19

Trigger Warning: Murder is mentioned.

Let there be $n>1$ people (players) on a plane, each having a loaded gun and each being a perfect shot (assuming that each bullet is laced with one gram of plutonium-239 to ensure that hit targets do not survive and that the bullets are not penetrative enough to hit multiple bodies). Suppose that the distances between the players are pairwise distinct. At a signal, each player shoots the player closest to him (all the actions occur simultaneously). For those who have studied relativity, I assume that all players are initially at rest with respect to a fixed inertial frame so that it makes sense to discuss the simultaneity of the actions.

What is the minimum possible number of survivors? What is the maximum possible number of survivors? Do the answers change in higher dimensions (or even in other geodesic spaces like the $d$-dimensional torus)?

Below are my speculations.

The minimum is $n\!\!\mod\!2$ (this part is trivial and independent of the geometry of the space). I think the maximum for $n\geq 5$ is $n-\left(2q+s_r\right)$, if $n=10q+r$, where $q$ and $r$ are integers such that $0\leq r<10$, with $s_0=0$, $s_1=s_2=s_3=s_4=1$, and $s_5=s_6=s_7=s_8=s_9=2$. The case $n=10q+5$ seems to be the most difficult case for me. I found a mistake in my original bound, and now the new bound is worse. At the moment, the best bound is that at least $n-2q-s_r$ can survive, where $n=9q+r$ with $q,r\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $0\leq r<9$, and $s_0=0$, $s_1=s_2=1$, and $s_3=s_4=s_5=s_6=s_7=s_8=2$.
Since a $d$-dimensional Euclidean space can be locally embedded into a $d$-dimensional geodesic space, I don't expect the answers to change (for a given dimension $d$) if the space is not Euclidean. However, the dimension should play a huge role in this shooting game.
EDIT I: After some more thought, I realized the answers may indeed be different in the non-Euclidean case. For example, a player cannot be shot by more than five bullets in the $2$-dimensional Euclidean case, but in a $2$-dimensional hyperbolic space, it seems to be possible that somebody is gunned down by at least six players.
EDIT II: In the $3$-dimensional Euclidean case, I expect the maximum number of survivors to be around $\frac{10}{11}n$. In the $d$-dimensional Euclidean space, this number should be around $\frac{L_d-2}{L_d-1}n$, where $L_d$ is the Kissing number in $d$ dimension.

Batominovski
  • 49,629
  • 2
    Minimum possible: zero (n=2p, p couples sitting close to each other and far from other couples). – Evargalo Jun 16 '17 at 12:38
  • 1
    Jokes aside, I don't agree with your formula for the maximum. If n=5, you give a maximum of 2 survivors. Now imagine 4 people to be at the edges of a square and a fifth person at the center of it. Three of the 4 ones at the edges move $\epsilon_1 \neq \epsilon_2 \neq \epsilon_3$ along the diagonal toward the center to ensure that distances between the players are pairwise distinct. Then only the guy in the middle and the one he shoots will die, so you have three survivors. – Evargalo Jun 16 '17 at 12:49
  • 1
    Please reread the hidden box. I put something wrong there. Now it has been edited. The number $2q+s_r$ is actually the minimum number of the dead. – Batominovski Jun 16 '17 at 12:50
  • Ok with the edit. Tough to prove any result I'm afraid. – Evargalo Jun 16 '17 at 12:52
  • I'm convinced you can always get n-2 survivors by repeatedly drawing the Voronoi diagram repeatedly and placing shooters closer and closer to one unlucky shooter (ie, everyone will shoot him, he only gets to shoot the shooter placed closest to him). (actually, this is wrong, but I'll leave it in case it helps anyone) –  Jun 16 '17 at 14:42
  • Is it allowed to give part of an answer? It was going to be a comment, but then got wayyyyy too long... – Xetrov Jun 16 '17 at 15:31
  • 3
    @Goodra I don't see why partial answers can't be posted as answers. Please go ahead. – Batominovski Jun 16 '17 at 15:57
  • @barrycarter How is that possible in the $2$-dimensional Euclidean space? If there are only two dead players and $n\geq 11$, then one of the dead players is shot down by at least $6$ people, and that is not possible. – Batominovski Jun 16 '17 at 16:03
  • @Batominovski Thanks, but I require access to a PC in order to post again... – Xetrov Jun 16 '17 at 16:15
  • @Batominovski, I have shortened my answer, but I have now lost my answer. I will attempt to repost – Xetrov Jun 17 '17 at 10:46
  • @Batominovski You are correct. I was thinking of an inductive approach where each shooter is added to the Voronoi region of the "unfortunate target". Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that changes the overall Voronoi diagram so the previously placed shooters are no longer closest to the unfortunate target. –  Jun 18 '17 at 13:39
  • 1
    I think this could help: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1459484/expected-number-of-people-to-not-get-shot/1460890#1460890. You might be forced to use something like Chebyshev's inequality to for something like a 'minimum' . –  Jan 09 '18 at 03:12
  • 2
    Consider reframing this question so that it is not about murder. – Sort of Damocles Jan 10 '18 at 16:16
  • @dbx Why? Does it trigger someone? – Batominovski Jan 10 '18 at 16:27
  • 2
    Because casually talking about shooting people with radioactive bullets is a weird thing to do, and completely unnecessary mathematically speaking? – Sort of Damocles Jan 10 '18 at 16:29
  • @dbx And? From your argument, no math teachers should frame any question that does not involve non-mathematical concepts, names, etc. Furthermore, weird is subjective. Somebody may see it as humour, whilst somebody is triggered. – Batominovski Jan 10 '18 at 16:46
  • 4
    no, my argument is that math teachers should not frame their problems around killing people. obviously you're not receptive to the idea, no need to get so defensive. It was a suggestion, not a command. – Sort of Damocles Jan 10 '18 at 17:00
  • @dbx I am only receptive to suggestions that have actual mathematical values such as suggestions for clarification or terminology. I don't think that suggestions about sensitivity have any value whatsoever. It is unnecessary to inject your politics and personal viewpoints that are not related to mathematics on this website. – Batominovski Jan 10 '18 at 17:10
  • Plus, nobody is forcing you to answer this question. – Batominovski Jan 10 '18 at 17:14
  • 3
    @Batominovski Try posting a question where every person rapes the person closest to them, and see how "I am only receptive to suggestions that have actual mathematical values such as suggestions for clarification or terminology" works out for you ;) More seriously, mathematics does not exist in a vacuum, it is a community. While you insist that only the mathematics underlying the question matters, this is manifestly false for you and for anyone else. – Caleb Stanford Jan 11 '18 at 02:17
  • @6005 I can distinguish between reality and fantasy. I don't think that most logical people can get offended by fantasy murder, or even fantasy rape. This is not a social science or politics forum. Feelings have no place in mathematics. You can vote down or criticize my question. I am not being defensive, but I disagree that political correctness has any place in any scientific field. So what if murder is mentioned casually in an imaginary math problem? No actual person is being killed. – Batominovski Jan 11 '18 at 14:59
  • 1
    I found a peaceful interpretation of the problem for those who prefers make love, not war. Jesus taught the second great commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”(see, for instance, Matthew 22:39 or Mark 12:31). In Russian translation, which I was taught, for “neighbour” is taken a word “ближний”, which literally means “the most closest person to you”. Then the problem can be reformulated about the number of persons who are loved by somebody, and linear lower bound for it suggests that the world has a chance. – Alex Ravsky Jan 12 '18 at 14:13
  • @6005 The raping version doesn't work because there's sex involved. Sex is forbidden, violence is OK! – ploosu2 Jan 22 '18 at 07:31
  • @ploosu2 :) $~~~~~$ – Caleb Stanford Jan 22 '18 at 07:44
  • 2
    But wait, how were they allowed to carry guns on a plane? Aren't there regulations, metal detectors, etc.? – Federico Oct 26 '18 at 11:37

