Limit theory of discrete mathematics problems
Endre Csóka
arXiv:1505.06984v2 [cs.GT] 12 Oct 2016
Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest, Hungary
Abstract
Limit theory means an advanced analysis of the asymptotic behavior of discrete problems when some finite parameter tends to infinity. Namely, we are looking for limits of
finite problems for which we can prove that the solutions of the finite problems converge
to the solution of the limit problem. We show this simple but powerful technique on three
problems: the Manickam–Miklós–Singhi Conjecture, the Kikuta–Ruckle Conjecture and
Alpern’s Caching Game.
1
Introduction
When we want to solve a problem with a finite parameter, then one of the techniques we often
try is to define and solve an infinite version of the problem, hoping that it helps with the
original problem. Here, an infinite version is defined by just exchanging some finite parameters
to infinity and making the necessary modifications so as to get a meaningful problem. But
we have a suggestion how to do it better. Namely, we are looking for a problem for which
we can prove that its solution is the same as the limit of the solutions of the finite problems.
We emphasize that we should not care at all about whether this problem looks similar to the
original problem, but all we should care about is this convergence. We call this technique the
limit theory for discrete problems.
Limit theory techniques were used probably for the first time by Lovász and Szegedy (2006,
[9]) introducing limit graphs called graphons. This research followed the plan that they built a
new language for graphs, a general theory about their limiting structures when their size tends
to infinity. Then the understanding of the space of graphons helped in the understanding of
graphs. This research resulted in a deep and successful theory [8], and provided a useful tool
for solving a large class of graph theory problems. Later, the same research plan was followed
for the theories of many other discrete structures.
Now we are using the same technique with a slightly different plan. Namely, we build a
limit theory only for one unsolved discrete problem rather than a discrete structure. We will
apply this technique on three problems, demonstrating that limit theory is also be used as
a general problem-solving technique. We start with a simple story which is just a bit more
than an asymptotic analysis: we generalize the Manickam–Miklós–Singhi Conjecture. Then we
apply the same technique on the Kikuta–Ruckle Conjecture, where we will use the technique
more deeply. Finally, we will show a very interesting, surprising and difficult application for
Alpern’s Caching Game, which shows the real power of the technique. We will also show how
did our understanding of limit problems facilitated our understanding of the original problem,
especially about Alpern’s Caching Game.
2
Manickam–Miklós–Singhi Conjecture
In our first and simplest example, we show an easy way to generalize a well-known conjecture.
1
Problem 2.1 (MMS-Problem). For a fix n, k ∈ N, find a sequence ai ∈ R, a1 + a2 + ... + an = 0
such that if {i1 , i2 , ..., ik } ⊂
{1, 2, ..., n} is a uniform random subset with cardinality k, then
Pr ai1 + ai2 + ... + aik > 0 is the largest possible.
Denote this maximum probability by M (n, k). Two sequences are equivalent if after applying
a permutation on one sequence, the two events that the sum is positive are the same.
Conjecture 2.2 (Manickam–Miklós–Singhi). If 4k ≤ n, then M (n, k) =
solution up to equivalence is 1 − n, 1, 1, 1, ..., 1.
n−k
.
n
The only optimal
The Manickam–Miklós–Singhi Conjecture is introduced in 1987 in [10], and it has recently
received a lot of attention, especially because of its connection to the Erdős matching conjecture
[5]. In 2013, Huang and Sudakov [6] proved it for 33k 2 < n. In 2014, Chowdhury, Sarkis and
Shahriari [3] proved for 8k 2 < n. Then in 2015, Pokrovskiy [11] proved for k < ε · n, but this
improves the previous results only for k > 1045 .
We consider an “advanced asymptotic analysis” of the problem when n → ∞, and nk converges. Finding the right limit problem is not an obvious task. One of the problems is that the
solution 1 − n, 1, 1, 1, ..., 1 does not have a limit when n → ∞. We resolve this problem byP
drop
k
ping the condition a1 +a2 +...+an = 0, but we want to maximize Pr ai1 +ai2 +...+aik > n ai .
This is clearly equivalent to the original problem. Now −1, 0, 0, ..., 0 is an equivalent form of
the conjectured optimal solution, and we can say that the infinite sequence −1, 0, 0, ... is a limit
of it. We needed a few more observations to define the following limit problem.
Problem 2.3.PFor a fix p ∈ (0, 1), we are looking for a countable P
sequence a1 , a2 , ... of real
2
ai (xi − p) + dx0 > 0 ,
numbers with
ai < ∞ and a real number d which maximizes Pr
where x1 , x2 , ... are indicator variables with probability p, and x0 is a variable with standard
normal distribution, and x0 , x1 , x2 , ... are independent.
Denote this supremum probability by M (p). (Which is a maximum, but we do not prove it
here.) We call this problem a limit problem of the Manickam–Miklós–Singhi Conjecure, because
the following theorem holds.
Theorem 2.4. For any sequence (ni , ki ), ni → ∞ and
ki
ni
→ p ∈ (0, 1),
lim inf M (p + δ) ≤ lim inf M (ni , ki ) ≤ lim sup M (ni , ki ) ≤ lim sup M (p + δ).
δ→0
δ→0
Sketch of proof. We can naturally convert a solution of the finite problem to a solution of the
limit problem and vice versa. We only need to prove that the conversion error tends to 0 when
n → ∞.
The conversion of a solution of the finite problem (with large n and k) to a solution of the
limit game is essentially the following. We normalize the finite sequence by making its median
0. The rest of the terms is 0 and d = 0.
The conversion of a solution of the limit problem to a solution of a large finite problem is a
bit more tricky. We keep a finite number of terms ai with the largest absolute values. Half of
the rest of the terms will be ε and the other half will be −ε, where the value ε is chosen so as
to keep the total variance the same as it was in the limit problem. Using the following version
of the Central Limit Theorem, we can deduce that this conversion error also tends to 0.
