[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference rusure::math

Title:Mathematics at DEC
Moderator:RUSURE::EDP
Created:Mon Feb 03 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2083
Total number of notes:14613

1153.0. "algebra + inequalities" by HERON::BUCHANAN (Andrew @vbo DTN 828-5805) Mon Nov 27 1989 15:02

I have 5 hay bales.   Someone has weighed them 2 at a time, and the
results were: 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121.   (easy)
What is the weight of each bale?   (harder) Generalize to n bales.   When
will it be possible to compute the weight of each of n bales, based on
a list of the n-choose-2 pair-weights?

I haven't managed to detect any pattern, so far, yet alone a general
solution.   For n=1,2 & 4, the recovery of the individual bale-weights
is not possible, but for n=0,3,5 & 6 it can always be done.  The problem is 
not as simple as it might sound.

Andrew
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1153.1A startFLUME::dikeMon Nov 27 1989 16:4131
If you look at this in matrix terms, you are trying to solve the
system APx = b, where A is represents the possible n(n-1)/2 possible
ways to add two weights together, P is a permutation matrix that
matches each equation with its result, x is the unknown, and b
is the vector of results.  To illustrate with a simpler example,
start with the vector of objects [1 2 3].  A is the same for every
system with three objects:
	1 0 1
	1 1 0
	0 1 1
P and x are unknowns (but we know what we should get for x).

b is [3 4 5].

The inverse of A is 1 1 -1
		    -1 1 1 * 1/2
		    1 -1 1
Multiplying A inverse by both sides of APx = b gives
Px = [1 3 2].  Since the problem doesn't call for the weights in any
particular order, P is irrelevant, and we can consider Px to be the
desired solution.

In general, there are n unknowns and n(n-1)/2 equations.  For n < 3,
this is underspecified and there are no unique solutions, for n = 3,
it is exactly specified and there is always a unique solution, and
for n > 3, it is overspecified and there may not be a unique solution.

The problem becomes one of extracting an A and a b from the data such
that A is non-singular and b somehow matches A.

				Jeff
1153.21 bale + 1 bale = 1 baleAKQJ10::YARBROUGHI prefer PiMon Nov 27 1989 16:5112
>For n=1,2 & 4, the recovery of the individual bale-weights
>is not possible, but for n=0,3,5 & 6 it can always be done.  

Either I don't understand the problem, or something is wrong here. I don't 
see any problem with n=1, and n=4 at least can be solved for some sets of 
weights, e.g. 3,5,6,7,8,10, or whenever the largest weight is >= sum of 2nd
and 3rd. 

One way of solving the problem by induction for all weights is to add a
null bale (weight =0) and pair it off with the others! :-) 

Lynn 
1153.3commentsHERON::BUCHANANAndrew @vbo DTN 828-5805Tue Nov 28 1989 10:5547
1153.4why not remove redundant weighings, then find null space?4GL::GILBERTOwnership ObligatesTue Nov 28 1989 13:531
    Also see note 7.14.
1153.5parallel doesn't take us very farHERON::BUCHANANAndrew @vbo DTN 828-5805Wed Nov 29 1989 17:2315
>         -< why not remove redundant weighings, then find null space? >-

	The whole point is that it is difficult to identify all the
redundant weighings.   This is a very different problem to 7.

Andrew

P.S.:	If n is odd (> 1), I can prove I think that a set of pair-weighings 
determines a set of bales uniquely.   If n is even (>4) then there remains
one exotic special case for me to explore.   This may be easy to eliminate,
hard to eliminate, or reveal some pretty special case.   I hope it is the
first or the last.

However, my proof is not short.   I'll post the work so far in the next reply.
If someone has any good insights, here's the place for them...
1153.6n odd solved, n even nearly solvedHERON::BUCHANANAndrew @vbo DTN 828-5805Wed Nov 29 1989 17:24195