Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog

I wish I could write four papers in three weeks. The title just means that I submitted four papers to the arXiv in the last three weeks—somehow, after the stress of doing my taxes ended, four of my papers converged to their final state very fast. Here are the papers with their abstracts:

• On k-visibility graphs (with Matthew Babbitt and Jesse Geneson). We examine several types of visibility graphs in which sightlines can pass through k objects. For k ≥ 1 we improve the upper bound on the maximum thickness of bar k-visibility graphs from 2k(9k−1) to 6k, and prove that the maximum thickness must be at least k+1. We also show that the maximum thickness of semi-bar k-visibility graphs is between the ceiling of 2(k+1)/3 and 2k. Moreover we bound the maximum thickness of rectangle k-visibility graphs. We also bound the maximum number of edges and the chromatic number of arc and circle k-visibility graphs. Furthermore we give a method for finding the number of edges in semi-bar k-visibility graphs based on skyscraper puzzles.
• Skyscraper Numbers (with Joel Brewster Lewis). We introduce numbers depending on three parameters which we call skyscraper numbers. We discuss properties of these numbers and their relationship with Stirling numbers of the first kind, and we also introduce a skyscraper sequence.
• Connected Components of Underlying Graphs of Halving Lines (with Dai Yang). In this paper we discuss the connected components of underlying graphs of halving lines’ configurations. We show how to create a configuration whose underlying graph is the union of two given underlying graphs. We also prove that every connected component of the underlying graph is itself an underlying graph.
• Efficient Calculation of Determinants of Symbolic Matrices with Many Variables (with Ziv Scully). Efficient matrix determinant calculations have been studied since the 19th century. Computers expand the range of determinants that are practically calculable to include matrices with symbolic entries. However, the fastest determinant algorithms for numerical matrices are often not the fastest for symbolic matrices with many variables. We compare the performance of two algorithms, fraction-free Gaussian elimination and minor expansion, on symbolic matrices with many variables. We show that, under a simplified theoretical model, minor expansion is faster in most situations. We then propose optimizations for minor expansion and demonstrate their effectiveness with empirical data.

This is the promised solution to the puzzle Integers and Sequences that I posted earlier. The puzzle is attached below.

Today I do not want to discuss the underlying math; I just want to discuss the puzzle structure. I’ll assume that you solved all the individual clues and got the following lists of numbers.

• 12 42 18 40 30 24 20
• 2 1 132 42 429 14
• 7 9 1 8 5 3 10 4
• 92 117 70 145 35 1 22 12 5
• 137 1 37 13 107 1013 113
• 30 12 2 42 6
• 70 4030 836 7192

Since the title mentions sequences, it is a good idea to plug the numbers into the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Here is what you will get:

• not clear
• Catalan numbers with 5 missing: 1, 1, 2, 5, 14, 42, 132, 429
• not clear
• Pentagonal numbers with 51 missing: 1, 5, 12, 22, 35, 51, 70, 92, 117, 145
• Primeval numbers with 2 missing: 1, 2, 13, 37, 107, 113, 137, 1013
• not clear
• Weird numbers with 5830 missing: 70, 836, 4030, 5830, 7192

Your first “aha moment” happens when you notice that the sequences are in alphabetical order and each has exactly one number missing. The alphabetical order is a good sign that you are on the right track; it can also narrow down the possible names of the sequences that you haven’t yet identified. Alphabetical order means that you have to figure out the correct order for producing the answer.

Did you notice that some groups above are as long as nine integers and some are as short as four? In puzzles, there is nothing random, so the lengths of the groups should mean something. Your second “aha moment” will come when you realize that, together with the missing number, the number of the integers in each group is the same as the number of letters in the name of the sequence. This means you can get a letter by indexing the index of the missing number into the name of the sequence.

So each group of numbers provides a letter. Now we need to identify the remaining sequences and figure out in which order the groups will produce the word that is the answer.

Let’s go back and try to identify the remaining sequences. We already know the number of letters in the name of each sequence, as well as the range within the alphabet. The third sequence might represent a challenge as its numbers are small and there might be many sequences that fit the pattern, but let’s try. The results are below with the capitalized letter being the one that is needed for the answer.

• abundAnt
• caTalan
• dEficient or iMperfect
• pentaGonal
• pRimeval
• proNic or proMic
• weiRd

What is going on? There are two sequences that fit the pattern of the third group and the sequence for the sixth group has many names, two of which fit the profile but produce different letters. Now we get to your third “aha moment”: you have already seen some of the sequence names before, because they are in the puzzle. This will allow you to disambiguate the names.