1 Answers1

5

This answer considers only the original planar version of the game.

We already know that each player of this not very jolly game is shot by at most $5$ players (see, for instance, Lemma 1 here. In the next Lemma 2 this results implies that the maximum possible number $s(n)$ of survivors is at most $4n/5$ for each $n$.

We can improve this bound as follows. We say that a player is hardly killed if he is shot by exactly $5$ players. We need two more lemmas .

Lemma 3. A victim of a hardly killed player is his killer.

Proof. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 1. Suppose to the contrary, that the player located at the point $O$ has been shot by players located at points $A_1,\dots, A_5$ and has shot a player located at a point $A_6$. Draw rays $OA_1,\dots,OA_6$. Then there exist points $A_i$ and $A_j$, $i\not =j$ such that the angle $A_iOA_j\le \pi/3$. Therefore the angle $A_iOA_j$ is not the largest angle of a triangle $A_iOA_j$. Therefore the side $A_iA_j$ is not the largest side of the triangle $A_iOA_j$. If none of $A_i$ and $A_j$ has been shot by $O$ then $|A_iA_j|>|A_iO|$ and $|A_jA_i|>|A_jO|$, a contradiction. So, say, $A_i$ has been shot by $O$. Then $|A_iO|<|A_jO|$ and $|A_iA_j|>|A_jO|$, a contradiction again. $\square$

Lemma 4. There are no pair of hardly killed players such that each player from the pair is a victim of the other.

Proof. Suppose to the contrary, that there is such a pair. Consider a set $S$ consisting of $10$ players constituted by this pair and $8$ players who have shot a player of the pair. Since for each player of the set $S$ his victim also belongs to $S$, if we remove the rest of the players then the players of $S$ would shot the same players as before. That is we obtain a set of $10$ players with only two killed, that is impossible by an answer to a problem G7 from 41st IMO shortlist. $\square$

Now denote the set of the players by $P$ and let $v:P\to P$ be a map such that $v(p)$ is a victim of the player $p$ for each $p\in P$. Let $H\subset P$ be the set of hardly killed players. Lemma 3 states that $v(v(p)=p$ for each $p\in H$, so the map $v|H$ is injective. By Lemma 3 and Lemma 4, $v(H)\subset P\setminus H$.

Assume now that there are $h$ hardly killed players. The each of the remaining killed players was shot by at most $4$ players, so it total there are at least $$\max\{2h,h+(n-5h)/4\}=\max\{2h,(n-h)/4\}\ge 2n/9$$ killed players. Thus $s(n)\le (7/9)n$.

The precise calculation of the maximum yield no better result. Namely, if $n=9q+r$ as in your question then it can be easily checked then $\max\{2h,(n-h)/4\}=2q+r/4$ and $\lceil 2q+r/4\rceil=\lceil 2n/9\rceil$. Nevertheless, this shows that your lower bound for all $r$ but $3$, $4$ is exact and in the remaining cases at most $1$ worse than then above upper bound.

Alex Ravsky
  • 90,434