|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Van der Waerden's theorem''' is a theorem in the branch of [[mathematics]] called [[Ramsey theory]]. Van der Waerden's theorem states that for any given positive [[integer]]s ''r'' and ''k'', there is some number ''N'' such that if the integers {1, 2, ..., ''N''} are colored, each with one of ''r'' different colors, then there are at least ''k'' integers in [[arithmetic progression]] all of the same color. The least such ''N'' is the [[Van der Waerden number]] ''W''(''r'', ''k''). It is named after the Dutch mathematician [[Bartel Leendert van der Waerden|B. L. van der Waerden]].<ref>{{cite journal |authorlink=Bartel Leendert van der Waerden |first=B. L. |last=van der Waerden |title={{lang|de|Beweis einer Baudetschen Vermutung}} |journal=Nieuw. Arch. Wisk. |volume=15 |year=1927 |issue= |pages=212–216 }}</ref>
| | Our main focus in teaching new and experienced merchants is to build a belief in the machine through repetition. After seeing the performance of a trade over 150 times inside a 2 month period, it becomes obvious that you start to go away from a fear-based inner dialogue relating to your trade. You already kn... <br><br>I noticed Mike Tyson say this years ago, and it quickly stuck with me due to a lot of connections it"s to trading your trading strategy with control, target, and consistency. <br><br>Our primary emphasis in training new and seasoned dealers would be to create a belief in the machine through repetition. After seeing the performance of a trade more than 150 times inside a 2 month period, it becomes obvious that you begin to go away from a fear-based inner [http://Www.Dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/dialogue.html dialogue] regarding your trade. Hit this website [http://www.liusuanxin.net/forex-trading-techniques/ Forex Trading Techniques |] to learn the inner workings of this view. You already know the system is consistently profitable, hence the only X-factor within the entire process is that small 6-inch market between your ears. Now, the focus of reliability has anything to do with you, the investor, following your rules with repetition and consistency and nothing to do with the system. Navigate to this link [http://www.hairstraighteners-ca.com/forex-trading-tactics/ rockwell trading review] to discover how to see about it. <br><br>Now right back to my original position. We"ve seen the positions. We all know the device is successful. We have simulated the device and are showing a profit. We are ready to deal live money that we have an emotional attachment to. Every dollar we are dealing means a loaf of bread, as they say. Visit [https://motionnexus.zendesk.com/entries/95268603-Forex-Trading-And-The-Stock-Marketplace-Similarities-And-Differences Forex Trading And The Stock Marketplace - Similarities And Differences : Motio] to check up the inner workings of it. Our tough earned as influenced by the system, trading capital is currently taking the INEVITABLE equity draw-down. We WILL lose deals, investors, this is a proven fact that we should accept o-n all levels. But remember, contraction leads to growth. Your draw-down will certainly bring about a run-up. The KEY is NOT TO MISS IT! <br><br>Today, we have had the draw-down, and to place it bluntly we"ve "Been punched in the mouth." THIS can be where the magic happens. At this very moment what"ll you do? Are you going to let the fear and painful associations of the market determine your trading executions? Or do you want to bring upon your education, having fully accepted that equity move is nothing more than yet another step to constant success? <br><br>Are you going to keep on to place these next trades with consistency? Are you going to remove all energetic positions from your [http://www.sharkbayte.com/keyword/trading trading] style? Can you follow the trading plan that you have put so much thought and process into developing yourself? <br><br>In case you have a pen, WRITE THIS DOWN and tape it to your Monitor: <br><br>"WHEN I DEAL MY PROGRAM WITH Reliability AND REPETITION THE CASH WILL FOLLOW." <br><br>Remember, every investor gets punched in the mouth. The wonder is the way you apply your trading at these times..<br><br>If you cherished this article and you would like to obtain a lot more info relating to [http://clammycobweb1357.jimdo.com current health articles] kindly pay a visit to our page. |