Now that we have all the letters, we need the order. Sequences are mentioned inside the puzzle. You were forced to notice that because you needed the names for disambiguation. Maybe there is something else there. On closer examination, all but one of the sequence names are mentioned. Moreover, with one exception the clues for one sequence mention exactly one other sequence. Once you connect the dots, you’ll have your last “aha moment:” the way the sequences are mentioned can provide the order. The first letter G will be from the pentagonal sequence, which was not mentioned. The clues for the pentagonal sequence mention the primeval sequence, which will give the second letter R, and so on.

The answer is GRANTER.

Many old-timers criticized the 2013 MIT Mystery Hunt. They are convinced that a puzzle shouldn’t have more than one “aha moment.” I like my “aha moments.”

*****

• (the largest integer n such that there exists a Platonic solid with n vertices, a Platonic solid with n edges, and a Platonic solid with n faces)
• (the largest two-digit tetrahedral number)/(the smallest value the second smallest angle of a convex hexagon with all integer degrees can have)
• (the number of positive integers less than 2013 that are divisible by 100, but not divisible by 70)
• (the number of two-digit numbers that produce a square when summed up with their reverse) ⋅ (the smallest number of weighings on a balance scale that guarantees to find the only fake coin out of 100 identical coins, where the fake coin is lighter than other coins)
• (the only two digit number n such that 2ⁿ ends with n) − (the second smallest, and conjectured to be the largest, triangular number such that its square is also triangular)
• (the smallest non-trivial compositorial number that is also a factorial)
• (the sum of the smallest three positive pronic numbers)

*****

• (the digit you get when you sum up the digits of 2013²⁰¹³ repeatedly until you get a single digit) − (the greatest common factor of the indices of the Fibonacci numbers divisible by 13)
• (the largest common divisor of numbers of the form p² − 1 for primes p greater than three) − (the largest sum of digits that can appear on a 12-hour digital clock starting from 1:00 up to 12:59)
• (the largest Fibonacci number, such that it and all positive Fibonacci numbers less than it are deficient) + (the difference between the sum of all even numbers up to 100 and the sum of all odd numbers up to 100) − (the first digit of a four-digit square that has the first two digits the same and the last two digits the same)
• (the smallest composite Jacobsthal number) ⋅ (the only digit needed to express the number of diagonals of a convex hendecagon)/(the smallest prime divisor of 13²⁰¹³ + 1)
• (the smallest integer the fate of whose aliquot sequence is unknown) + (the largest amount of money in cents you can have in American coins without having change for 2 dollars) − (the repeated number in the aliquot cycle of 95) ⋅ (the second-smallest integer n such that the Russian word for n has n letters)
• (the smallest positive even integer that’s not a totient)

*****

• (the number of letters in the last name of a famous Russian writer whose year of birth many Russians use to help them memorize the digits of e)
• (the number of pluses you need to insert in a row of 20 fives so that the sum is 1000)
• (the number of positive integers less than 2013 such that not all their digits are distinct) − (the number of four-digit numbers with only odd digits) − (the largest Fibonacci square)
• (the number of positive integers n for which the sum of the n smallest positive integers evenly divides 18n)
• (the number of trailing zeroes of 2013!) − (the number of sets in the game of Set such that every feature is different on all three cards) − (an average speed in miles per hour of a person who drives somewhere with a speed of 420 miles per hour, then drives back using the same route with a speed of 210 miles per hour)
• (the smallest fortunate triangular number)
• (the smallest weird number)/(the only prime one less than a cube)
• (the third most probable product of the numbers showing when two standard six-sided dice are rolled)

*****

• (the largest integer number of dollars you can’t pay if you have an unlimited supply of 9-dollar bills and 13-dollar bills) − (the positive difference between the two prime numbers that do not share a unit digit with any other prime number)
• (the largest three-digit primeval number) − (the largest number of distinct SET cards without a set)
• (the number conjectured to be the second-largest number such that two to its power has no zeroes) − (the largest number whose cube has at most two distinct digits and no zeroes)
• (the number of 5-digit palindromic integers in base 5) + (the only positive integer that is five times the sum of its digits)
• (the only Fibonacci number that is a double of a prime) + (the only prime p such that p! has p digits) − (the only fixed point of look-and-say operation)
• (the only number whose concatenation with itself is prime)
• (the only positive integer that that differs by 1 from a square and a nonsquare cube) − (the largest number such that its divisors are each 1 less than a prime)
• (the smallest admirable number)
• (the smallest evil untouchable number)

