Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog

Consider the following Fibonacci trick. Ask your friends to choose any two integers, a and b, and then, starting with a and b, ask them to write down 10 terms of a Fibonacci-like sequence by summing up the previous two terms. To start, the next (third) term will be a+b, followed by a+2b. Before your friends even finish, shout out the sum of the ten terms, impressing them with your lightning-fast addition skills. The secret is that the seventh term is 5a+8b, and the sum of the ten terms is 55a+88b. Thus, to calculate the sum, you just need to multiply the 7th term of their sequence by 11.

If you remember, I run a program for students in grades 7 through 9 called PRIMES STEP, where we do research in mathematics. Last year, my STEP senior group decided to generalize the Fibonacci trick for their research and were able to extend it. If n=4k+2, then the sum of the first n terms of any Fibonacci-like sequence is divisible by the term number 2k+3, and the result of this division is the Lucas number with index 2k+1. For example, the sum of the first 10 terms is the 7th term times 11. Wait, this is the original trick. Okay, something else: the sum of the first 6 terms is the 5th term times 4. For a more difficult example, the sum of the first 14 terms of a Fibonacci-like sequence is the 9th term times 29.

My students decided to look at the sum of the first n Fibonacci numbers and find the largest Fibonacci number that divides the sum. We know that the sum of the first n Fibonacci numbers is F_n+2 – 1. Finding a Fibonacci number that divides the sum is easy. There are tons of cute formulas to help. For example, we have a famous inequality F_4k+3 – 1 = F_2k+2L_2k+1. Thus, the sum of the first 4k+1 Fibonacci numbers is divisible by F_2k+2. The difficult part was to prove that this was the largest Fibonacci number that divides the sum. My students found the largest Fibonacci number that divides the sum of the first n Fibonacci numbers for any n. Then, they showed that the divisibility can be extended to any Fibonacci-like sequence if and only if n = 3 or n has remainder 2 when divided by 4. The case of n=3 is trivial; the rest corresponds to the abovementioned trick.

They also studied other Lucas sequences. For example, they showed that a common trick for all Jacobsthal-like sequences does not exist. However, there is a trick for Pell-like sequences: the sum of the first 4k terms (starting from index 1) of such a sequence is the (2k + 1)st term times 2P_2k, where P_n denotes an nth Pell number.

You can check out all the tricks in our paper Fibonacci Partial Sums Tricks posted at the arXiv.

The famous 5-card trick begins with the audience choosing 5 cards from a standard deck. The magician’s assistant then hides one of the chosen cards and arranges the remaining four cards in a row, face up. Upon entering the room, the magician can deduce the hidden card by inspecting the arrangement. To eliminate the possibility of any secret signals between the assistant and the magician, the magician doesn’t even have to enter the room — an audience member read out the row of cards.

The trick was introduced by Fitch Cheney in 1950. Here is the strategy. With five cards, you are guaranteed to have at least two of the same suit. Suppose this suit is spades. The assistant then hides one of the spades and starts the row with the other one, thus signaling that the suit of the hidden card is spades. Now, the assistant needs to signal the value of the card. The assistant has three other cards than can be arranged in 6 different ways. So, the magician and the assistant can agree on how to signal any number from 1 to 6. This is not enough to signal any random card.

But wait! There is another beautiful idea in this strategy — the assistant can choose which spade to hide. Suppose the two spades have values X and Y. We can assume that these are distinct numbers from 1 to 13. Suppose, for example, Y = X+5. In that case, the assistant hides card Y and signals the number 5, meaning that the magician needs to add 5 to the value of the leftmost card X. To ensure that this method always works, we assume that the cards’ values wrap around. For example, king (number 13) plus 1 is ace. You can check that given any two spades, we can always find one that is at most 6 away from the other. Say, the assistant gets a queen of spades and a 3 of spades. The 3 of spades is 4 away from the queen (king, ace, two, three). So the assistant would hide the 3 and use the remaining three cards to signal the number 4.