| | |
| For example, when ''r'' = 2, you have two colors, say <span style="color:red;">red</span> and <span style="color:blue;">blue</span>. ''W''(2, 3) is bigger than 8, because you can color the integers from {1, ..., 8} like this:
| |
| {|class="wikitable"
| |
| | 1
| |
| | 2
| |
| | 3
| |
| | 4
| |
| | 5
| |
| | 6
| |
| | 7
| |
| | 8
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''<span style="color:blue;">B</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:red;">R</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:red;">R</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:blue;">B</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:blue;">B</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:red;">R</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:red;">R</span>'''
| |
| | '''<span style="color:blue;">B</span>'''
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| and no three integers of the same color form an [[arithmetic progression]]. But you can't add a ninth integer to the end without creating such a progression. If you add a <span style="color:red;">red 9</span>, then the <span style="color:red;">red 3</span>, <span style="color:red;">6</span>, and <span style="color:red;">9</span> are in arithmetic progression. Alternatively, if you add a <span style="color:blue;">blue 9</span>, then the <span style="color:blue;">blue 1</span>, <span style="color:blue;">5</span>, and <span style="color:blue;">9</span> are in arithmetic progression. In fact, there is no way of coloring 1 through 9 without creating such a progression. Therefore, ''W''(2, 3) is 9. | |
| | |
| It is an open problem to determine the values of ''W''(''r'', ''k'') for most values of ''r'' and ''k''. The proof of the theorem provides only an upper bound. For the case of ''r'' = 2 and ''k'' = 3, for example, the argument given below shows that it is sufficient to color the integers {1, ..., 325} with two colors to guarantee there will be a single-colored arithmetic progression of length 3. But in fact, the bound of 325 is very loose; the minimum required number of integers is only 9. Any coloring of the integers {1, ..., 9} will have three evenly spaced integers of one color.
| |
| | |
| For ''r'' = 3 and ''k'' = 3, the bound given by the theorem is 7(2·3<sup>7</sup> + 1)(2·3<sup>7·(2·3<sup>7</sup> + 1)</sup> + 1), or approximately 4.22·10<sup>14616</sup>. But actually, you don't need that many integers to guarantee a single-colored progression of length 3; you only need 27. (And it is possible to color {1, ..., 26} with three colors so that there is no single-colored arithmetic progression of length 3; for example, RRYYRRYBYBBRBRRYRYYBRBBYBY.)
| |
| | |
| Anyone who can reduce the general upper bound to any 'reasonable' function can win a large cash prize. [[Ronald Graham]] has offered a prize of [[US$]]1000 for showing ''W''(2,''k'')<2<sup>''k''<sup>2</sup></sup>.<ref>{{cite journal |authorlink=Ronald Graham |first=Ron |last=Graham |title=Some of My Favorite Problems in Ramsey Theory |journal=INTEGERS (The Electronic Journal of Combinatorial Number Theory |url=http://www.integers-ejcnt.org/vol7-2.html |volume=7 |issue=2 |year=2007 |pages=#A2 }}</ref> The best upper bound currently known is due to [[Timothy Gowers]],<ref>{{cite journal |authorlink=Timothy Gowers |first=Timothy |last=Gowers |title=A new proof of Szemerédi's theorem |journal=Geom. Funct. Anal. |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=465–588 |year=2001 |url=http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/papers.html |doi=10.1007/s00039-001-0332-9 }}</ref> who establishes
| |
| | |
| : <math>W(r,k) \leq 2^{2^{r^{2^{2^{k + 9}}}}},</math>
| |
| | |
| by first establishing a similar result for [[Szemerédi's theorem]], which is a stronger version of Van der Waerden's theorem. The previously best-known bound was due to [[Saharon Shelah]] and proceeded via first proving a result for the [[Hales–Jewett theorem]], which is another strengthening of Van der Waerden's theorem.