*****

• (the alphanumeric value of MANIC SAGES) + (the sum of all three-digit numbers you can get by permuting digits 1, 2, and 3) + (the number of two-digit integers divisible by 9) − (the number of rectangles whose sides are composed of edges of squares of a chess board)
• (the integer whose standard Roman numeral representation is alphabetically later than all others) − (the number you get if you divide a three digit number with identical digits by the sum of the digits)
• (the largest even integer that is not a sum of two abundant numbers) − (the digit in the first position where e and π have the same digit)
• (the number formed by the last two digits of the sum: 1! + 2! + 3! + 4! + . . . + 2013!)
• (the only positive integer such that if you sum the digits and the squares of the digits, you get the original number back) + (the largest prime factor of the smallest Carmichael number)
• (the smallest multi-digit hyperperfect number such that more than half of its digits are the same) − (the sum of digits that cannot be the last digits of squares) ⋅ (the largest base n in which 8n is not written like 80) ⋅ (the smallest positive integer that leaves a remainder of 2 when divided by 3, 4, and 5)
• (the smallest three-digit brilliant number) − (the first decimal digit of the number that in hexadecimal gives the house number of Sherlock Holmes)

*****

• (the number of evil minutes in an hour)
• (the number of fingers on ten hands) − (the smallest number such that its square has a digit repeated three times)
• (the number of ways you can rearrange letters of MANIC)/(the number of ways you can rearrange letters of SAGES)
• (the only multi-digit Catalan number with digits in strictly decreasing order)
• (the smallest perfect number)

*****

• (the largest product of positive integers that sum up to 10) + (the smallest perimeter of a rectangle with integral sides of area 120) − (the day of the month of the second Thursday in a January that has exactly 4 Mondays and 4 Fridays)
• (the second-largest number with all distinct digits, such that all the words in its American English representation start with the same letter) + (the largest square-free composite number that contains each of the digits 1, 2, 3, 4 exactly once in its prime factorization) + (the number of ways you can flip a coin 10 times so that the number of heads is the same as the number of tails) + (the smallest positive integer such that 2 to its power contains 2013 as a substring) + (the sum of five prime numbers formed from the digits 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 where each digit is used exactly once) + (the number of days in a year where the day of the month is odious) + (the sum of the digits each of which spelled out has an alphanumeric value equal to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything) ⋅ (the sum of all prime numbers p such that p + 20 and p + 40 are also prime) + (the first digit of the total number of legal moves of the Black king in chess)
• (the second-largest three-letter palindrome in Roman numerals)/((the smallest composite number not divisible by any of its digits)/(the last digit of 2013²⁰¹³) − (the digit in position 2013 of the string formed by concatenation of all integers into one stream: 123456789101112…)) − (the number of days in a year such that the month and the day of the month are simultaneously composite)
• (the second-smallest cube with only prime digits) ⋅ (the smallest perimeter of a Pythagorean triangle)/(the last digit to appear in the units place of a Fibonacci number) + (the greatest common divisor of the sums in degrees of the interior angles of convex polygons with an even number of sides) + (the number of subsets that you can form from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} that do not contain two consecutive numbers) − (the only common digit of 2013 base 8 and base 9)

Davidson Institute for Talent Development announced their 2012 Winners. Out of 22 students, three were recognized for their math research. All three of them are ours: that is, they participated in our PRIMES and RSI programs:

• David Ding’s project, “Infinitesimal Cherednik Algebras of gl_n,” came out of his participation in the PRIMES program.
• Sitan Chen’s project, “On the Rank Number of Grid Graphs,” came out of his participation in the RSI program.
• Xiaoyu He’ project, “On the Classification of Universal Rotor-Routers,” came out of his participation in the PRIMES program.

I already wrote about Xiaoyu’s project. Today I want to write about Sitan’s project and what I do as the math coordinator for RSI.

