The Pigeonhole Principle
If objects are placed in boxes, some box holds at least two. The whole art is choosing the boxes.
Pigeonhole proofs are existence proofs: they show two objects must collide without saying which. The boxes are usually remainders mod , pairs that sum to something, or pieces of a figure. A good sign you need pigeonhole: the problem says "among any …" or "some two of them". Write down three things explicitly — what the objects are, what the boxes are, and why there are more objects than boxes — and the proof is done.
A drawer holds red, blue and black socks. How many must you take, without looking, to be sure of a matching pair? Objects: socks drawn; boxes: the colors. Four socks in three boxes force two of one color. Three are not enough, since they could be one of each. So the answer is — and "three are not enough" is part of the answer, because "sure" means the smallest number that always works.
Among any integers chosen from , two are consecutive. Boxes: — boxes for numbers, so two chosen numbers share a box, and numbers in the same box are consecutive.
Among any integers , some non-empty block has sum divisible by . Consider the partial sums , , …, . If one leaves remainder mod , done. Otherwise sums fall into the nonzero remainders, so two agree: with , and is divisible by .
Boxes that are not disjoint or do not cover all the objects. Say explicitly what the objects are, what the boxes are, and why there are more objects than boxes. "Some two of the numbers are consecutive" with boxes fails: the boxes overlap, so one number can sit in two boxes at once.
Prove that among any integers, some have a sum divisible by .
Show the answerHide the answer
Sort the integers by remainder mod . If all three remainders occur, take one of each: the sum leaves remainder . Otherwise at most two remainders occur, and integers in boxes put at least in one box: three integers with the same remainder have sum leaving .
Choosing the Boxes
If objects are placed in boxes, some box holds at least of them. Choosing the boxes is the proof: remainders for divisibility claims, pieces of a region for distance claims, possible values of a count for "two are the same" claims.
The general form is an average argument: objects in boxes average per box, and some box is at least average. Since boxes hold whole numbers of objects, "at least " means at least the next integer up. The design rule for boxes: two objects in the same box must automatically have the property you want. That forces the size of the boxes — for distance claims, every box must have diameter at most the distance in the conclusion.
Among people, at least were born on the same day of the week. If each of the days had at most people, there would be at most people.
Among any integers, two differ by a multiple of . Boxes: the remainders on division by . Six integers, five boxes: two share a remainder, and then their difference leaves remainder , that is, it is a multiple of .
Ten points lie in an equilateral triangle of side . Prove two of them are at distance at most . Boxes: lines parallel to the sides cut the triangle into equilateral triangles of side . Ten points, nine pieces: two points lie in the same piece. The greatest distance between two points of a side- equilateral triangle is (the length of a side), so those two points are at most apart.
Boxes of the wrong size. Cutting the triangle into triangles of side gives a collision easily, but only proves the two points are within . The box has to be small enough that "same box" already means "close enough".
Five points lie in a square of side . Prove that two of them are at distance at most .
Show the answerHide the answer
Cut the square into four squares. Five points, four boxes: two points lie in the same small square. The greatest distance between two points of a unit square is its diagonal, .
Extremal Arguments
Choose the object that is extreme — the largest number, the shortest distance, the player with the most wins — and argue that its extremity forces a property, or that a "more extreme" object would exist otherwise (contradiction).
The extreme object carries information the others do not: nothing is larger, so every comparison with it goes one way. That one-sided information is usually exactly what the proof needs. The precondition is that the extreme object exists — guaranteed for a finite non-empty set, and for any non-empty set of positive integers by well-ordering, but NOT for infinite sets of reals.
Numbers are placed at the vertices of a polygon so that each equals the average of its two neighbors. Prove they are all equal. Take the largest value . Its two neighbors average to and are each at most , so both equal . Repeat around the polygon: all equal .
A finite set of at least three points in the plane, no three on a line. Prove some three of them form a triangle containing no other point of the set. Take any two points , and among the remaining points choose at the smallest distance from the line . Suppose some other point of the set lay in triangle . Moving from toward the side only brings a point closer to line , so would be strictly closer to than — contradicting the choice of .
Choosing an extreme object that does not exist. "Let be the smallest number in the interval " — there is none. Before "take the largest", check that the set is finite and non-empty, or consists of positive integers.
In a tournament every pair of players plays once and there are no draws. Prove there is a player such that every other player either lost to or lost to someone who lost to .
Show the answerHide the answer
Let be a player with the most wins. Suppose some is not reached: beat , and also beat everyone beat (otherwise one of them beat and reaches in two steps). Then has all of 's wins plus the win over — more wins than , contradicting the choice of .
Well-Ordering and Infinite Descent
This is the well-ordering principle. It gives two tools: the smallest counterexample (if a claim fails, take its smallest failure and show a smaller one exists) and infinite descent (a process producing ever-smaller positive integers must stop).
Well-ordering is what makes positive integers different from positive rationals or reals: you cannot keep going down forever. If an argument shows that every solution of some equation produces a strictly smaller positive solution, the equation can have no positive solutions at all — there would have to be a smallest one, and it would produce a smaller one.
Among the divisors of that are greater than (there is at least one, itself), let be the smallest. If were not prime, it would have a divisor with , and would also divide — a smaller divisor greater than . So is prime.
Find all integer solutions of . If there is a solution with , take one with the smallest . Then is even, so , giving , so and ; then , a solution with . Contradiction. The only solution is .
Prove the only integer solution of is . Suppose not. If then forces , so a non-zero solution has ; choose one with as small as possible. Since , both and are multiples of (Direct Proof, squares mod ). Then , so and . Now is a solution with a smaller non-zero . Contradiction.
Descending in a set that has no floor. "Take the smallest positive rational solution" fails because positive rationals have no smallest element. Descent needs positive integers (or something that maps to them, like the size of a denominator).
Use a smallest counterexample to prove that every positive integer is a sum of distinct powers of .
Show the answerHide the answer
Suppose not, and let be the smallest positive integer that is not such a sum. . Let be the largest power of with ; then , so . If , is such a sum. Otherwise , so is a sum of distinct powers of , each at most . Adding , which is not among them, writes as a sum of distinct powers of — contradiction.
Why It Works
Suppose objects are placed in boxes and every box holds at most . Since , each box holds fewer than objects, so the boxes together hold fewer than . That contradicts there being objects. The principle is nothing more than "the largest is at least the average", made exact for whole numbers.
A finite non-empty set of numbers has a largest element: by induction on its size, a set of numbers is a set of numbers (which has a largest, ) plus one more number , and the larger of and is the largest of all. A non-empty set of positive integers has a smallest element by well-ordering, which is equivalent to induction. Every extremal argument quietly uses one of these two facts, and every extremal argument that fails has used neither.
Claim: among any integers, two have a sum or a difference divisible by . Failed attempt: "use the remainders mod as boxes" — objects in boxes guarantees nothing. Right boxes: — six boxes for the remainders. Seven integers in six boxes: two land in the same box. If they have the same remainder, their difference is divisible by . If their remainders are and , their sum is. The boxes were built so that "same box" already means "the property holds".