I skipped some details about how permutations of three cards correspond to numbers. But it doesn’t matter — the assistant and the magician just need to agree on some correspondence. Magically, the standard deck of cards is the largest deck with which one can perform this trick with the above strategy.

Later, a more advanced strategy for the same trick was introduced by Michael Kleber in his paper The Best Card Trick. The new strategy allows the magician and the assistant to perform this trick with a much larger deck, namely a deck of 124 cards. But this particular essay is not about the best strategy, it is about the Cheney strategy. So I won’t discuss the advanced strategy, but I will redirect you to my essay The 5-Card Trick and Information, jointly with Alexey Radul.

63 years later, the 4-card trick appeared in Colm Mulcahy’s book Mathematical Card Magic: Fifty-Two New Effects. Here the audience chooses not 5 but 4 cards from the standard deck and gives them to the magician’s assistant. The assistant hides one of them and arranges the rest in a row. Unlike in the 5-card trick, in the 4-card trick, the assistant is allowed to put some cards face down. As before, the magician uses the description of how the cards are placed in a row to guess the hidden card.

The strategy for this trick is similar to Cheney’s strategy. First, we assign one particular card that the magician would guess if all the cards are face down. We now can assume that the deck consists of 51 cards and at least one of the cards in the row is face up. We can imagine that our 51-card deck consists of three suits with 17 cards in each suit. Then, the assistant is guaranteed to receive at least two cards of the same imaginary suit. Similar to Cheney’s strategy, the leftmost face-up card will signal the imaginary suit, and the rest of the cards will signal a number. I will leave it to the reader to check that signaling a number from 1 to 8 is possible. Similar to Cheney’s strategy, the assistant has an extra choice: which card of the two cards of the same imaginary suit to hide. As before, the assistant chooses to hide the card so that the value of the hidden card is not more than the value of the leftmost face-up card plus 8. It follows that the maximum number of cards the imaginary suit can have is 17. Magically, the largest possible deck size for performing this trick is 52, the standard deck of cards.

Last academic year, my PRIMES STEP junior group decided to dive deeper into these tricks. We invented many new tricks and calculated their maximum deck sizes. Our cutest trick is a 3-card trick. It is similar to both the 5-card trick and the 4-card trick. In our trick, the audience chooses not 5, not 4, but 3 cards from the standard deck and gives them to the magician’s assistant. The assistant hides one of them and arranges the other two in a row. The assistant is allowed to put some cards face down, as in the 4-card trick, and, on top of that, is also allowed to rotate the cards in two ways: by putting each card vertically or horizontally.

We calculated the maximum deck size for the 3-card trick, which is not 52, as for the 5- and 4-card trick, but rather 54. Still, this means the 3-card trick can be performed with the standard deck. The details of this trick and other tricks, as well as some theory, can be found in our paper Card Tricks and Information.

The famous 5-card trick begins with the audience choosing 5 cards from a standard deck. The magician’s assistant then hides one of these cards and arranges the remaining four cards in a row, face up. On entering the room, the magician can deduce the hidden card by inspecting the arrangement. To eliminate the possibility of secret signals between the assistant and the magician, the magician needn’t even enter the room — an audience member can call them and read out the row of cards.

We will not delve into the mechanics of the trick, which are widely available online. Instead, we will explore the information theory underlying it. Michael Kleber’s paper, The Best Card Trick, provides an information-theoretic argument that works as follows:

For a deck of N cards, the number of different messages the magician can receive is N(N-1)(N-2)(N-3). The magician must guess the hidden card, which is equivalent to determining the set of five cards chosen by the audience. The number of such sets is N choose 5. For the trick to work, the number of messages must not exceed the number of possible answers, leading to the inequality: (N choose 5) ≤ N(N-1)(N-2)(N-3). After some manipulation, we get that (N-4)/120 doesn’t exceed 1. This implies that the deck can have at most 124 cards. The bound turns out to be tight: as discussed in Kleber’s paper, the trick can still be performed with such a huge deck. The paper expands this argument to a trick with K instead of 5 cards and shows that the maximum deck size for such a trick is K! + K – 1.