| |
| | |
| The best lower bound currently known for <math>W(2, k)</math> is that for all positive <math>\varepsilon</math> we have <math>W(2, k) > 2^k/k^\varepsilon</math>, for all sufficiently large <math>k</math>.<ref>{{cite journal |authorlink=Zoltan Szábo|first=Zoltán |last=Szabó |title=An application of Lovász' local lemma -- a new lower bound for the van der Waerden number |journal=Random Struct. Algorithms |volume=1 | issue = 3 |pages=343-360 |year=1990 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Proof of Van der Waerden's theorem (in a special case) ==
| |
| | |
| The following proof is due to [[Ronald Graham|Ron Graham]] and B.L. Rothschild.<ref name="Graham1974">{{cite journal |authorlink=Ronald Graham |first=R. L. |last=Graham |first2=B. L. |last2=Rothschild |title=A short proof of van der Waerden's theorem on arithmetic progressions |journal=Proc. American Math. Soc. |volume=42 |issue=2 |year=1974 |pages=385–386 |doi=10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0329917-8 }}</ref> [[A. Ya. Khinchin|Khinchin]]<ref>{{Cite document
| |
| | last1 = Khinchin | first1 = A. Ya.
| |
| | title = Three Pearls of Number Theory
| |
| | publisher = Dover
| |
| | location = Mineola, NY
| |
| | date = 1998
| |
| | isbn = 978-0-486-40026-6
| |
| | postscript = .}}
| |
| </ref> gives a fairly simple proof of the theorem without estimating ''W''(''r'', ''k'').
| |
| | |
| We will prove the special case mentioned above, that ''W''(2, 3) ≤ 325. Let ''c''(''n'') be a coloring of the integers {1, ..., 325}. We will find three elements of {1, ..., 325} in arithmetic progression that are the same color.
| |
| | |
| Divide {1, ..., 325} into the 65 blocks {1, ..., 5}, {6, ..., 10}, ... {321, ..., 325}, thus each block is of the form {''b'' ·5 + 1, ..., ''b'' ·5 + 5} for some ''b'' in {0, ..., 64}. Since each integer is colored either red or blue, each block is colored in one of 32 different ways. By the [[pigeonhole principle]], there are two blocks among the first 33 blocks that are colored identically. That is, there are two integers ''b''<sub>1</sub> and ''b''<sub>2</sub>, both in {0,...,32}, such that
| |
| | |
| : ''c''(''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''k'') = ''c''(''b''<sub>2</sub>·5 + ''k'') | |
| | |
| for all ''k'' in {1, ..., 5}. Among the three integers ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + 1, ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + 2, ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + 3, there must be at least two that are the same color. (The [[pigeonhole principle]] again.) Call these ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>1</sub> and ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>2</sub>, where the ''a''<sub>''i''</sub> are in {1,2,3} and ''a''<sub>1</sub> < ''a''<sub>2</sub>. Suppose (without loss of generality) that these two integers are both red. (If they are both blue, just exchange 'red' and 'blue' in what follows.)
| |
| | |
| Let ''a''<sub>3</sub> = 2·''a''<sub>2</sub> − ''a''<sub>1</sub>. If ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub> is red, then we have found our arithmetic progression: ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>''i''</sub> are all red.
| |
| | |
| Otherwise, ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub> is blue. Since ''a''<sub>3</sub> ≤ 5, ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub> is in the ''b''<sub>1</sub> block, and since the ''b''<sub>2</sub> block is colored identically, ''b''<sub>2</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub> is also blue.
| |
| | |
| Now let ''b''<sub>3</sub> = 2·''b''<sub>2</sub> − ''b''<sub>1</sub>. Then ''b''<sub>3</sub> ≤ 64. Consider the integer ''b''<sub>3</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub>, which must be ≤ 325. What color is it?
| |
| | |
| If it is red, then ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>1</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>2</sub>, and ''b''<sub>3</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub> form a red arithmetic progression. But if it is blue, then ''b''<sub>1</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub>, ''b''<sub>2</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub>, and ''b''<sub>3</sub>·5 + ''a''<sub>3</sub> form a blue arithmetic progression. Either way, we are done.