Lemma 2.5. For every p ∈ (0, 1) and ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that for any sequence
−δ < a1 , a2 , ..., an < δ and nk − p < δ and t ∈ R, the following holds. If {i1 , i2 , ..., ik } ⊂
{1, 2, ..., n} is a uniform random subset with cardinality k, then
n
kX
Φ σ(t − ε) − ε < Pr ai1 + ai2 + ... + aik <
ai + t < Φ σ(t + ε) + ε,
n i=1
2
M(p)
p
Figure 1. M (p) is the maximum of the functions in the figure. If p is between 0 and
0.317... (or exactly 1/3), then −1 is the best (and the other coefficients are 0), between 0.317...
and 1/3 the sequence 1, 1, 1 is the best, between 1/3 and 0.395... (and at 0.4) the sequence
−1, −1, −1, between 0.395... and 0.4 the sequence 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, between 0.4 and 0.414... the sequence −1, −1, −1, −1, −1, and between 0.414... and 0.5 the sequence 1, 1.
where σ 2 = Var ai1 + ai2 + ... + aik and Φ is the distribution function of the standard normal
distribution.
We analyzed the limit problem for all values of p, the results are summarized in Figure 1.
This leads to a new conjecture as follows.
Conjecture 2.6. The optimal solution of the limit game has the form a1 = a2 = ... = aq
where q ∈ {1, 2, 3, 5}, and all other coefficients are 0. This is the only optimal solution up to
equivalence.
Now we are ready to form the corresponding conjecture for the original problem.
Conjecture 2.7. The optimal solution of the original finite game has the form a1 = a2 =
q
a1 . This is the only optimal
... = aq where q ∈ {1, 2, 3, 5}, and aq+1 = aq+2 = ... = an = − n−q
solution up to equivalence.
Now we show a possible way to prove the conjecture by analysing a very large but finite
number of cases (most probably using a computer). We say that a feasible normalized solution, or in short, a solution for the limit problem (Problem 2.3) is a sequence and a number
(ai )i∈N , d , where
X
X
Var
ai (xi − p) + dx0 = p(1 − p)
a2i + d2 = 1.
i∈N
Lemma 2.8. We define the distance between two strategies (ai ), dα and (bi ), dβ by
k
X
inf
aπi − bπi + sup aπi + sup bπi ,
π1 ,π2 ,k
i>k
i=1
i>k
where π1 and π2 are permutations on Z+ . The topological space of the strategies induced by this
distance function is compact.
3
P
Lemma 2.9. If for a solution s = (ai ), d , Pr
ai(xi −p)+dx0 >P
−ε < v, then there exists
a
neighborhood of s in which for every solution (a0i ), d0 , we have Pr
a0i (xi −p)+d0 x0 > 0 < v.
With these two lemmas, we can hope that we can cover the solution space with a finite
number of regions (open sets) so that we can show the conjectured inequality in each of these
regions. Then we could modify these proofs for the limit problem so as to make it valid for the
original discrete problem, as well. For this, we would also need a version of Lemma 2.5 which
gives an explicit δ > 0 for each ε > 0.
3
Kikuta–Ruckle Conjecture
We can use the same technique for the following generalization of the MMS-Problem, defined
by Kikuta and Ruckle. [1, 7]
Problem 3.1 (KR-Problem). n, k ∈ N, and d ∈ (0, 1) are given. We want to find nonnegative
real
numbers a1 , a2 , ..., an ≥ 0 with a1 +a2 +...+an = 1 which maximizes Pr ai1 +ai2 +...+aik >
d , where {i1 , i2 , ..., ik } ⊂ {1, 2, ..., n} is a uniform random k-element subset.
Denote this supremum1 probability by K(k, n, d). Notice that if d < nk , then ai =
K(k, n, d) = 1 and if d = nk , then we get back the MMS-Problem.
1
n
provides
Conjecture 3.2 (Kikuta–Ruckle). For all n, k ∈ N, and d ∈ (0, 1), there is an optimal solution
for the KR-Problem of the form a1 = a2 = ... = as = 1s and as+1 = as+2 = ... = an = 0 for
some s ∈ {1, 2, ..., n}.
The conjecture says nothing about the optimal value s, but this would be useful to know
for proving the conjecture. Searching for the optimal values for small constant values n, k did
not really help, we will shortly see the reason of it. Instead, we will consider what happens if
n → ∞ and hereby we form a conjecture about the value of s.
The KR-Problem has one more parameter than the MMS-Problem, therefore, we have a
larger freedom about defining limit problems of it. One of the most important limits is the case
k
, then s = n − 1,
of n → ∞, nk → p ∈ (0, 1), d = nk , which is just Problem 2.3. But if d > n−1
or the corresponding solution −1, 0, 0, ... for the MMS-problem is no longer good. Moreover,
k
for any constant c, then s ≤ n − c provides probability 0. Therefore, if n → ∞,
if d > n−c
k
→ p ∈ (0, 1), d → p and n − kd → ∞, then this leads to the following limit problem.
n
Problem 3.3. For a fix p ∈ (0,
we are looking for a countable sequence 0 ≤ a1P
, a2 , ... of
P 1),
2
nonnegative real
ai < ∞ and a real number σ which maximizes Pr
ai (xi −
numbers with
p) + σx0 > 0 , where x1 , x2 , ... are indicator variables with probability p, and x0 is a variable
with standard normal distribution, and x0 , x1 , x2 , ... are independent.
Denote this supremum probability by K(p). Figure 1 shows the efficiency of the conjectured
optimal strategies.
Again, the reason why we consider it a true limit problem is the following theorem.
Theorem 3.4. For any sequence (ni , ki , di ), ni → ∞ and
ni − kdii → ∞,
ki
ni
→ p ∈ (0, 1), di → p and
lim inf K(p + δ) ≤ lim inf K(ni , ki , di ) ≤ lim sup K(ni , ki , di ) ≤ lim sup K(p + δ).
δ→0
δ→0
1
We believe that this is a maximum. If we use “≥ d” rather than “> d”, than due to the compactness of the
space of solutions, we can even prove it.
4
K(p)
p
The sketch of proof is the same as for Theorem 2.4 with the additional observation that the
median is at most n2 , and changing a few terms ai by O n1 has a negligible effect.
There are some other interesting limit cases which are useful to analyse. The most important
and interesting ones are the following.
• 0<
ki
ni
< di → 0, with different values of lim ni −
ki
di
< di → 12 , with different values of ni − kdii
• ni → ∞, nkii → p+, p ∈ 14 , 13 , di → p and ni − kdii → 1
•
1
2
<
ki
ni
After analysing them, we were make a conjecture about how s depends on n and d. The full
characterization is very long, but almost all information about it is summarized in the following
stronger version of the Kikuta–Ruckle Conjecture.