Here, we want to present a more direct, intuitive argument. We will make the argument for the 5-card trick, which is easily generalizable to the K-card trick. The assistant has 5 ways to choose which card to hide and 24 ways to arrange the remaining four cards, so they only have 120 actions in any given situation. Ergo, the magician should only be able to extract 120 alternatives’ worth of information from knowing what action the assistant would take.

This is a bit fishy, because of course even with N > 120, the trick could happen to work sometimes. That is, if the magician tells the assistant the strategy by which they will guess the missing card, the assistant may, for some sets of 5 cards drawn even from a large deck, manage to show an arrangement of four that will lead the magician to guess correctly.

The crux of formalizing the argument is to move to the global view, but we can do that without additional computations. Consider the space of all states reachable by any strategy of the assistant. In our case, this is equivalent to ordered sequences of five cards, with the last face down. There are obviously (N-4)M of these, where M is the number of states the magician observes (four-card sequences, in our case), however many of those there are. When the assistant and the magician choose a strategy for the assistant, they make most of these impossible. Indeed, since the assistant always has exactly 120 options, after they have chosen one to take in each situation, we have exactly (N-4)M/120 states that remain possible with that strategy. For the trick to always work, this last expression must be no more than M; M cancels, saving us the trouble of computing it, and we are left with N-4 ≤ 120 as desired.

By the way, one of the authors of this essay, Tanya Khovanova, taught this trick to her PRIMES STEP students, who were students in grades 7 through 9. They found and studied interesting generalizations of this trick and wrote the paper Card Tricks and Information available at the arXiv. They studied many variations of the trick, including the ones where the assistant is allowed to put the cards face down. This interesting variation is outside the scope of this essay.

We would like to use as an example one of the tricks described in the paper: the K-card trick, where the assistant hides one card and arranges the rest in a circle. The implication is that when the audience member describes the arrangement to the magician, they describe the circle clockwise in any order. Our argument works here as follows. We count the number of the assistant’s actions: K ways to choose the hidden card and (K-2)! ways to arrange the cards in different circles up to rotation. Thus, the number of different actions is K(K-2)!. Hence, the deck size doesn’t exceed K(K-2)! + K – 1, as we can exclude the K-1 cards in the circle, as they aren’t hidden. Not surprisingly, this is the same formula as in the paper.

The puzzle In the Details by Derek Kisman is one of my favorite MIT Mystery Hunt puzzles of all times. I even wrote a blog post advertising it and another post with comments on the solution. This puzzle type became known as fractal word search.

In the standard word search, you have a grid of letters and a list of words. You need to find the words written in the grid in all eight directions. The unused letters provide the answer, or a clue to the answer, of the word search puzzle.

In the fractal word search, you have a grid of letters and a list of words. It looks like a regular word search, but you will not find all the words inside the given grid. The given grid is only a snapshot of the whole grid on some particular level k. To go to level k+1, you have to use replacement rules: each letter is replaced by a 2-by-2 block of letters. This creates a much bigger grid where you might find more words from the given list.

An interesting question is, where do you find the replacement rules? In Derek’s puzzle, the rules were not given, but the initial grid was level 2. So you could notice that this grid can be decomposed into 2-by-2 squares, and there are only 26 different squares, implying that each square corresponds to a letter. Assuming that replacing the 2-by-2 squares with correct letters will allow you to find more words from the list, you can decipher the replacement rules. This will allow you to get to level 1 as well as any other level. Small levels are easy to search, but on large levels, the grid gets so huge that it might not fit in the memory of a computer, or a million computers. That is why this puzzle was presented at the MIT mystery hunt, but not at any other puzzle hunt. It is quite difficult: one of the given words is hiding on level 86.

I liked the puzzle so much, I included it in one of my lectures. After I gave my talk at Brown University, a student, Klára Churá, approached me. She got as fascinated with the puzzle as I was. We ended up collaborating on the paper Fractal Word Search: How Deep to Delve. As the title suggests, we focused on finding the upper bound of the level where we could find a word of a given length. We had two parameters: the size of the alphabet n and the block size b used in the replacement rules.

