6 generals propose locking a safe with a number of different locks

  • Thread starter Thread starter shravan
  • Start date Start date
shravan
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
6 generals propose locking a safe with a number of different locks .each general will be given a key to certain of these locks .how many locks and keys are required and how many keys must each general possesses such that the lock will be opened only if 4 generals are present?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it may be like this

we can select 4 generals from 6 in 15 ways.hence 15 locks are required are required & 15 keys are required.each general must possesses atleast 3 keys each.
 
There are 6 people and you need that only if 4 combines all the locks will be opened
ie if you take any 3 people there will be 1 lock which needs to be opened and the key to that is available only with any of the other 3 people
Hence for any 3 people you need to distribute one lock among the other 3 peopl
This requires a total of 6C3 distinct locks wie 20 distinct locks
Hence the safe should be locked with 20 locks and te key distribution for each of the general would be
General 1 :K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7, K8, K9, K10,
General 2 :K1, K2, K3, K4, K11, K12, K13, K14, K15, K16,
General 3 :K1, K5, K6, K7, K11, K12, K13, K17, K18, K19,
General 4 :K2, K5, K8, K9, K11, K14, K15, K17, K18, K20,
General 5 :K3, K6, K8, K10, K12, K14, K16, K17, K19, K20,
General 6 :K4, K7, K9, K10, K13, K15, K16, K18, K19, K20,
 
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top