| |
| | |
| A similar argument can be advanced to show that ''W''(3, 3) ≤ 7(2·3<sup>7</sup>+1)(2·3<sup>7·(2·3<sup>7</sup>+1)</sup>+1). One begins by dividing the integers into 2·3<sup>7·(2·3<sup>7</sup> + 1)</sup> + 1 groups of 7(2·3<sup>7</sup> + 1) integers each; of the first 3<sup>7·(2·3<sup>7</sup> + 1)</sup> + 1 groups, two must be colored identically.
| |
| | |
| Divide each of these two groups into 2·3<sup>7</sup>+1 subgroups of 7 integers each; of the first 3<sup>7</sup> + 1 subgroups in each group, two of the subgroups must be colored identically. Within each of these identical subgroups, two of the first four integers must be the same color, say red; this implies either a red progression or an element of a different color, say blue, in the same subgroup.
| |
| | |
| Since we have two identically-colored subgroups, there is a third subgroup, still in the same group that contains an element which, if either red or blue, would complete a red or blue progression, by a construction analogous to the one for ''W''(2, 3). Suppose that this element is yellow. Since there is a group that is colored identically, it must contain copies of the red, blue, and yellow elements we have identified; we can now find a pair of red elements, a pair of blue elements, and a pair of yellow elements that 'focus' on the same integer, so that whatever color it is, it must complete a progression.
| |
| | |
| The proof for ''W''(2, 3) depends essentially on proving that ''W''(32, 2) ≤ 33. We divide the integers {1,...,325} into 65 'blocks', each of which can be colored in 32 different ways, and then show that two blocks of the first 33 must be the same color, and there is a block coloured the opposite way. Similarly, the proof for ''W''(3, 3) depends on proving that
| |
| | |
| : <math>W(3^{7(2 \cdot 3^7+1)},2) \leq 3^{7(2 \cdot 3^7+1)}+1.</math> | |
| | |
| By a double [[mathematical induction|induction]] on the number of colors and the length of the progression, the theorem is proved in general.
| |
| | |
| == Proof ==
| |
| | |
| A [[Generalized arithmetic progression|''D-dimensional arithmetic progression'']] consists of
| |
| numbers of the form:
| |
| ::<math> a + i_1 s_1 + i_2 s_2 ... + i_D s_D </math>
| |
| where a is the basepoint, the s's are the different step-sizes, and the i's range from 0 to L-1. A d-dimensional AP is ''homogenous'' for some coloring when it is all the same color.
| |
| | |
| A ''D-dimensional arithmetic progression with benefits'' is all numbers of the form above, but where you add on some of the "boundary" of the arithmetic progression, i.e. some of the indices i's can be equal to L. The sides you tack on are ones where the first k i's are equal to L, and the remaining i's are less than L.
| |
| | |
| The boundaries of a D-dimensional AP with benefits are these additional arithmetic progressions of dimension d-1,d-2,d-3,d-4, down to 0. The 0 dimensional arithmetic progression is the single point at index value (L,L,L,L...,L). A D-dimensional AP with benefits is ''homogenous'' when each of the boundaries are individually homogenous, but different boundaries do not have to necessarily have the same color.
| |
| | |
| Next define the quantity MinN(L, D, N) to be the least integer so
| |
| that any assignment of N colors to an interval of length MinN or more
| |
| necessarily contains a homogenous D-dimensional arithmetical progression with benefits.
| |
| | |
| The goal is to bound the size of MinN. Note that MinN(L,1,N) is an upper bound for Van-Der-Waerden's
| |
| number. There are two inductions steps, as follows:
| |
| | |
| 1. Assume MinN is known for a given lengths L for all dimensions of arithmetic progressions with benefits up to D. This formula gives a bound on MinN when you increase the dimension to D+1:
| |
| | |
| let <math> M = {\mathrm MinN}(L,D,n)</math>
| |
| | |
| ::<math> {\mathrm MinN}(L, D+1 , n) \le M*{\mathrm MinN}(L,1,n^M)</math>
| |
| | |
| Proof:
| |
| First, if you have an n-coloring of the interval 1...I, you can define a ''block coloring'' of k-size
| |
| blocks. Just consider each sequence of k colors in each k block to define a unique color. Call this ''k-blocking'' an n-coloring. k-blocking an n coloring of length l produces an n^k coloring of length l/k.