For different reasons, the most interesting case is words of length 3. I will leave it to the reader to figure out why this is the most interesting case, or the reader can check our paper. We showed that any word of length 3 appears no later than level n³ + n² + 1.

When we posted the paper, I sent the link to Derek. He immediately wrote a program and showed that our bound is fairly tight. His code is available at GitHub. He created a configuration that puts a 3-letter word at depth LCM(a,b,c)+1, where a,b,c ≤ n-3. If n is even, this gives us a lower bound of (n-3)(n-4)(n-5) + 1. If n is odd, this gives us a lower bound of (n-4)(n-5)(n-6) + 1. In any case, asymptotically, it is very close to our upper bound.

Foams are a recent craze in homology theory. I want to explain what a foam is using a tesseract as an example. Specifically, the 2D skeleton of a tesseract is a foam.

We can view a tesseract as a convex hull of 16 points in 4D space with coordinates that are either 0 or 1. The edges connect two vertices with the same three out of four coordinates. Faces are squares with corners being four vertices that all share two out of four coordinates.

Foam definition. A foam is a finite 2-dimensional CW-complex. Each point’s neighborhood must be homeomorphic to one of the three objects below.

1. An open disc. Such points are called regular points.
2. The product of a tripod and an open interval. Such points are called seam points.
3. The cone over the 1D-skeleton of a tetrahedron. Such points are called singular vertices.

My favorite example of a foam is a tesseract. Or, more precisely, the set of tesseract’s vertices, edges, and faces form a foam.

1. The regular points are the insides of the tesseract’s faces. Their neighborhoods are obviously open discs.
2. The seam points are the insides of the tesseract’s edges. Each edge is incident to three faces, and the projection of its neighborhood to a plane perpendicular to the edge is a tripod.
3. The singular vertices are the tesseract’s vertices. Each vertex is incident to four edges and six faces. We can view this neighborhood as a cone cover of a tetrahedron formed by this vertex’s neighbors.

Some of the coolest foams are tricolorable. A foam is called tricolorable if we can color it using three colors in such a way that each face has its own color, and any three faces that meet at a seam are three distinct colors.

Not surprisingly, I chose a tricolorable foam for our example. Let me prove that the tesseract’s 2D skeleton is tricolorable. We start by coloring the edges in four colors depending on the direction: red, green, blue, or gray, as in the first picture (source: Wikipedia). Each face has two pairs of edges of two different colors. We can color the faces in the following manner: if none of the edges are gray, then the face color is the complementary non-gray color (For example, if the edges are red and blue, the face is green). If the edges are gray and one other color, then the face color matches the non-gray color (For example, if the edges are red and gray, the face is red). I leave it to the reader to prove that this coloring means that each edge is the meeting point of three different face colors.

Here is an interesting property of tricolorable foams. It is Proposition 2.2 in the paper Foam Evaluation and Kronheimer-Mrowka Theories, by Mikhail Khovanov and Louis-Hardien Robert.

Proposition. If we remove the regular points of one particular color from a tricolored foam, we will get a closed compact surface containing all the seam points and singular vertices.

In our example, the result is a torus, which you can recognize in the second picture. Here, I use the Schlegel diagram as a model for a tesseract, shown on the right (source: Wikipedia). The exercise for the reader is to explain where the eight green faces of the torus were before they were removed.

The following lemma from the aforementioned paper describes another cool property of a tricolorable foam.

Lemma. If a foam is tricolorable, its 1D skeleton (the graph formed by seams and singular points) is bipartite.

And, surely, I am leaving it up to the reader to check that the tesseract’s 1D skeleton forms a bipartite graph.

My PRIMES STEP program consists of two groups of ten students each: the senior group and the junior group. The senior group is usually stronger, and they were especially productive last academic year. We wrote four papers, which I described in the post EvenQuads at PRIMES STEP. The junior group wrote one paper related to the game SOS. The game was introduced in the following 1999 USAMO problem.