RSI students meet with their mentors every day and I meet with students once a week. On the surface I just listen as they describe their projects. In reality, I do many different things. I cheer the students up when they are overwhelmed by the difficulty of their projects. I help them decide whether they need to switch projects. I correct their mistakes. Most projects involve computer help, so I teach them Mathematica. I teach them the intricacies of Latex and Beamer. I explain general mathematical ideas and how their projects are connected to other fields of mathematics. I never do their calculations for them, but sometimes I suggest general ideas. In short, I do whatever needs to be done to help them.

I had a lot of fun working with Sitan. His project was about the rank number of grid graphs. A vertex k-ranking is a labeling of the vertices of a graph with integers from 1 to k so that any path connecting two vertices with the same label passes through a vertex with a greater label. The rank number of a graph is the minimum possible k for which a k-ranking exists for that graph. When Sitan got the project, the ranking numbers were known for grid graphs of sizes 1 by n, 2 by n, and 3 by n. So Sitan started working on the ranking number of the 4 by n graph.

His project was moving unusually fast and my job was to push him to see the big picture. I taught him that the next step, once he finishes 4 by n graphs is not to do 5 by n graphs, as one might think. After the first step, the second step should be bigger. He should use his insight and understanding of 4 by n graphs to try to see what he can do for any grid graphs.

This is exactly what he did. After he finished the calculation of the rank number of the 4 by n graphs, he found a way to improve the known bounds for the ranking number of any grid graph. His paper is available at the arXiv.

I just looked at my notes for my work with Sitan. The last sentence: “Publishable results, a potential winner.”

Baron Münchhausen is famous for his tall tales. My co-author Konstantin Knop wants to rehabilitate him and so invents problems where the Baron is proven to be truthful from the start. We already wrote a paper about one such problem. Here is a new problem by Konstantin:

Kostya has a black box, such that if you put in exactly 3 coins of distinct weights, the box will expose the coin of median weight. The Baron gave Kostya 5 coins of distinct weights and told him which coin has the median weight. Can Kostya check that the Baron is right, using the box not more than 3 times?

Actually, Konstantin designed a more complicated problem that was given at the Euler Olympiad, 2012 in Russia.

Let n be a fixed integer. Kostya has a black box, such that if you put in exactly 2n+1 coins of distinct weights, the box will expose the coin of median weight. The Baron gave Kostya 4n+1 coins of distinct weights and told him which coin has the median weight. Can Kostya check that the Baron is right, using the box not more than n+2 times?

Note that Kostya can’t just put 4n+1 coins in the box. The box accepts exactly 2n+1 coins. The problem that I started with is for n = 1. Even such a simple variation was a lot of fun for me to solve. So, have fun.

I recently published my new favorite math problem:

A deck of 36 playing cards (four suits of nine cards each) lies in front of a psychic with their faces down. The psychic names the suit of the upper card; after that the card is turned over and shown to him. Then the psychic names the suit of the next card, and so on. The psychic’s goal is to guess the suit correctly as many times as possible.
The backs of the cards are asymmetric, so each card can be placed in the deck in two ways, and the psychic can see which way the top card is oriented. The psychic’s assistant knows the order of the cards in the deck; he is not allowed to change the order, but he may orient any card in either of the two ways.
Is it possible for the psychic to make arrangements with his assistant in advance, before the latter learns the order of the cards, so as to ensure that the suits of at least (a) 19 cards, (b) 23 cards will be guessed correctly?
If you devise a guessing strategy for another number of cards greater than 19, explain that too.

If the psychic is only allowed to look at the backs of the cards, then the amount of transmitted information is 2³⁶, which is the same amount of information as suits for 18 cards. This number of guesses is achievable: the backs of every two cards can clue in the suit of the second card in the pair. This way the psychic can guess the suits of all even-numbered cards in the deck. So the problem is to improve on that. Using the info from the cards that the psychic is permitted to turn over can help too.

The problem is from the book Moscow Mathematical Olympiads, 2000-2005. The book and Russian blog discussions provide many different ideas on how to guess more than half of the deck.

Here is the list of ideas.

Idea 1. Counting cards. If you count cards you will know the suits of the last cards.

Idea 2. Trading. As we discussed before, the psychic can correctly guess the suits of even-numbered cards. By randomly guessing the odd-numbered cards she can correctly guess on average the suits of 4.5 additional cards. Unfortunately, this is not guaranteed. But wait. What if we trade the knowledge of the second card’s suit for the majority suit among odd-numbered cards?