Conjecture 3.5. For all n, k ∈ N, and d ∈ (0, 1), there is an optimal solution for the KRProblem of the form a1 = a2 = ... = as = 1s and as+1 = as+2 = ... = an = 0, where2
s∈
nj 1 k j 1 k
j k k j 2k − n k
,
, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26,
,
d
2d − 1 odd
d
2d − 1 ≡n
,
(mod 2)
o
n − 24, n − 21, n − 18, n − 15, n − 13, n − 12, n − 10, n − 9, n − 7, n − 6, n − 5, n − 4, n − 3, n .
We show two interesting cases from the analysis.
k−7
k−8
• s = n − 24 is the best solution if n3 < k < 0.3341... · n + o(n) and n−21
≤ d ≤ n−24
. The
131 130 smallest example for this is n = 413, k = 138, d ∈ 392 , 389 . We note that the length of
1
this interval is 152488
, and this solution beats s = n − 4 by less than 5 · 10−6 . The same
does not work with s = n − 27, because it is beaten by s = n − 4.
10
• When 29
> d > nk → 10
, then s = 29 provides probability 0.5694, but s = 2 provides
29
a very slightly higher probability 0.5707. However, when n is small, then the solution
s = 29 slightly beats s = 2, thanks to the negative correlations between the events of
2
bxc = max{y ∈ Z : y < x} and bxcodd = max{y ≡ 1 (mod 2), y < x} and bxc≡n (mod 2) = max{y ≡
n (mod 2), y < x}. If we define the KR-Problem with ”≤” instead of ”<”, then here we have y ≤ x.
5
choosing the different terms. But this happens only in some cases when n is not too large
k−1
. But in all of these cases, n−4
> 10
holds, and therefore, s = n−4
and nk is very close to 10
29
29
beats both strategies. To sum up, the solution s = 29 was the only serious candidate for
10
being optimal only in a finite number of cases (where nk , d ≈ 29
), but either s = n − 4 or
s = 2 always beats it.
The author found this technique very useful for seeking for counterexamples, as well. Now
he strongly believes that the conjecture is true, but it is rather “accidentally true” and he doubts
that there exists a simple proof. He found that the best candidates for counterexamples use the
terms 2s , 1s and 0 for some s. Showing that there is no counterexample of this form is already
a very difficult task, we need different arguments for the different cases.
3.1
A new related question
Problem 3.6. There are n, k ∈ N, and a vector space V over R and T ⊂ V is a convex
closed set. We want to find
vectors a1 , a2 , ..., an with a1 + a2 + ... + an = 0 which maximizes
Pr ai1 + ai2 + ... + aik ∈ T , where {i1 , i2 , ..., ik } ⊂ {1, 2, ..., n} is a uniform random k-element
subset.
This problem can be traced back to the following problem.
Problem 3.7. For a fix n, k ∈ N and 1 < M ∈ R, find a sequence ai ∈ R, a1 + a2 + ... + an = 0
such that if {i1 , i2 , ..., ik } ⊂ {1, 2, ..., n} is a uniform random subset with cardinality k, then
Pr 1 ≤ ai1 + ai2 + ... + aik ≤ M is the largest possible.
The key lemma to show the equivalence of these problems is the following.
Lemma 3.8. For each convex closed set S ⊂ V , 0 ∈
/ S, there exists two vectors v, w ∈ V and
positive real numbers λ1 , λ2 ∈ R+ such that λ1 v, λ2 v ∈ S and ∀x ∈ S : x · w ∈ [λ1 , λ2 ].
Problems 3.6 and 3.7 with M = λ2 /λ1 are equivalent because of the following reason. On
one hand, for a sequence for Problem 3.6, the scalar product of the vectors with w/λ1 provides
a equally good sequence for Problem 3.7. On the other hand, a sequence for Problem 3.7
multiplied by λ1 · v provides an equally good solution for Problem 3.6.
Using the limit theory techniques in the same was as in the previous examples (we omit the
details), we can form the following conjecture.
Conjecture 3.9. The optimal solution for Problem 3.7 has the form a1 = a2 = ... = aq and
q
a1 . q is bounded on nk ∈ [0, 1] \ [ 12 − ε, 12 + ε] for all ε > 0.
aq+1 = aq+2 = ... = an = − n−q
4
Alpern’s Caching Game
This section will be the most difficult one, but it will show the real power of the techniques and
will provide very surprising results.
Definition 4.1. Alpern’s Caching Game G is defined as follows. There are n (potential) holes
and k nuts. The hider places (caches) each of k nuts into one of the holes in a positive depth,
so that the sum of the depths of the deepest nuts in the different holes (0 if no nut in the hole)
must be at most 1. The searcher cannot observe anything about the placement, but he can dig
at most depth h in total. A nut is found if the searcher dug at least as much in that hole as the
depth of the nut. The searcher can choose an adaptive digging strategy, continuously observing
what and where he already found during the digging. The searcher wins if he finds at least j
out of the k nuts. Otherwise the hider wins.
6
We note that we need a measurability criterion for the strategy of the searcher, otherwise
the winning probability might be not defined. We omit these technical details throughout the
paper, including that “all” might mean “all but a 0-measure set”. Strategy will mean mixed
strategy.
This problem was introduced by Alpern, Fokkink, Lidbetter and Clayton in [2], a summary
about the results and related questions of Alpern’s Caching Game can be found in the survey
book by Alpern, Fokkink, Leszek, Lindelauf [1]. More recent results are presented in [4]. We
note that if we modify the problem so that the hider has no restriction on his caching time but
he cannot use a depth more than 1, and k → ∞ and nk → d, then we get back the Kikuta-Ruckle
Problem.
This is a 2-player 0-sum game, therefore, there is a value of the game v = v(k, j, n, h)
with the following properties. Hider has a strategy so that for any strategy of the searcher,
the searcher wins with probability at most v. Similarly, the searcher has a strategy so that he
wins with probability at least v against any strategy of the hider. These are called optimal
strategies.
This problem is solved for k = j = 2, n ≤ 4. [2, 4] The solution for k = j = 2, n = 4 is the
following stepfunction.
h
v(2, 2, 4, h)
[0, 1)
3
1, 2
0
1
10
3
2
,
5
3
3
20
5
3
,
1
5
7
4
7
4
,
9
5
9
5
9
40
11
6
7
30
,
11
6
,2
1
4
2,
11
5
2
5
11
5
,
9
20
7
3
7
3
,3
1
2
[3, 4)
4
3
4
1
The optimal strategies show an even more chaotic picture. This suggested that the solution
even for k = j = 2 is very irregular, and it is probably hopeless to characterize. However, using
limit theory, we will show that it is not the case. First, we show a surprising property of the
solution, and then we will partially solve the problem for k = j = 2. Some of the results will
apply for k = j > 2 and k = j + 1 > 2.