Problem. The game is played on a 1-by-2000 grid. Two players take turns writing an S or an O in an empty square. The first player who produces three consecutive squares that spell SOS wins. The game is a draw if all squares are filled without producing SOS. Prove that the second player has a winning strategy.

The solution is quite pretty, so I do not want to spoil it. If my readers want it, the solution for this grid, and, more generally, for any grid of size 1-by-n, is posted in many places.

My students studied generalizations of this game, and the results are posted at the arXiv: SOS. We tried different target strings and showed that:

• The SOO game is always a draw.
• The SSS game is always a draw.
• The SOSO game is always a draw.

Then, we tried a version where the winner needed to spell one of two target strings. We showed that:

• The SSSS-OOOO game is always a draw.

We tried several more elaborate variations, but I want to keep this post short.

I love the game of SET, where you have a specialized deck of 81 cards. The image on each card has four features: color, shape, shading, and the number of objects. Each feature can have three possible values. Three cards form a set if, for every feature, the values on the cards are either all the same or all different. One of the best properties of the sets is that, given any two cards, we can calculate the third card that would complete a set.

If we look at the game mathematically, we can assign a number 0, 1, or 2 for every feature value. For example, green could be 0, purple could be 1, and red could be 2. Then, the condition that, given a feature, three cards are either all the same or all different is equivalent to saying that the sum of the values modulo 3 is zero.

A mathematician would wonder, can we make a new game where we take values modulo 4? Each feature value should correspond to 0, 1, 2, or 3. For example, we can add a yellow color corresponding to number 3. The new “set” should be four cards such that the sum of the values modulo 4 is 0. This condition guarantees that any three cards could be uniquely completed into a “set”. But such a game is inelegant. For example, one green, two purple, and one red card will form a set. But one green, one purple, and two red will not. The symmetry between colors is lost.

I decided that there is no good analog for the game of SET that is played modulo 4. I was wrong. Here is a new game called EvenQuads. I heard about it at the 2022 MOVES conference.

The deck consists of 64 cards with three features: color, shape, and the number of objects. There are four values for each feature. Four cards form a quad if, for every feature, the values are all the same, all different, or half-and-half.

For example, the figure above shows a quad where, for each feature, all values are different. To get familiar with quads, here is a puzzle for you. How many quads can you find in the picture below?

The game proceeds in a similar way to the game of SET. You can find out more about EvenQuads at the EvenQuads website.

I picked this game as a research project for my senior STEP group. As many of you know, I have a program where we conduct mathematical research with students in grades 7 through 9. The group started in the fall of 2022 and was extremely productive. We wrote FOUR papers in an academic year, which is obviously our record. The papers can be found at the arXiv.

• In Card Games Unveiled: Exploring the Underlying Linear Algebra, we analyze four games related to linear algebra: SET, EvenQuads, Socks, and Spot It!. The games are so connected to each other that sometimes it is even possible to play one game using the cards from another game.
• In Quad Squares, we study semimagic, magic, and strongly magic quad squares made out of EvenQuads cards. A semimagic quad square is a 4-by-4 square in which each row and column form a quad. You can guess what a magic quad square is. The idea was inspired by magic SET squares: 3-by-3 squares where each row, column, and diagonal form a set. A magic SET square has an additional property: there are always four more sets in such a square located on broken diagonals. In other words, consider three cards and their coordinates in a square. These cards form a set if and only if the values of each coordinate are either all the same or all different. This property is stronger than the definition of a magic SET square. In the case of the game of SET, these two definitions are the same. However, for EvenQuads, we get two different definitions. This is how we ended up defining strongly magic quad squares. You can find the details in the paper.
• In EvenQuads Game and Error-Correcting Codes, we describe error-correcting codes based on a set of EvenQuads cards.
• In Maximum Number of Quads, we calculate the maximum possible number of quads, given n cards from an EvenQuads deck. For example, the puzzle pictured above is actually an example of the maximum possible number of quads among 7 cards. We generalize this idea to decks of any size. Unfortunately, our formula is based on a conjecture. Though, we strongly believe that our formula is correct.

My students did a great job.

