Happy ending problem (polygons)

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I finished reading a book about Paul Erdös "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers" and I came to couple of questions which I need to check if I am understanding them well or not, one of them about what has become known as Happy Ending Problem.



What I understand that according to the formula



$$
2^n-2 + 1
$$



you can know the least numbers of vertices to be able to construct n sided-polygon. If that is right then e.g. let's take $$n = 5 to 2^5-2+1 = 9$$
which means 9 vertices needed to guarantee a pentagon (5 sided-polygon). However, if you have even less vertices you are still able to construct a pentagon (it is not mentioned if it should be regular or irregular) so according to the illustration below we need just as much vertices as the needed-polygon requires.



enter image description here



Please correct me if I misunderstood the problem and feel free to post any link that may clarify the subject and add more details.







share|cite|improve this question




















  • I believe it's about convex polygons. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that drawing, but the pentagon you drew is not convex.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:31










  • I think what they're saying is that, given $9$ points in the plane, no matter how they are arranged (as long as no $3$ are collinear), you can always find $5$ of them which determine a convex pentagon. On the other hand, $8$ points can be arranged so that no $5$ of them make a convex pentagon.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:36










  • oh sorry, you're right I just noticed the angle to the left which is more than 180 !
    – wisdom
    Aug 17 at 9:22






  • 1




    The real definition of convex body is that, if two points P, Q lie inside it, then so does the line segment PQ. This applies to figures more general than polygons, so they need not have any angles. Of course the Happy Ending Problem is just about polygons, so your definition is fine.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 10:25














up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I finished reading a book about Paul Erdös "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers" and I came to couple of questions which I need to check if I am understanding them well or not, one of them about what has become known as Happy Ending Problem.



What I understand that according to the formula



$$
2^n-2 + 1
$$



you can know the least numbers of vertices to be able to construct n sided-polygon. If that is right then e.g. let's take $$n = 5 to 2^5-2+1 = 9$$
which means 9 vertices needed to guarantee a pentagon (5 sided-polygon). However, if you have even less vertices you are still able to construct a pentagon (it is not mentioned if it should be regular or irregular) so according to the illustration below we need just as much vertices as the needed-polygon requires.



enter image description here



Please correct me if I misunderstood the problem and feel free to post any link that may clarify the subject and add more details.







share|cite|improve this question




















  • I believe it's about convex polygons. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that drawing, but the pentagon you drew is not convex.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:31










  • I think what they're saying is that, given $9$ points in the plane, no matter how they are arranged (as long as no $3$ are collinear), you can always find $5$ of them which determine a convex pentagon. On the other hand, $8$ points can be arranged so that no $5$ of them make a convex pentagon.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:36










  • oh sorry, you're right I just noticed the angle to the left which is more than 180 !
    – wisdom
    Aug 17 at 9:22






  • 1




    The real definition of convex body is that, if two points P, Q lie inside it, then so does the line segment PQ. This applies to figures more general than polygons, so they need not have any angles. Of course the Happy Ending Problem is just about polygons, so your definition is fine.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 10:25












up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





I finished reading a book about Paul Erdös "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers" and I came to couple of questions which I need to check if I am understanding them well or not, one of them about what has become known as Happy Ending Problem.



What I understand that according to the formula



$$
2^n-2 + 1
$$



you can know the least numbers of vertices to be able to construct n sided-polygon. If that is right then e.g. let's take $$n = 5 to 2^5-2+1 = 9$$
which means 9 vertices needed to guarantee a pentagon (5 sided-polygon). However, if you have even less vertices you are still able to construct a pentagon (it is not mentioned if it should be regular or irregular) so according to the illustration below we need just as much vertices as the needed-polygon requires.



enter image description here



Please correct me if I misunderstood the problem and feel free to post any link that may clarify the subject and add more details.







share|cite|improve this question












I finished reading a book about Paul Erdös "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers" and I came to couple of questions which I need to check if I am understanding them well or not, one of them about what has become known as Happy Ending Problem.



What I understand that according to the formula



$$
2^n-2 + 1
$$



you can know the least numbers of vertices to be able to construct n sided-polygon. If that is right then e.g. let's take $$n = 5 to 2^5-2+1 = 9$$
which means 9 vertices needed to guarantee a pentagon (5 sided-polygon). However, if you have even less vertices you are still able to construct a pentagon (it is not mentioned if it should be regular or irregular) so according to the illustration below we need just as much vertices as the needed-polygon requires.



enter image description here



Please correct me if I misunderstood the problem and feel free to post any link that may clarify the subject and add more details.









