|
| |
|
|
A160511
|
|
Number of weighings needed to find lighter coins among n coins.
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 13, 14, 14, 15, 16, 16, 17, 18, 18, 19
(list;
graph;
refs;
listen;
history;
text;
internal format)
|
|
|
|
OFFSET
|
1,2
|
|
|
COMMENTS
|
a(n) is the minimal worst-case number of weighings needed by an algorithm to sort a set of n coins of two possible weights into heavy vs. light coins by using a balance; additional known good (heavy, say) coins are available (esp. to distinguish "all heavy" from "all light").
It is known that ceiling(n*log_3(2) + log_3(135/128)) <= a(n) <= ceiling(7n/11) for all n except for n=3. This implies 19 <= a(30) <= 20 and in fact a(n) = ceiling(7n/11) for several n <= 187, esp. for all n with n <= 50 except n=3, n=30, n=41, n=49.
|
|
|
LINKS
|
|
|
|
EXAMPLE
|
For n=1, compare the given coin A with a known heavy coin X. If A < X, then A is a light coin; if A=X, then A is a heavy coin; the outcome A > X is not possible. Since one weighing was needed, we have a(1)=1.
For n=3, to sort coins A,B,C, one optimal algorithm is: First compare A:B. If A < B, we know that A is light and B is heavy and can find out about C by comparing, e.g., B:C in a second weighing. The case A > B is symmetric. If, however, A=B, compare A:C. If A < C, we know that A,B are light and C is heavy and vice versa for A > C. The worst case is A=C, which requires a third weighing, e.g., A:X, against a known heavy coin X. Since no algorithm exists that never uses more than 2 weighings, we have a(3) = 3.
|
|
|
CROSSREFS
|
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
nonn,hard,more
|
|
|
AUTHOR
|
|
|
|
STATUS
|
approved
|
| |
|
|