There was a conjecture presented in [1] about a property of the optimal strategies of the
hider. We do not define it here, but we will disprove a much weaker conjecture, i.e. Question 4.3.
The answer was believed to be so obviously true that it was not even stated as a conjecture.3
Definition 4.2. In Alpern’s Caching Game, we say that a placement of the nuts is extremal
if this requires total digging depth 1, and any less is not enough. In other words, the sum of the
depths of the deepest nuts in the different holes is exactly 1. A hiding strategy is called extremal
if it is supported on extremal placements. The extremal version of the game means that the
hider must use an extremal strategy.
Question 4.3. Does the hider always have an extremal strategy which is optimal?
Or (equivalently) are the values of the game and its extremal version the same?
Now we define the limit of the game when the number of nuts to hide k and to find j are
fixed, but the number of holes and the digging time n, h → ∞.
Definition 4.4. The limit game withPparameter λ is defined as follows. The hider chooses a
+
partitioning
Pa1 , a2 , ..., ak0 ∈ Z where
P ai = k, and he chooses values (depths) 0y1 , y2 , ...yk0 ∈
[0, 1] with
yi ≤ 1 in the original,
yi = 1 in the extremal version. Then for k independent
uniform random numbers x1 , x2 , ...xk0 ∈ [0, λ], ai number of nuts are placed at (xi , yi ). The
searcher observes nothing. Now the searcher should defineR a function ft (x) : [0, 1]×[0, λ] → [0, 1]
which is monotone increasing in both parameters and f1 (x) dx ≤ 1. Then we evaluate f
meaning that the searcher gets to know the smallest t∗ so that ft∗ (xi ) ≥ yi for some i. If there
is no such a nut position even for f1 , then the game ends. Otherwise the nuts at (xi , yi ) are
3
According to personal discussions with some of the authors.
7
found by the searcher, he gets to know their position and the number of them, and we remove
these nuts. Then the searcher can change his function in the parameter interval t ∈ (t∗ , 1], and
we re-evaluate f . The searcher wins if he finds at least j nuts in total.
R
We can also assume that ft (x) dx = t for all t ∈ [0, 1]. This will be convenient to assume
when we are showing lower bounds on the value of the game, and not to assume for upper
bounds.
Theorem 4.5. Consider the game with parameters k, j, n,
the limit game with
hh−jand
j consider
n
,1 .
k, j, λ = h . The ratio of the values of these two games ∈
h
Sketch of proof. Notice first that both players can apply on his strategy a uniform random
permutation of the holes. If either of them does so, then whether the other player does it makes
no difference in the expected result. Therefore, if we add to the rules that either or both players
must use this randomization does not change the value of the game, as both players can secure
himself this expected score.
About the limit game, notice that if two holes have the same depth, and nothing was found
in them so far, then it does not matter which one the searcher continues digging. Therefore, we
can assume that according to the random ordering of the holes, the depths remain monotone
decreasing during the search.
Now let us see why does the value of the discrete problem with randomization and monotonicity converge to the value of the limit problem.
On one hand, any strategy of the searcher
in the discrete game can be applied in the limit
i−1 i
game by choosing ft in the interval n , n as the depth of the ith deepest hole after a total
amount of digging t. This way the searcher can get at least the same score as in the discrete
game.
On the other hand, a strategy of the searcher in the limit game can be applied in the discrete
game as follows. The searcher chooses a random ordering of the holes. Then he caches so as
i−1
in the ith hole, except that if a nut is found in a hole, then he digs that
to have depth ft h−j
hole until depth 1. He does it for all t ∈ [0, 1], in increasing order. This way, the searcher can
j
get at least h−j
times the score of the limit game.
h
Definition 4.6. The double limit game is defined asP
the limit game with λ → ∞,
Pas follows.
The hider chooses k values y1 , y2 , ...yk ∈ [0, 1] where
yi ≤ 1 in the original,
yi = 1 in
the extremal version. Then for some subset Q = {q1 , q2 , ..., qj } ⊂ {1, 2, ..., k} with a vector of
positive real numbers xq1 , xq2 , ...xqj ∈ R+ , the nuts are placed at (xqi , yqi ). The searcher observes
nothing. Independently from this, the searcher defines a strategy of the limit game with λ = ∞.
The score of the searcher is the j-dimensional measure of the vectors xq1 , xq2 , ...xqj for which
he wins, summing up for all different Q. This is what the searcher aims to maximize and the
hider aims to minimize, in expectation.
Theorem 4.7. Fix k ≥ j ≥ 2, and consider a sequence of pairs (ni , hi ) so that hi → ∞ and
j
ni
→ ∞. Then the values of the two games with parameters k, j, ni , hi , multiplied by nhii ,
hi
tend to the value of the corresponding double limit game with k and j.
Sketch of proof. The strategy of the searcher in both limit games can be applied in the corresponding double limit game, providing the same score. This proves one direction.
The other direction is a bit more technical. The first observation is that in the discrete game,
if the hider puts more nuts in the same
and the searcher digs εh holes until depth 1, then
hole,
ni −j
this already provides him a score ω hi
. Therefore the probability of such a placement
should tend to 0. Thus, the limit value does not change if we forbid such a placement.
8
−j
The next observation is the probability of finding more than j nuts is o nhii
. Therefore,
the probability of finding j nuts is essentially the same as the expected number of j-element
subsets of the nuts which would be found by the searcher if the other nuts had not been cached.
We sketch the rest of the proof only for k = j = 2, but similar technique works for all
k ≥ j ≥ 2. The optimal strategy of the searcher in the double limit game can be applied in the
limit game with a large parameter λ, simply by restricting f to [0, 1] × λ. In the part which is
cut, the function value was at most λ1 , therefore, this strategy provides the same score unless
if the depth of a nut is very low. However, there
a strategy which is very efficient in these
1 isλ+1
1
1
cases: f1 (x) = 1 if x < 2 , and f1 (x) = λ if x ∈ 2 , 2 , and 0 otherwise. If we use the cutted
strategy mixed with this strategy, then for all possible hiding strategy, this mixed searching
strategy will be (at least) almost as good as the original strategy in the double limit game.
