Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
With the Section 1 definitions ( the largest sum of consecutive intervals cut by on the circle of circumference , ), for every sequence and every integer :
The display is the last one of Section 3 and carries no number on the page; Section 6 refers to it as (3.3). Taking the infimum over sequences, , the bound the site quotes. For it gives , attained by the Section 2 sequence.
Source. N. G. de Bruijn and P. Erdős, Sequences of points on a circle, Proc. 52 (1949), 14--17; Section 3 on printed p. 15 (PDF p. 3 of the TU/e portal PDF), read on the page image. The edition read is identified in the source digest.
Read depth. Claims checked: the display and its hypotheses were read clause by clause on the page image; the proof was read for its structure and not checked.
Proof pointer
Section 3 proves the case in full and says the general case is proved "similarly". For : suppose for all with , display (3.1) (the page prints , a misprint for : the sum the page draws from (3.1) and (3.2) and its conclusion "for at least one " both need ). Order the intervals cut by by decreasing length , with (3.2). Each of the points splits at most one interval, so after of them have been placed some interval of length at least is still intact, whence for . Summing (3.1) over these gives . Hence for at least one in ,
and , , so . For general the same count, started at stage and run over the points , gives, for at least one with , , and the right side tends to as . Since , the bound exceeds . The argument, with the general- case written out, is reconstructed (author-recorded, unreviewed) at its reconstruction page.
Mean-normalized form
An authored remark. The average -span is , so the natural normalization divides by . Since ,
so the bound reads , that is, . This is the form in which the first expression of the Section 6 conjecture is a nontrivial question.
Dependencies
None beyond the Section 1 definitions.
Bears on
- Problem 1221: the first of the three bounds the site quotes, and the reason the literal first expression of the problem is trivially unbounded: it is at least .