If we choose A a set of 5 players at random, let X_3 denote the number of players not in A that lose to exactly 3 players in A. What's E[X_3]? What about E[X_4]?
Remark: by choosing n carefully, we can write problems such as: Show that we can choose A and B disjoint groups containing 5 players each so that each player in B loses to exactly 3 players in A. The number 5 can be replaced by other numbers too.
Solution
There are N = {n \choose 5} ways to choose set A. Of all those choices, we sum up the total number each player loses to exactly 3 players in A.
That is, for a given player x that loses p_x times, he contributes to {p_x \choose 3} {n-p_x-1 \choose 2} to the total sum. This is because we can choose {p_x \choose 3} ways to form the part of A that beats x, and {n-p_x-1 \choose 2} ways to form the part that doesn't beat x, and these are mutually exclusive and independent. Note that if p_x < 3 that number is zero as expected.
So the expected value is: E[X_3] = \frac{\sum_x {p_x \choose 3} {n-p_x-1 \choose 2}}{n \choose 5} Because f(t) = {p_x \choose 3} {n-p_x-1 \choose 2} - \frac{t(t-1)(t-2)(n-t-1)(n-t-2)}{3! 2!} is a convex function in t, we can bound this number by Jensen, noting that \sum_x p_x = n(n-1)/2 E[X_3] > \frac{{(n-1)/2 \choose 3} {n-(n-1)/2-1 \choose 2}}{n \choose 5} By choosing n carefully, or replacing the numbers 5 and 3 accordingly, we can write problems like: in such and such tournament, show that we can choose 5 players into group A and 5 other players into group B such that each player in group B loses the majority of his games against players in group A, or each player in group A wins the majority of his games against players in group B.
But finding E[X_4] is a wholly different issue. We can still use the fact that E[X_4] = \frac{\sum_x {p_x \choose 4} {n-p_x-1 \choose 1}}{n \choose 5} = \frac{\sum_x {p_x \choose 4} (n-p_x-1)}{n \choose 5} but unfortunately now f(t) = {t \choose 4} (n-t-1) is a concave function, so we can't use Jensen. We can still use majorization theorem however, noting that \sum_x p_x = n(n-1)/2. If we want to find a sequence of p_i that's absolutely majorized, we can say that: (n-1, n-2, \dots, 1, 0) \succ (p_1, p_2, \dots, p_n) which must be true in the most extreme example that each player has an absolute skill level and each victory is transitive. However, computing E_4 in that case is difficult. E[X_4] > \frac{1}{n \choose 5} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} {k \choose 4} (n-k-1) which can be done analytically because the sums of \sum k, \sum k^2, dots \sum k^5 can all be computed via telescoping arguments.
If you want to be lazy, you can also say that (n(n-1)/2,0,\dots,0) majorizes everything, but that lower bound is probably lame.
Why did I mention this? Because this type of analysis eventually opens up to problems like:
Show that we can choose A and B such that each member of B loses at least 3 times against A, or that players from A wins at least 22 times against B, and so on.
What about the number of victories from A to B though? If we label this quantity V, then E[V] = E[X_1 + 2X_2 + 3X_3 + 4X_4 + 5X_5], each of which can be evaluated but the even terms are ugly. E[X_2] is not that bad but E[X_4] is definitely not something you want to do too often.
However, there's a faster way to calculate E[V]. By symmetry we know it would be 25/2, because for every choice of A and B, there's an equal probability of choosing B and A, and the sum of those victories must be 25.
A related problem from Iran Team Selection Test 2008/6.)
Suppose 799 teams participate in a tournament in which every pair of teams plays against each other exactly once. Prove that there exist two disjoint groups A and B of 7 teams each such that every team from A defeated every team from B.
No comments:
Post a Comment