Idea 3. Three cards. Suppose we have three cards. Three bits can provide the following knowledge: the majority color, plus the suit of the first and of the second cards in the majority color. Thus, three bits of information will allow the psychic to guess the suits of two cards out of three.

Idea 4. Which card. Suppose the assistant signals the suits of even-numbered cards. With no loss, the psychic can guess the even-numbered card and repeat the same suit for the next card. If this is the plan, the assistant can choose which of the two cards to describe. Which card of the two matches the psychic’s guess provides an additional bit of information.

Idea 5. Surprise. Suppose we have a strategy to inform the psychic about some cards. Suppose the assistant deliberately fails on one of the cards. Then the index of this card provides info to the psychic.

I leave it to my readers to use these ideas to find the solution for 19, 23, 24 and maybe even for 26 cards.

Students should use a different strategy for the AIME than for the AMC. So students who are approaching the AIME for the first time need to question the habits they have developed after years of doing multiple choice tests. Here are some suggestions.

Checking. I’ve noticed that the accuracy level of students who take the AIME for the first time drops significantly. It seems that they are so used to multiple choice questions that they rely on multiple choices as a confirmation that they are right. So when someone solves a problem, they compare their answer to the given choices and if the answer is on the list they assume that the answer must be correct. Their pattern is broken when there are no choices. So they arrive at an answer and since there is no way to check it against choices, they just submit it. Because of this lack of confirmation, checking their answer in other ways becomes more important.

Timing. At the AMC we have 3 minutes per problem. At the AIME — 12. That means the timing strategies need to be different. Indeed, the AMC is so fast-paced that it is reasonable to save time by not reading a problem twice. If you read it, you either solve it or skip it and go on. The student who is not trying to achieve a perfect score can decide in advance not to read those final, highly-difficult problems.
For the AIME it is not expensive, in relative terms of time, to read all the problems. The student can read the problems and choose the most promising ones to start with, knowing that if there is time they can always come back to other problems.

Guessing. Guessing at the AMC is very profitable if you can exclude three choices out of the given five. Guessing for the AIME is a waste of time because the answers are integers between 000 and 999. So the probability of a random guess is one in a thousand. Actually, this is not quite right, because the problem writers are human and it is much easier to write a problem with an answer of 10 than one with an answer of 731. But the AIME designers are trying very hard to make answers that are randomly distributed. So the probability of a random guess is not one in a thousand, but it is very close. You can improve your chances by an intelligent guess. For example, you might notice that the answer must be divisible by 10. But guessing is still a waste of time. Thinking about a problem for two minutes in order to increase the probability of a correct guess to one in a 100 means that your expected gain is 1/200 points per minute. Which is usually much less than the gain for checking your answers. You can play the guessing game if you have exhausted your other options.

What saddens me is that the students who are not trained in checking use their first guess to make their life choices. But this is a subject for a separate discussion.

I have already written about how American math competition are illogically structured, for the early rounds do not prepare students for the later rounds. The first time mathletes encounter proofs is in the third level, USAMO. How can they prepare for problems with proofs? My suggestion is to look East. All rounds of Russian math Olympiads — from the local to the regional to the national — are structured in the same way: they have a few problems that require proofs. This is similar to the USAMO. At the national All-Russian Olympiad, the difficulty level is the same as USAMO, while the regionals are easier. That makes the problems from the regionals an excellent way to practice for the USAMO. The best regional Olympiad in Russia is the Moscow Olympiad. Here is the problem from the 1995 Moscow Olympiad:

We start with four identical right triangles. In one move we can cut one of the triangles along the altitude perpendicular to the hypotenuse into two triangles. Prove that, after any number of moves, there are two identical triangles among the whole lot.

This style of problems is very different from those you find in the AMC and the AIME. The answer is not a number; rather, the problem requires proofs and inventiveness, and guessing cannot help.

Here is another problem from the 2002 Olympiad. In this particular case, the problem cannot be adapted for multiple choice:

The tangents of a triangle’s angles are positive integers. What are possible values for these tangents?