Consider any optimal strategy of the hider in the extremal game. This can be identified
with the probability measure µ of the depth of a random nut.
Lemma 4.8. In the extremal double limit game with j = 2, if the searcher finds a nut at depth
y ∈ supp(µ), then he should change f so as to maximize the size of the interval {x ∈ [0, ∞) :
f1 (x) = 1 − y}.
Lemma 4.9. ft (x) ∈ {0} ∪ supp(µ) for all (t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × [0, 1].
Both lemmas are true because otherwise the searcher could improve his expected score.
We also know that for all y ∈
/ supp(µ), the hiding strategy y, 1 − y does not provide higher
expected score for the searcher than the value of the game. This seems to contradict with the
fact that the optimal strategy of the searcher focuses more on min{y + ∈ supp(µ) : y + > y}
and max{y − ∈ supp(µ) : y − < y} than on y. While we failed to conclude any contradiction,
but this argument along with some further analysis strongly supported the conjecture that
supp(µ) = [0, 1].
Theorem 4.10. If k = j = 2, then the values of the double limit game and its extremal version
have different values, assuming that supp(µ) = [0, 1].
In fact, we do not need to assume that supp(µ) = [0, 1], but it would be enough that there
are at least a large finite number of points in supp(µ) which are not far away from 41 .
Notice that this theorem together with Theorem 4.7 provides infinitely many counterexamples for Question 4.3.
Sketch of proof of Theorem 4.10. In the extremal double√limit game, a mixture of the following
two pure strategies of the searcher provides him score 2 + 1. According to Lemma 4.8, the
strategy of the searcher is represented by the first function f he chooses.
• ft (x) = 1 if x < t, otherwise 0.
• ft0 (x) =
1
2
if x < 2t, otherwise 0.
Assume by contradiction that the two values are the same, denoted by v. Consider an
optimal strategy of the searcher in the double limit game. This provides the expected score
at least v against any strategy of the hider. Therefore, it provides expected score at least v
against all extremal hiding strategies, therefore it is an optimal strategy of the extremal double
limit game, as well. But this strategy satisfies Lemma 4.8. Now consider the case when the
hider chooses depths y1 = 14 and y2 = 41 − ε̃, where ε̃ is a uniform random value from [0, ε].
We consider the limit when ε → 0+. Consider an arbitrary strategy of the searcher. The
probability that he finds both nuts at the same time point is 0. Let t∗ denote the time point
9
when 43 , 41 } is dug, and let s denote the area which is dug at depth at least
t∗ . Formally,
4
1
∗
t = sup ft
<
,
3
4
t∈[0,1]
n
1o
∗
=t .
s = sup sup ft (x) <
4
x∈R
t∈[0,1]
1
4
by the time point
It is easy to check that the searcher cannot win if y1 > s or y2 > 2 − 2s (with an error → 0
√
where ε → 0). Therefore, the score of the searcher is at most s(2 − 2s ) + o(1) ≤ 2 < 2 + 1,
which is a contradiction.
We note that there are a number of further limit games, e.g. if ji → ∞ and kjii is convergent.
These limit games might also be very useful, and may look very differently from the original
game.
4.1
Solution for the double limit game
For first, it seemed that the extremal double limit game is easier to solve than the double
limit game. The reason of it is that the strategy of the hider is a probability distribution on
an interval in the extremal case, and on a two-dimensional domain in the non-extremal case.
And therefore, the author expected the extremal (discrete) game to be easier to solve than the
original game. But the truth seems to be the opposite.
The extremal double limit game is not solved yet. If somebody tries to solve it, then the
author suggests considering the searcher’s function ft−1 (x) = χ(x < t) · 1 − 1t with probability
more than 21 . The searcher’s other pure strategy might be started by ft (x) = χ(x < t)g(x) for
t ∈ [0, ε] with a function g(0) = 1, g 0 (0) ≈ −0.1. The author believes that the value of the
game is ≈ 2.8.
On the other hand, the double limit game has a surprisingly simple solution, as follows.
Theorem 4.11. If λ ≥ k = j, then the value of the limit game is
of the double limit game is k!.
k!
,
λk
and therefore, the value
The proof of Theorem 4.11 consists of Propositions 4.12 and 4.13, showing optimal strategies
for the hider and the searcher.
Proposition 4.12. In the limit game, for λ ≥ k = j, if the hider
Pchooses a uniform random
point (y1 , y2 , ..., yk ) from the simplex yi > 0 (∀i ∈ {1, 2, ..., k}),
yi ≤ 1, then the searcher
wins with probability at most λk!k .
We note that the searcher wins with exactly this probability provided that he always searches
for nuts in places where it is possible to find one (e.g. never in depth > 1).
Proof of Theorem 4.12. Consider the measure space T of k time points 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ≤ ... ≤ tk ≤
1. For each strategy of the searcher, consider the measure space S of all allocations of the nuts
for which the searcher would find all nuts. To each allocation in S, we can assign the vector of
time points when the searcher finds the nuts. This is an injective mapping from S to T , and
the inverse of it is measure-preserving. Therefore, the measure of S is at most the measure of
T . The allocation of
Pthe nuts is a uniform random point (x1 , y1 , x2 , y2 , ..., xk , yk ) from the set
xi ∈ [0, λ], yi > 0,
yi ≤ 1, but this set is factored by the k! permutations of the k indices.
Therefore, the winning probability of the searcher is at most
Vol (t1 , t2 , ..., tk ) 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ≤ ... ≤ tk ≤ 1
P
1
· λk · Vol (y1 , y2 , ..., yk ) (∀i : yi ≥ 0), yi ≤ 1
k!
10
k! Vol (t1 , t2 , ..., tk ) t1 , t2 − t1 , t3 − t2 , ..., tk − tk−1 ≥ 0; tk ≤ 1
k!
P
=
=
.
λk
λk · Vol (y1 , y2 , ..., yk ) (∀i : yi ≥ 0), yi ≤ 1
(1)
Proposition 4.13. In the limit game, for λ ≥ k = j, the searcher can win with probability at
least λk!k by the following strategy.
He caches parallelly in a unit interval, and if he finds a nut, then he goes to the next interval.
