Processing math: 0%

Pages

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Random walk sequences

Let n be a natural number. Suppose a_1, a_2, \dots are sequences of +1s and -1s. Also define s_k = a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_k, and define s_0 = 0. Such sequence is called "complete" if for each i \in {0, \dots, n-1} there exists k such that s_k \equiv i \mod n.
What is the largest number S such that the following statement is true: For every complete sequence, there exists j,k \geq 0 such that |s_j - s_k| = S.

Answer:

n-1

We can construct a_i as follows: n-1 +1s, followed by n-1 -1s, and followed by n-1 +1s again, alternatingly. It's easy to see that this sequence is complete. Moreover, the sum of any contiguous block ranges from -(n-1) to (n-1). So clearly for this particular sequence, S \leq n-1 fulfills the statement, and S > n-1 is not satisfied by this sequence.

Now we have to prove that for S=n-1 and any given complete sequence, the problem statement is fulfilled.

First Solution

The sequence is infinite, but suppose we can truncate it to the smallest sequence so that it's still complete. In other words, suppose the sequence a_1, \dots, a_N is complete but a_1, \dots, a_{N-1} is not. Let s_N = x. Because N is the smallest index such that it's still complete, that means s_i \equiv x \mod n does not happen before N. Consider a_N. It can be either +1 or -1. Suppose it's +1 (the case of -1 is similar). So that means s_{N-1} = x-1.

Let p be the an index such that s_p \equiv x+1 \mod n. We know p exists because the sequence is still complete. Also that p < N-1. That means s_{N-1} - s_p \equiv (x-1) - (x+1) \equiv -2 \mod n. But from i = p to i = N-1 we can't have s_i = x, so that means s_{N-1} - s_p = tn - 2 for some t > 0. This means that s_N - s_p = tn-1.

But if t > 1, then we must have some r such that p < r < N and s_N - s_r = n, s_r - s_p = (t-1)n-1. But this yields a contradiction, because then s_r \equiv s_N \equiv x \mod n and thus a_1, \dot, a_r is complete, violating our condition that N is the smallest complete sequence. Thus we must have that t=1 and consequently s_N - s_p = n-1

Second Solution

Suppose that there is no contiguous block whose sum is \pm(n-1). Each contiguous block must have sum of at most (n-2) and at least -(n-2). Now, if there is k such that s_k = n-1 then we are done, because it would imply a contiguous block from 0 to k with sum n-1. So let x be the maximum value of s_i, where x \leq n-2. Likewise, let y be the minimum value of s_i where y \geq -(n-2).

Because the sequence is complete, then we must have that x-y \geq n-1, otherwise some values won't be "reached" by s_i at all. But this means that there is a contiguous block from the maximum to the minimum or vice versa, and their sum is \pm(n-1)

No comments:

Post a Comment