrac{1}{1+ \ldots}}}}}}$$

But to have a counterexample, we would need (approximately) $$ \left(m + \dfrac{1}{2}\right)^2 - \dfrac{n}{e} \left(m + \dfrac{1}{2}\right) < \dfrac{1}{24}$$ and this does not appear to be the case: these will always be convergents where the next element of the continued fraction is $1$, so they are not especially good approximations, and it should be possible to prove that they are not good enough.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.