The problems are taken from two books: Moscow Mathematical Olympiads, 1993-1999, and Moscow Mathematical Olympiads, 2000-2005. I love these books and the problems they present from past Moscow Olympiads. The solutions are nicely written and the books often contain alternative solutions, extended discussion, and interesting remarks. In addition, some problems are indexed by topics, which is very useful for teachers like me. But the best thing about these books are the problems themselves. Look at the following gem from 2004, which can be used as a magic trick or an idea for a research paper:

A deck of 36 playing cards (four suits of nine cards each) lies in front of a psychic with their faces down. The psychic names the suit of the upper card; after that the card is turned over and shown to him. Then the psychic names the suit of the next card, and so on. The psychic’s goal is to guess the suit correctly as many times as possible.
The backs of the cards are asymmetric, so each card can be placed in the deck in two ways, and the psychic can see which way the top card is oriented. The psychic’s assistant knows the order of the cards in the deck; he is not allowed to change the order, but he may orient any card in either of the two ways.
Is it possible for the psychic to make arrangements with his assistant in advance, before the latter learns the order of the cards, so as to ensure that the suits of at least (a) 19 cards, (b) 23 cards will be guessed correctly?
If you devise a guessing strategy for another number of cards greater than 19, explain that too.

The following variation of a Bulls and Cows problem was given at the Fall 2008 Tournament of the Towns:

A test consists of 30 true or false questions. After the test (answering all 30 questions), Victor gets his score: the number of correct answers. Victor doesn’t know any answer, but is allowed to take the same test several times. Can Victor work out a strategy that guarantees that he can figure out all the answers after the 29th attempt? after the 24th attempt?

Let’s assume that we have a more general problem. There are n questions, and a(n) is the smallest number of times we need to take the test to guarantee that we can figure out the answers. First we can try all combinations of answers. This way we are guaranteed to know all the answers after 2ⁿ attempts. The next idea is to start with a baseline test, for example, to say that all the answers are true. Then we change answers one by one to see if the score goes up or down. After changing n − 1 answers we will know the answers to the first n − 1 questions. Plus we know the total number of true answers, so we know the answers to all the questions. We just showed that a(n) ≤ n.

This is not enough to answer the warm-up question in the problem. We need something more subtle.

Let’s talk about the second part of the problem. As we know, 24 = 4 ⋅ 6. So to solve the second part, on average, we need to find five correct answers per four tests. Is it true that a(5) ≤ 4? If so, can we use it to show that a(30) ≤ 24?

The following three cases are the most fun to prove: a(5) = 4, a(8) ≤ 6, and a(30) ≤ 24. Try it!

By the way, K. Knop and L. Mednikov wrote a paper (available in Russian) where they proved that a(n) is not more than the smallest number k such that the total number of ones in the binary expansion of numbers from 1 to k is at least n − 1. Which means they proved that a(30) ≤ 16.

Tanya Khovanova and Richard Stanley

On the left is a puzzle from the 2000 Qualifying Test for USA and Canada teams to compete in the world puzzle championship. A set of all 21 dominoes has been placed in a 7 by 6 rectangular tray. The layout is shown with the pips replaced by numbers and domino edges removed. Draw the edges of the dominoes into the diagram to show how they are positioned.

We would like to discuss the mathematical theory behind this puzzle using a toy example below. Only three dominoes: 1-1, 1-2, 2-2 are positioned on the board and the goal is to reconstruct the positioning:

Let’s connect adjacent numbers with segments to show potential dominoes and color the segments according to which domino they represent. The 1-1 edge is colored green, the 1-2 — blue, and the 2-2 — red. Now our puzzle has become a graph, where the numbers are vertices, the segments are edges, and the edges are colored. In this new setting, the goal of the puzzle is to find edges of three different colors so that they do not share vertices.

The next picture represents the line graph of the previous graph. Now the colors of the vertices correspond to different potential dominoes. Vertices are connected if the corresponding dominoes share a cell. In the new setting finding dominoes that do not share a cell is equivalent to finding an independent set. The fact that we need to use all possible dominoes means that we want the most colorful independent set.

I just discovered a Russian Internet Linguistics Olympiad. Even though most linguistics problems are not translatable, this time we are lucky. My favorite problem from this Olympiad is related to chemical elements — their names in Russian have the same logical structure as in English. Keep in mind, the problem doesn’t assume any knowledge of chemistry. Here is the problem:

The formulae for chemical elements and their names are given below in mixed order:
C₃H₈, C₄H₆, C₃H₄, C₄H₈, C₇H₁₄, C₂H₂;
Heptene, Butine, Propane, Butene, Ethine, Propine.

1. Match the formulae with their names. Explain your solution.
2. Write the names of the elements with the following formulae: C₂H₄, C₂H₆, C₇H₁₂.
3. Write the formulae for the following elements: Propene, Butane.