| |
| | |
| So given a n-coloring of an interval I of size M*MinN(L,1,n^M)) you can M-block it into an n^M coloring
| |
| of length MinN(L,1,n^M). But that means, by the definition of MinN, that you can find a 1-dimensional arithmetic sequence (with benefits) of length L in the block coloring, which is a sequence of blocks equally spaced, which are all the same block-color, i.e. you have a bunch of blocks of length M in the original sequence, which are equally spaced, which have exactly the same sequence of colors inside.
| |
| | |
| Now, by the definition of M, you can find a d-dimensional arithmetic sequence with benefits in any one of these blocks, and since all of the blocks have the same sequence of colors, the same d-dimensional AP with benefits appears in all of the blocks, just by translating it from block to block. This is the definition of a d+1 dimensional arithmetic progression, so you have a homogenous d+1 dimensional AP. The new stride parameter s_{D+1} is defined to be the distance between the blocks.
| |
| | |
| But you need benefits. The boundaries you get now are all old boundaries, plus their translations into identically colored blocks, because i_{D+1} is always less than L. The only boundary which is not like this is the 0 dimensional point when <math>i_1=i_2=...=i_{D+1}=L</math>. This is a single point, and is automatically homogenous.
| |
| | |
| 2. Assume MinN is known for one value of L and all possible dimensions D. Then you can bound MinN for length L+1.
| |
| | |
| ::<math>{\mathrm MinN}(L+1,D,n) \le 2{\mathrm MinN}(L,n,n)</math>
| |
| | |
| proof:
| |
| Given an n-coloring of an interval of size MinN(L,n,n), by definition, you can find an arithmetic sequence with benefits of dimension n of length L. But now, the number of "benefit" boundaries is equal to the number of colors, so one of the homogenous boundaries, say of dimension k, has to have the same color as another one of the homogenous benefit boundaries, say the one of dimension p<k. This allows a length L+1 arithmetic sequence (of dimension 1) to be constructed, by going along a line inside the k-dimensional boundary which ends right on the p-dimensional boundary, and including the terminal point in the p-dimensional boundary. In formulas:
| |
| | |
| if
| |
| ::<math> a+ L s_1 +L s_2... + L s_{D-k}</math> has the same color as
| |
| ::<math> a + L s_1 +L s_2 ... +L s_{D-p}</math>
| |
| then
| |
| ::<math> a + L*(s_1 ... +s_{D-k}) + u *(s_{D-k+1} ... +s_p) </math> have the same color
| |
| ::<math> u = 0,1,2,...,L-1,L </math> i.e. u makes a sequence of length L+1.
| |
| | |
| This constructs a sequence of dimension 1, and the "benefits" are automatic, just add on another point of whatever color. To include this boundary point, one has to make the interval longer by the maximum possible value of the stride, which is certainly less than the interval size. So doubling the interval size will definitely work, and this is the reason for the factor of two. This completes the induction on L.
| |
| | |
| Base case: MinN(1,d,n)=1, i.e. if you want a length 1 homogenous d-dimensional arithmetic sequence, with or without benefits, you have nothing to do. So this forms the base of the induction. The VanDerWaerden theorem itself is the assertion that MinN(L,1,N) is finite, and it follows from the base case and the induction steps.<ref name="Graham1974" />
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| * [[Van der Waerden number]]s for all known values for ''W''(''n'',''r'') and the best-known bounds for unknown values
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| * [http://www.math.uga.edu/~lyall/REU/ramsey.pdf Proof of Van der Waerden's theorem]
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Ramsey theory]]
| |
| [[Category:Theorems in discrete mathematics]]
| |
| [[Category:Articles containing proofs]]
| |