In December 2022, I wrote a blog post Uncrossed Knight’s Tours about Derek Kisman’s amazing achievement of calculating the largest uncrossed knight’s tours on rectangular chessboards on sizes M-by-N, where M is small, and N can be very very large.

The data showed some asymptotic periodicity, and I wondered how to prove it mathematically. I didn’t realize that Derek already proved it. In my ignorance of programming, I assumed that programs just spewed out the data and didn’t think they could prove anything. I was wrong. It appears that no other proof is needed. Derek tried to explain the details to me using the terminology of dynamic programming, but I am not sure I can reproduce it here.

Let’s recall the problem. Consider an M-by-N chessboard and a knight that moves according to standard chess rules: jumping one square in one direction and two squares in an orthogonal direction. The knight must visit as many squares as possible, without repeats, and then return to its starting square. In addition, the knight may never cross its own path. If you imagine the knight’s path consisting of straight line segments connecting the centers of the squares it visits, these segments must form a simple polygon. To summarize, given M and N, we want to calculate the longest uncrossed knight’s tour length.

To be clear: the programs, their output data, proven answers, and images are by Derek Kisman. I am just a humble messenger showing my new appreciation of the power of a computational proof.

The image shows Derek’s solution for a 3-by-13 chessboard. There is a repeating 3-by-4 pattern marked by dashed lines. The same tour works for boards of lengths 10, 11, and 12. Thus, for chessboards of width 3 and length from 10 to 13 inclusive, the longest uncrossed knight’s tour is length 10. We can write the answers for 3-by-N chessboards as a sequence with index N, where -1 means the tour is impossible. The sequence starts with N = 1: -1, -1, -1, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 10, 10, 10, 10, 14, 14, ….

We can prove that this sequence is correct without programming. Suppose the tour starts in the leftmost column. If we start in the middle of the column, the whole tour ends as a rhombus and a tour of length 4, which, by the way, is the longest tour for N = 5. Thus, for a larger N, we have to start in a corner. From there, there are only two possible moves. We can see that the continuation is unique and that, asymptotically, we gain one step per extra column. That is, asymptotically, the length of the longest tour divided by N is 1.

Derek uses an additional notation in the following sequence: each cycle is in brackets. Any two consecutive cycles differ by the same constant. So to continue the sequence indefinitely, it is enough to know the first two cycles.

Closed tours: 3xN (asymptote 1):  -1, -1, -1, -1, 4, [6, 6, 6, 6], [10, 10, 10, 10], …

I continue with other examples Derek calculated:

Closed tours: 4xN (asymptote 2): -1, -1, -1, [4], [6], …

Closed tours: 5xN (asymptote 2 3/5):  -1, -1, 4, 6, [8, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 34], [34, 38, 40, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 56, 60], …

Closed tours: 6xN (asymptote 4): -1, -1, 6, 8, 12, 12, 18, 22, 24, 28, 32, 36, [38], [42], …

Closed tours: 7xN (asymptote 4 10/33):  -1, -1, 6, 10, 14, 18, 24, 26, 32, 36, 42, 44, 48, 54, 58, 62, 66, 72, 74, 80, 84, 88, 94, 98, 100, 106, 112, 114, 118, 124, 128, 130, [136, 140, 144, 148, 154, 158, 162, 166, 170, 176, 180, 184, 188, 192, 196, 200, 204, 210, 214, 218, 222, 226, 232, 236, 240, 244, 248, 254, 256, 260, 266, 270, 274], [278, 282, 286, 290, 296, 300, 304, 308, 312, 318, 322, 326, 330, 334, 338, 342, 346, 352, 356, 360, 364, 368, 374, 378, 382, 386, 390, 396, 398, 402, 408, 412, 416], …

Closed tours: 8xN (asymptote 6): -1, -1, 6, 12, 18, 22, 26, 32, 36, 42, 46, 52, 58, [64, 70, 76, 80, 88, 92], [100, 106, 112, 116, 124, 128], …