Formally, if he found so far q nuts at the points in time t1 , t2 , ..., tq , then with t0 = 0, he chooses
the function
ft (x) =
q
X
χ(i − 1 ≤ x < i) · (ti − ti−1 ) + χ(q ≤ x < q + 1) · (t − tq ).
i=1
Proof. If there is a group of nuts in each of the intervals [0, 1), [1, 2), ... [k 0 − 1, k 0 ), then the
0
searcher finds all nuts. This has a probability λkk!0 ≥ λk!k .
Theorem 4.14. For k − 1 = j ≥ 2, the value of the double limit game is k!.
Proof. The same strategy of the searcher as for k = j provides a lower bound of kP
· (k − 1)! = k!.
If the hider chooses (y1 , y2 , ..., yk ) uniformly randomly from the simplex yi ≥ 0,
yi = 1, then
the joint distribution of the k − 1 variables, say (y1 , y2 , ..., yk−1 ) is just a uniform random vector
k−1
P
from the simplex yi ≥ 0,
yi ≤ 1. Therefore, this shows an upper bound of k · (k − 1)! = k!,
i=1
as well.
4.2
The discrete limit game
As we will see, the solution for the double limit game for k = j is conjectured and partially
proved to be work if h is larger than a constant. Therefore, it will be useful to define a limit
game when n → ∞ and k, j and h are constant.
Definition 4.15. The discrete
limit game is defined as follows. The hider chooses k values
P
y1 , y2 , ...yk ∈ [0, 1] where
yi ≤ 1. Then for some subset Q = {q1 , q2 , ..., qj } ⊂ {1, 2, ..., k} with
a vector of different positive integers xq1 , xq2 , ...xqj ∈ Z+ , the nuts are placed at (xqi , yqi ). The
searcher observes nothing. Independently from this, the searcher defines a strategy of the limit
game with λ = ∞. The score of the searcher is the number of the vectors xq1 , xq2 , ...xqj for
which he wins, summing up for all different Q. This is what the searcher aims to maximize and
the hider aims to minimize, in expectation. The value of this game is denoted by v ∗ (k, j, h).
Theorem 4.16.
v ∗ (k, j, h) = lim
n→∞
v(k, j, n, h)
.
n
j
Sketch of proof. The proof will be similar to the proof for the limit game (Theorem 4.5).
In the original game, by hiding the nuts into random holes with depths k1 , we can get that
v(k, j, n, h) = O(n−j ). On the other hand, for any j nuts, out of the n+j−1
distributions of
j
j−1
the number of nuts in the different holes, all but only Θ(n ) distributions uses j different
holes. Now the searcher can choose one of the Θ(nj−1 ) distributions uniformly at random, and
digging in each of the holes until he finds at least the corresponding number of nuts. Hereby
the searcher can get a score Ω(n−j+1 ) against placements that use the same hole for at least
two nuts. Therefore, in any optimal hiding strategy, the probability that all nuts are placed in
different holes should tend to 1.
11
Similar argument shows that if n → ∞ and ε → 0, then the probability that the hider
chooses depth less than ε should also tend to 0. This implies that forbidding searcher to dig in
more than 1ε holes has a negligible effect.
Now we can convert any hiding and searching strategy of the discrete limit game to the
original game (and vice versa) with an error tending to 0.
∗
Theorem 4.17. v(k, j, n, h) ≤ n+j−1
· v (k, j, h)
j
Sketch of proof. First, we replace the winning probability with the expected number of jelement subsets of nuts that would have been found.
Consider a hiding strategy of DG, and choose the same hiding strategy in G in the following
possible
sense. The hider chooses a uniformly random distribution of nuts out of the n+k−1
k
distributions. We put nuts in the same hole to different depths. Then we will have k distances:
the depth of the first nut in each non-empty hole, and the additional depths of the further nuts
from the previous nuts. These depths will be a random permutation of the depths used in DG.
Now any strategy of the searcher in G can be transformed to a strategy in DG by instead
of digging a hole after finding a nut, the searcher digs in a new hole. This transformed strategy
wins in the same number of cases.
Conjecture 4.18. If k = j = 2 and for any h, if n is large enough, then the bound in
Theorem 4.17 is sharp, and hereby the transformed hiding strategy in G is optimal.
Question 4.19. Is Conjecture 4.18 true for all k = j > 2?
4.3
Solutions for the original problem for k = j = 2
In this section, unless we say the opposite, we always assume that k = j = 2, namely,
the hider caches two nuts, and the searcher aims to find both of them. First, we present the
following version of Conjecture 4.18 which will simplify further analysis.
Conjecture 4.20. For any n and h, there always exists an optimal hiding strategy which is
a probability distribution on the following strategies, denoted by pairs (y1 , y2 ). The
searcher
chooses two holes, maybe the same hole twice, uniformly randomly out of the n+1
choices. If
2
he chooses two different holes x1 6= x2 , then he caches the two nuts to (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ), or
(x1 , y2 ) and (x2 , y1 ), with the same probabilities. If he chooses the same hole x, then he caches
the nuts to (x, y1 ) and (x, 1), or (x, y2 ) and (x, 1), randomly.4
This conjecture does not seem to be very difficult to prove. It would also be interesting
whether we can say anything like that for other k and j.
In the light of this conjecture, we can use the solution of the double limit game (Theorem 4.11) for the original game as follows.
Theorem 4.21. If the hider uses the strategy (y1 , y2 ) for a uniform random pair satisfying
2h2
. If h ∈ Z+
y1 ≥ 0, y2 ≥ 0, y1 + y2 ≤ 1, then the searcher wins with probability at most n(n+1)
and h ≤
n+1
,
2
then the bound is sharp, namely, the value of the game is
2h2
.
n(n+1)
The proof will be very similar to the proof of Theorem 4.11. It will follow from Theorem 4.34
and Proposition 4.37, about the strategies of the hider and the searcher.
2
2h
Conjecture 4.22. The bound n(n+1)
in Theorem 4.21 is sharp if
or h = 3 − 1q for any q ∈ Z+ \ {3}.
4
h2
bhc
≤
n+1
2
and either h ≥ 3
The strategy (1, 0) can be replaced by the strategy of caching both nuts in the same random hole in depth
1.
12
≤ h, then the value of the game is bhc
. This is always an upper bound
Theorem 4.23. If n+1
2
n
for the value of the game, because of the hiding strategy of putting both nuts at the same random
hole, at depth 1.
Conjecture 4.24. If
n+1
2
≤
h2
,
bhc
then the value of the game is
bhc
.
n
To challenge Conjectures 4.22 and 4.24, or to try to prove them, the author suggests considering the following question.
