Maths Olympiad Prep

Library / Autumn Tournament /12 of 12

Autumn Tournament

Combinatorics Difficulty 7.5 National Olympiad, round 2 Prove it Bulgaria

Let GG be a complete bipartite graph with partition sets AA and BB of sizes kmkm and knkn, respectively. The edges of GG are colored in kk colors. Prove that there exists a monochromatic connected component with at least m+nm+n vertices (which means that there exists a color and a set of vertices, such that between any two of them, there is a path consisting of edges only in that color).

Solution

There are at least kmnkmn edges colored in the most used color. We delete the remaining edges and prove that there exists a connected component with at least m+nm+n vertices in the remaining graph. The idea is to consider all the connected components. If each one has less than m+nm+n vertices, then the graph is too fragmented and it's impossible to have too many (at least kmnkmn) edges even if all edges are present in every connected component. It boils down to prove a certain inequality.

Lemma. Let x,yx, y be two positive real numbers and ℓ,k\ell, k; ℓ≥k\ell \ge k be natural numbers. Let xi,yi,i=1,2,…,ℓx_i, y_i, i = 1, 2, \dots, \ell satisfy the following conditions.
xi≥0,yi≥0,xi+yi≤(x+y)/k,i=1,2,…,ℓ; x_i \ge 0, y_i \ge 0, x_i + y_i \le (x+y)/k, i = 1, 2, \dots, \ell;
∑i=1ℓxi=x,∑i=1ℓyi=y.(1) \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} x_i = x, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} y_i = y. \qquad (1)
Then it holds
∑i=1ℓxiyi≤xyk. \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} x_i y_i \le \frac{xy}{k}.
The equality is reached only if xi=x/k,yi=y/k,i=1,2,…,kx_i = x/k, y_i = y/k, i = 1, 2, \dots, k; xi=yi=0,i>kx_i = y_i = 0, i > k.
Proof. Let us denote f(x,y):=∑i=1ℓxiyif(x, y) := \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} x_i y_i, where x=(x1,…,xℓ)x = (x_1, \dots, x_{\ell}), y=(y1,…,yℓ)y = (y_1, \dots, y_{\ell}). The conditions in (1) determine a compact set, hence ff attains its maximum value on it, say, at the points xi′,yi′,i=1,2,…,ℓx'_i, y'_i, i = 1, 2, \dots, \ell. We can assume x1′≥x2′≥⋯≥xℓ′x'_1 \ge x'_2 \ge \dots \ge x'_{\ell}. We shall prove that yi′y'_i are also in decreasing order. Let us assume on the contrary that yi′<yi+1′y'_i < y'_{i+1}. Set
xi=xi+1:=(xi′+xi+1′)/2;yi=yi+1:=(yi′+yi+1′)/2. x_i = x_{i+1} := (x'_i + x'_{i+1})/2; \quad y_i = y_{i+1} := (y'_i + y'_{i+1})/2.
Then (Chebyshev inequality)
xiyi+xi+1yi+1>xi′yi′+xi+1′yi+1′. x_i y_i + x_{i+1} y_{i+1} > x'_i y'_i + x'_{i+1} y'_{i+1}.
But it contradicts the maximality of xi′,yi′,i=1,…,ℓx'_i, y'_i, i = 1, \dots, \ell. Next, if x1′+y1′<(x+y)/kx'_1 + y'_1 < (x+y)/k we can similarly set x1:=x1′+ε,x2:=x2′−ε;y1:=y1′+δ,x2:=x2′−δx_1 := x'_1 + \varepsilon, x_2 := x'_2 - \varepsilon; y_1 := y'_1 + \delta, x_2 := x'_2 - \delta for sufficiently small ε,δ≥0\varepsilon, \delta \ge 0 and get a larger value of ff. Therefore, x1′+y1′=(x+y)/kx'_1 + y'_1 = (x+y)/k.
Let k′k' be the largest index for which xk′>0x_{k'} > 0 and yk′>0y_{k'} > 0. In the same way we can see that xi′+yi′=(x+y)/k,i=1,2,…,k′x'_i + y'_i = (x+y)/k, i = 1, 2, \dots, k'. Hence, k′≤kk' \le k. Assume that k′<kk' < k and yi=0,i>k′y_i = 0, i > k'. We modify x′,y′x', y' as follows. Set
xi:=xi′,yi:=yi′,i=1,2,…,k′−1;xk′:=xk′′,yk′:=yk′′−ε,xk′+1:=(x+y)/k,yk′+1:=ε. x_i := x'_i, y_i := y'_i, i = 1, 2, \dots, k' - 1; \\ x_{k'} := x'_{k'}, y_{k'} := y'_{k'} - \varepsilon, x_{k'+1} := (x+y)/k, y_{k'+1} := \varepsilon.
For i>k′+1i > k' + 1 we set yi=0y_i = 0, and the values of xi,i>k′+1x_i, i > k' + 1 are irrelevant providing they comply with (1). Since xk′<(x+y)/kx'_k < (x+y)/k, it can be seen that f(x,y)>f(x′,y′)f(x, y) > f(x', y') which contradicts the maximality of x′,y′x', y'.
Thus, k′=kk' = k. We prove that xi′=x/k,yi′=y/k,i=1,2,…,kx'_i = x/k, y'_i = y/k, i = 1, 2, \dots, k. Assume on the contrary it doesn't hold and let jj be the first index for which xj′≠x/kx'_j \ne x/k. WLOG let xj′<x/kx'_j < x/k. Then there exists i>ji > j for which xi′>x/kx'_i > x/k. This means xi′>xj′x'_i > x'_j and thus the sequence x1′,x2′,…,xk′x'_1, x'_2, \dots, x'_k is not decreasing, contradiction. To recap, we established that xi′=x/k,yi′=y/k,i=1,2,…,kx'_i = x/k, y'_i = y/k, i = 1, 2, \dots, k. In this case f(x′,y′)=kxyf(x', y') = kxy, and Lemma 1 is proved. □\square

Back to the problem. The number of all edges of KK is k2mnk^2mn, hence there is a color, say, white such that at least kmnkmn edges are colored white. We delete all edges colored in a color other than white. We'll prove that in the remaining graph K′K', there exists a connected component with at least m+nm+n vertices. Assume on the contrary it is not true. Denote the connected components of K′K' by G(Ai,Bi)G(A_i, B_i), i=1,2,…,ℓi = 1, 2, \dots, \ell and let ∣Ai∣=mi,∣Bi∣=ni,i=1,2,…,ℓ|A_i| = m_i, |B_i| = n_i, i = 1, 2, \dots, \ell. We have
∑i=1ℓmi=km,∑i=1ℓni=kn,mi+ni<m+n. \sum_{i = 1}^\ell m_i = km, \quad \sum_{i=1}^\ell n_i = kn, m_i + n_i < m + n.
According to Lemma 1,
∑i=1ℓmini<kmn \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} m_i n_i < kmn
which contradicts the choice of the white color. This means that for at least one index ii it holds mi+ni≥m+nm_i + n_i \ge m + n.

Want a route through all this instead of an archive? The track puts 2,604 problems in a working order, from Junior Challenge level to the IMO shortlist.

Source: MathNet, licensed CC-BY-4.0. Statement reproduced verbatim; metadata (topic, difficulty) added by this project.