Closed tours: 9xN (asymptote 6 6/29): -1, -1, 6, 14, 20, 24, 32, 36, 42, 50, 56, 60, 68, 74, 80, 86, 94, 98, 106, 114, 118, 126, 132, 136, [144, 150, 156, 162, 168, 174, 180, 186, 192, 200, 206, 212, 218, 224, 230, 236, 242, 250, 254, 262, 268, 274, 280, 286, 292, 300, 304, 312, 318, 324, 330, 336, 342, 348, 354, 360, 366, 372, 378, 386, 392, 398, 404, 410, 416, 422, 428, 436, 440, 448, 454, 460, 466, 474, 478, 486, 492, 498], [504, 510, 516, 522, 528, 534, 540, 546, 552, 560, 566, 572, 578, 584, 590, 596, 602, 610, 614, 622, 628, 634, 640, 646, 652, 660, 664, 672, 678, 684, 690, 696, 702, 708, 714, 720, 726, 732, 738, 746, 752, 758, 764, 770, 776, 782, 788, 796, 800, 808, 814, 820, 826, 834, 838, 846, 852, 858], …

Closed tours: 10xN (asymptote 8): -1, -1, 10, 16, 22, 28, 36, 42, 50, 54, 64, 70, 78, 84, 92, 100, [106], [114], … I do not have an image for this case.

As you might have noticed, for an even M, the asymptote equals M-2. The asymptote for an odd M is slightly greater than the asymptote for M-1.

Derek also calculated the longest open knight’s tours: the tours where the knight doesn’t have to return to its starting position.

Open tours: 2xN (asymptote 1/2): -1, -1, [2, 2], [3, 3], …

Open tours: 3xN (asymptote 1): -1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, [9], [10], …

Open tours: 4xN (asymptote 2): -1, 2, 5, [6], [8], …

Open tours: 5xN (asymptote 3): -1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, [32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 46], [50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 64], …

Open tours: 6xN (asymptote 4): -1, 3, 7, 10, 15, 18, 22, 26, 30, 33, [36], [40], …

Open tours: 7xN (asymptote 5): -1, 4, 9, 12, 17, 22, 25, 31, 36, [40], [45], …

Open tours: 8xN (asymptote 6): -1, 4, 10, 14, 20, 26, 31, 36, 43, 48, 54, 60, [64], [70], …

Open tours: 9xN open (asymptote 7): -1, 5, 11, 16, 23, 30, 36, 43, 48, 56, 62, 68, 75, [82, 88, 94], [103, 109, 115], … I do not have an image for this case.

There are a lot of interesting new sequences in this essay that were very nontrivial to calculate. I hope someone adds them to the OEIS database.

My PRIMES project last year, done with Rich Wang, was about violinists living in a hotel and being annoyed with each other. The project was suggested by Darij Grinberg and based on the following puzzle.

Puzzle. Consider a hotel with an infinite number of rooms arranged sequentially on the ground floor. The rooms are labeled from left to right with consecutive integers. A finite number of violinists are staying in the hotel with no more than one violinist in a room. Each night, two violinists staying in adjacent rooms get fed up with each other’s playing, and both request different rooms from the manager. The manager moves one of them to the nearest unoccupied room on the left and the other to the nearest unoccupied room on the right. This keeps happening every night as long as there are two violinists in adjacent rooms. Prove that this relocation will stop after a finite number of nights.

The project was not to solve the puzzle, and I won’t describe the solution, leaving it to my readers to ponder on their own. The project was to take this puzzle and see what we could discover. The relocation process in the puzzle is reminiscent of chip-firing, with a few differences.

Let me explain chip-firing in terms of violinists. The starting position would allow any number of violinists per room. Each night, two violinists in the same room will get annoyed with each other and request new rooms. There might be more violinists in that same room, but only two at a time are really annoyed. The manager will put one of them into the room on the left and the other into the room on the right, regardless of how crowded the rooms are.

In the chip-firing example, violinists always move to the next room. In our puzzle, they might need to go miles to a new room. And carry their luggage with them!

The original puzzle above implies that after several nights the relocations will stop, and violinists will enjoy the hotel in peace. This peaceful configuration is called a final state. Interestingly, depending on the order in which violinists are getting annoyed with each other, a starting configuration can result in different final states.