√
Question 4.25. For n = 6, h = 10.5 ≈ 3.24, whether the searcher can win with probability
1
?
2
If h < 3, then the following discrete version of the searcher’s double limit game solution can
provide a better upper bound.
Theorem 4.26. If h < ab for some a, b ∈ Z+ , then with the following hiding strategy, the
2(a−1)(a−2)
searcher always wins with probability at most b(b−1)·n(n+1)
.
1 2 3
b−1
The hider chooses y1 , y2 ∈ b , b , b , ..., b , y1 + y2 ≤ 1 uniformly at random from the 2b
possible choices, and chooses the hiding straregy (y1 , y2 ).
Proof. The searcher can dig at most a − 1 possible hiding points (depths 1b , 2b , ..., 1). Given the
strategy of searcher, if he finds the two nuts at the ith and jth searched
possible hiding points,
a−1
then it determines the two positions of the nuts. There are 2 different pairs of integers
1 ≤ i < j ≤ a − 1, and there are 2b · n+1
possible pairs of positions, so the searcher cannot
2
a−1
( )
2(a−1)(a−2)
.
win with higher probability than b 2n+1 = b(b−1)·n(n+1)
(2)( 2 )
1
+
, then the best upper bound provided
Conjecture 4.27. If h ∈ 52 , 83 ∪ 19
,
2
\
3
−
:
q
∈
Z
7
q
by Theorem 4.26 is sharp.
5 8 19 Now we have
a
conjecture
of
the
solution
for
h
∈
, n \ 3, 7 .
2
9 7
For h ∈ 0, 5 ∪ 2, 3 , the values of the games are the very same as for n = 4, written in
α(h)
the form n(n+1)
. The proofs are also essentially the same.
1
, 2 − 1q , q ∈ {5, 6, 7, 8, 9} and n ≤ q − 1, and for h ∈ 95 , 2
Theorem 4.28. For h ∈ 2 − q−1
and n ≤ 5, the values of the games are 92 , 5, 26
, 28 , 17 , 6, respectively,
divided by n(n + 1).
5 5 3
1 q−1
An optimal hiding strategy in the first 5 cases are q , q
with probability 12 , 21 , 25 , 25 , 13 ,
respectively, and q−1
, q+1
otherwise. In the last case, it is 14 , 43 with probability 23 and 12 , 12
2q
2q
with probability 31 , or in other words, it is a uniform random extremal strategy with depths
multiples of 14 . An optimal strategy of the searcher is the mixture of the followings, until finding
the first nut (the continuation is obvious, see Lemma 4.8). He caches a random hole until depth
h − 1, then another one until depth 3−h
, then continues the first hole until depth 1. Or he just
2
caches a random hole until depth 1. The former strategy is used with probabilities 41 , 24 , 53 , 45 , 56 , 1,
respectively.
The proofis a simple but long case analysis which we omit from this paper.
7 5
For
9 h ∈ 3 , 2 , we expect a similar but more difficult structure of the solutions as for
h ∈ 5 , 2 . What we know is the following.
11
Lemma 4.29. If h < 52 , then the value of the game is at most n(n+1)
. This can be achieved by
the strategy 41 , 34 with probability 12 and 21 , 12 with probability 21 .
5
Conjecture 4.30. The bound in Lemma 4.29 is optimal for h ∈ 17
, .
7 2
13
7 17 , then we suggest
mixtures of extremal
Note 4.31. If one wants to solve
h
∈
h−1 6−h3 , 7 16−6h
h−1considering
4h−7
6h−11
4−h
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
hiding strategies 10−4h
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
Theorem 4.32. If h < h∗ =
67
25
or
51
19
2
2
2
14 27
14 11
14 53
,
,
,
n(n+1) n(n+1) n(n+1)
probability at most
hiding strategies.
∗ h∗ −1 • 3−h
, 2
with
2
∗
∗
with
• h 6−1 , 7−h
6
∗
∗
• h 4−1 , 5−h
with
4
∗
∗
• h 6−1 , h 6−1 with
or
19
,
7
and n ≤ 11, then the searcher can win with
respectively, if the hider uses the following mixture of
probability
12 20
, , 4,
53 81 33
respectively;
probability
4
, 4, 4,
53 81 33
respectively;
probability
36 56
, , 8,
53 81 11
respectively;
probability
1
, 1, 1,
53 81 33
respectively.
In particular, in the third case, the four depths are
1 6
,
7 7
,
2 5
,
7 7
,
3 4
,
7 7
2 2
,
7 7
and
.
The proof again is a simple but long case analysis, which we omit from this paper.
, then the best bound in Theorem 4.32 is sharp.
Conjecture 4.33. If h ∈ 83 , 19
7
The table summarizes our results and conjectures for k = j = 2.
4.4
Extensions for k = j > 2
Theorem 4.34. For k = j ≥ 2, the value of the game is at most
hk
(n+k−1
)
k
.
Proof. We convert the proof for the double limit game (Theorem 4.11) to the a proof of the
original problem as
follows. The hider chooses how many nuts to put to each hole, choosing
one of the n+k−1
possibilities uniformly at random. Now we consider the distance of each
k
nut from the closest nut above it, or if there is no nut above it, then the depth of the nut (the
distance from the top). We choose P
these k depths y10 , y20 , ...yk0 uniformly at random from the
0
0
yi0 ≤ 1. From here, we can continue with the proof of
simplex yi ≥ 0 (∀i ∈ {1, 2, ..., k }),
Proposition 4.12 with exchanging λk to n+k−1
.
k
Conjecture 4.35. For k = j ≥ 2,
k+1
k−1
≤ h ≤ nk , the value of the game is
hk
(n+k−1
)
k
.
Most probably, this conjecture can be proved for integral h. So this weaker, seemingly easier
conjecture is the following.
Conjecture 4.36. For k = j ≥ 2, h ∈ Z+ and h ≤ nk , the value of the game is
hk
(n+k−1
)
k
.
The author believes that the same proof works here as for k = j = 2, in Proposition 4.37.
Except that when the searcher finds a nut and chooses h new holes, then he might choose again
any holes which had a nut at its current bottom. We should find the right probabilities for
each of these choices so as for each distribution of the number of nuts in the different holes, the
searcher finds them with the same probability.
We also mention that there are many other potentially useful limit problems not yet considered, when k → ∞.
14
h
v(2, 2, n, h)
validity
[0, 1)
3
1, 2
3 5
2, 3
5 7
3, 4
7 9
4, 5
9 11 5, 6
11 13 6 , 7
13 15 7 , 8
15 17 8 , 9
17 9 ,2
11 2, 5
11 7 5 , 3
7 17 3, 7
17 5 7 , 2
0
every n
2
n(n+1)
n≥2
67
3 , 25
67
51
25 , 19
19
19 , 7
5
n(n+1)
n≥5
5.2
n(n+1)
n≥6
5.6
n(n+1)
5 23
n(n+1)
n≥7
6
n(n+1)
n≥5
8
n(n+1)
n≥4
,3
3, 4, ..., n+1
2
3, n2 + O(1)
7
h2
bhc
≤
n+1 2 ,n
proved
proved in Theorem 4.28
n≥8
?
proved in earlier papers for n = 4,
the same proof works for n ≥ 4
open
11
n(n+1)
inf
n≥5
2(a−1)(a−2)
b(b−1)·n(n+1)
2
14 27
n(n+1)
inf
2(a−1)(a−2)
b(b−1)·n(n+1)
2h2
n(n+1)
see Lemma 4.29 and Conjecture 4.30
upper
see Theorem 4.26
bound
n ≥ 11
see Theorem 4.32 and Conj. 4.33
proved
2
14 11
n(n+1)
a
b >h
see Note 4.31
see Theorem 4.21 and Conj. 4.22
n≥6
2
14 53
n(n+1)
19
4.5
n≥4
9
n(n+1)
a
b >h
n+1
2
n≥3
4.5
n(n+1)
12.5
n(n+1)
8
51
4
n(n+1)
notes
proved in earlier papers for n = 4,
the same proof works for n ≥ 4
3
n(n+1)
5
2
5 8
2, 3
status
n≥8
see Theorem 4.26 (and Conj. 4.22)
every n
proved
proved in Theorem 4.21
2h
n(n+1)
n≥6
upper
bound
proved
see Conjecture 4.22
see Conjecture 4.24
bhc
n
every n
proved
proved in Theorem 4.23
2
Proofs
Proof of Theorem 4.23. Hiding both nuts at the same hole in depth 1 is provides hiding probability at most bhc
.
n
Consider now the following strategy of the searcher. He chooses bhc holes at random, and
starts digging in them parallelly, until a nut is found, at hole x in depth y. Then he continues
digging x until depth 1. Then if y ≤ 12 , then he digs the other bhc − 1 chosen holes until depth
1 − y, and the remaining n − bhc holes until depth min(y, 1 − y).
If the nut with the higher depth (if the depths are the same, then either nut) is in one of
the bhc chosen holes, then the searcher finds both nuts. This has a probability at least bhc
.
n
This strategy uses a total digging amount of
1 + bhc − 1 · max(y, 1 − y) + n − bhc · min(y, 1 − y)
= 1 + (n − 1) · min(y, 1 − y) + bhc − 1 · max(y, 1 − y) − min(y, 1 − y)
15
≤ 1 + (2h − 2) · min(y, 1 − y) + (h − 1) · max(y, 1 − y) − min(y, 1 − y)
= 1 + (h − 1) · max(y, 1 − y) + min(y, 1 − y) = 1 + (h − 1) = h.
Proposition 4.37. Consider the following strategy of the searcher. He chooses h holes at
random, and he is parallelly digging them until a nut is found (but until at most depth 1, when
the game ends). If a nut is found at a depth y, then he chooses h new holes, as follows. With
2h
, he chooses the hole in which the nut was found, and the remaining h − 1 or h
probability n+1
holes are randomly chosen from the other n − h holes. Then he digs these holes in depth 1 − y
(more).
Proof. Assume first that the hider caches the two nuts in two different holes. If exactly one of
them are in one of the h holes the searcher started with, and the other one is in the next h
holes, then the
the searcher finds both nuts in expectedly
searcher finds both nuts. Therefore,
n
2h
h · h − n+1 number of cases out of the 2 pairs, which happens with probability
2h
2h · (n−1)h
h · h − n+1
2h · (n+1)h−2h
2h2
n+1
n+1
=
=
.
=
n
n(n
−
1)
n(n
−
1)
n(n
+
1)
2
Assume now that the hider caches the two nuts in the same hole. If this nut is in the first
h holes chosen by the searcher, and the searcher chooses to continue digging in this hole, then
he finds both nuts. This has probability
h
2h
2h2
·
=
.
n n+1
n(n + 1)
To sum up, this strategy of the searcher finds both nuts with probability at least
against any strategy of the hider.
2h2
,
n(n+1)
Acknowledgements
I am thankful to Dezső Miklós for his observations and suggestions about the MMS-problem.
The research was supported by the European Research Council (grant agreements no.
306493 and 648017).
References
[1] Steve Alpern, Robbert Fokkink, G Leszek, Roy Lindelauf, VS Subrahmanian, et al. Search
theory: a game theoretic perspective. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[2] Steve Alpern, Robbert Fokkink, Thomas Lidbetter, and Nicola S Clayton. A search game
model of the scatter hoarder’s problem. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 9(70):869–
879, 2012.
[3] Ameera Chowdhury, Ghassan Sarkis, and Shahriar Shahriari. The manickam–miklós–
singhi conjectures for sets and vector spaces. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A,
128:84–103, 2014.
[4] Endre Csóka and Thomas Lidbetter. The solution to an open problem for a caching game.
Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 2016.
[5] Pál Erdős. A problem on independent r-tuples. In ARTICLE IN PRESS B. Bollobás et
al./Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A. Citeseer, 1965.
16
[6] Hao Huang and Benny Sudakov. The minimum number of nonnegative edges in hypergraphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 21(3):P3–7, 2014.
[7] Kensaku Kikuta and William H Ruckle. Continuous accumulation games on discrete locations. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 49(1):60–77, 2002.
[8] László Lovász. Large networks and graph limits, volume 60. American Mathematical Soc.,
2012.
[9] László Lovász and Balázs Szegedy. Limits of dense graph sequences. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 96(6):933–957, 2006.
[10] N Manickam and D Miklós. On the number of non-negative partial sums of a non-negative
sum. In Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, volume 52, pages 385–392, 1987.
[11] Alexey Pokrovskiy. A linear bound on the manickam–miklós–singhi conjecture. Journal of
Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 133:280–306, 2015.
17