For example, consider the smallest interesting case, where only 3 violinists are staying in a hotel. We use 1 to describe a noisy room with a violinist and 0 to describe an empty room. Suppose the starting configuration is 0011100, where we ignore rooms far away from the noise. Depending on which two rooms have the complaining violinists on the first night, we can end up with a final state 0101001 or 1001010.

Initially, in the project, we looked at final states where we start with N violinists in consecutive rooms. We call such a configuration an N-clusteron. The example above describe the final states of a 3-clusteron. Here is an exercise for the reader: prove that in the final state, the gaps between occupied rooms have to be 1 or 2.

A final state can be described by the index of the leftmost occupied room and the sequence of gaps between occupied rooms. In the exercise above, it is easy to prove that the gaps must be size 1 or 2. In our paper, we proved a more refined statement: any final state has exactly one gap of size 2. Thus, a final state has two parameters: the index of the leftmost room and the location of the size 2 gap. For example, this means that in a final state, the span between the leftmost and the rightmost rooms, inclusive, is 2N.

As we continued exploring final states, we discovered something else. But first, I need to define the shadow of a final state. Let’s denote an occupied room with a one and an empty room with a zero. Then a final state corresponds to an infinite sequence of zeros and ones. But the interesting part of the final state is not infinite: it is a subsequence between the leftmost and rightmost ones, inclusive. We call this subsequence the shadow of the final state. In other words, the shadow describes the final state up to a translation and is completely defined by one parameter: the location of the 2-gap. In our example of a 3-clusteron, there are 2 final states with 2 distinct shadows. For larger clusterons, the situation is more interesting. There are 5 different possible final states for a 4-clusteron but only three distinct shadows. We discovered the following conjecture.

Conjecture. If we start from an N-clusteron and at each state uniformly select a move to perform from all possible moves, then the shadows of the final states are equiprobable.

You can find more details in our paper Ending States of a Special Variant of the Chip-Firing Algorithm. This conjecture is beautiful as it shows that there are hidden symmetries in this process of appeasing the fussy violinists. We didn’t prove this conjecture. Can you do it?

A Whitney umbrella is a cool surface I wanted to crochet. The umbrella continues to infinity, and there is no way I want to crochet the whole thing. I wanted to make a finite portion of a Whitney umbrella surrounding the most exciting point.

The result is seen in the picture. Technically, I crocheted not Whitney umbrellas but topologically equivalent surfaces. I am most proud of my secret — and painful — method of crocheting the self-intersecting segment. One day I will spill it.

As Wikipedia defines it: the Whitney umbrella is the union of all straight lines that pass through points of a fixed parabola and are perpendicular to a fixed straight line parallel to the parabola’s axis and lies on its perpendicular bisecting plane. If you look at the picture, the fixed straight line is the self-intersection line, which is a continuation of the line segment where the colors are woven through each other. You can find the parabola as the curve formed by the two-colored edge on either side of the umbrella. Oops, I forgot that only three of these umbrellas are made of two colors.

The Whitney umbrella is a ruled surface, meaning that for every point, there is a straight line on the surface that passes through the point. A ruled surface can be visually described as the set of points swept by a moving straight line.

Oh, look, the stitched rows can pretend to be these straight lines. Actually, if I fold these thingies, the stitched rows ARE straight lines. But, when I make the edges into parabolas, the rows stop being straight. In the real Whitney umbrella, if you look along the intersection line, the straight lines are closer to each other than they are along the parabola. But in crochets, the distances between rows have to be fixed. If my crochets are folded, they become rectangles and ruled surfaces. The real Whitney umbrella does not fold into a plane.

The Whitney umbrella is famous for being the only stable singularity of mappings from R² to R³. I am grateful to Paul Seidel for emailing me the proof. This singularity is so famous it even has two names: pinch point and cuspidal point. Though my crochets are not exactly Whitney umbrellas, they show this singularity. Hooray! I found a secret way to crochet the most famous stable singularity!