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 17 at 8:02









wisdom

1363




1363











  • I believe it's about convex polygons. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that drawing, but the pentagon you drew is not convex.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:31










  • I think what they're saying is that, given $9$ points in the plane, no matter how they are arranged (as long as no $3$ are collinear), you can always find $5$ of them which determine a convex pentagon. On the other hand, $8$ points can be arranged so that no $5$ of them make a convex pentagon.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:36










  • oh sorry, you're right I just noticed the angle to the left which is more than 180 !
    – wisdom
    Aug 17 at 9:22






  • 1




    The real definition of convex body is that, if two points P, Q lie inside it, then so does the line segment PQ. This applies to figures more general than polygons, so they need not have any angles. Of course the Happy Ending Problem is just about polygons, so your definition is fine.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 10:25
















  • I believe it's about convex polygons. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that drawing, but the pentagon you drew is not convex.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:31










  • I think what they're saying is that, given $9$ points in the plane, no matter how they are arranged (as long as no $3$ are collinear), you can always find $5$ of them which determine a convex pentagon. On the other hand, $8$ points can be arranged so that no $5$ of them make a convex pentagon.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 8:36










  • oh sorry, you're right I just noticed the angle to the left which is more than 180 !
    – wisdom
    Aug 17 at 9:22






  • 1




    The real definition of convex body is that, if two points P, Q lie inside it, then so does the line segment PQ. This applies to figures more general than polygons, so they need not have any angles. Of course the Happy Ending Problem is just about polygons, so your definition is fine.
    – bof
    Aug 17 at 10:25















I believe it's about convex polygons. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that drawing, but the pentagon you drew is not convex.
– bof
Aug 17 at 8:31




I believe it's about convex polygons. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that drawing, but the pentagon you drew is not convex.
– bof
Aug 17 at 8:31












I think what they're saying is that, given $9$ points in the plane, no matter how they are arranged (as long as no $3$ are collinear), you can always find $5$ of them which determine a convex pentagon. On the other hand, $8$ points can be arranged so that no $5$ of them make a convex pentagon.
– bof
Aug 17 at 8:36




I think what they're saying is that, given $9$ points in the plane, no matter how they are arranged (as long as no $3$ are collinear), you can always find $5$ of them which determine a convex pentagon. On the other hand, $8$ points can be arranged so that no $5$ of them make a convex pentagon.
– bof
Aug 17 at 8:36












oh sorry, you're right I just noticed the angle to the left which is more than 180 !
– wisdom
Aug 17 at 9:22




oh sorry, you're right I just noticed the angle to the left which is more than 180 !
– wisdom
Aug 17 at 9:22




1




1




The real definition of convex body is that, if two points P, Q lie inside it, then so does the line segment PQ. This applies to figures more general than polygons, so they need not have any angles. Of course the Happy Ending Problem is just about polygons, so your definition is fine.
– bof
Aug 17 at 10:25




The real definition of convex body is that, if two points P, Q lie inside it, then so does the line segment PQ. This applies to figures more general than polygons, so they need not have any angles. Of course the Happy Ending Problem is just about polygons, so your definition is fine.
– bof
Aug 17 at 10:25










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













You should carefully read the Wikipedia entry you linked to.



Note that a pentagon here is a closed simple, i.e., not selfintersecting, circuit consisting of five segments and five vertices. It is neither assumed regular nor even convex.



It is a theorem that among $geq9$ different points in the plane, assumed in general position, i.e., no three in a line, you can always select $5$ that form the vertices of a convex pentagon. On the other hand the devil can place $8$ points in the plane such that no convex pentagon can be selected from them. This is the case for the $8$ points in your figure. It follows that $9$ is the "Ramsey number" for this little geometric problem.



Erdös and Szekeres 1935 conjectured the following generalization: Given $geq2^n-2+1$ points in the plane, assumed in general position, you can always select $n$ of them forming the vertices of a convex $n$-gon. In its full generality this conjecture is still open.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • @bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 17 at 8:54










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2885523%2fhappy-ending-problem-polygons%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote













You should carefully read the Wikipedia entry you linked to.



Note that a pentagon here is a closed simple, i.e., not selfintersecting, circuit consisting of five segments and five vertices. It is neither assumed regular nor even convex.



It is a theorem that among $geq9$ different points in the plane, assumed in general position, i.e., no three in a line, you can always select $5$ that form the vertices of a convex pentagon. On the other hand the devil can place $8$ points in the plane such that no convex pentagon can be selected from them. This is the case for the $8$ points in your figure. It follows that $9$ is the "Ramsey number" for this little geometric problem.



Erdös and Szekeres 1935 conjectured the following generalization: Given $geq2^n-2+1$ points in the plane, assumed in general position, you can always select $n$ of them forming the vertices of a convex $n$-gon. In its full generality this conjecture is still open.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • @bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 17 at 8:54














up vote
3
down vote













You should carefully read the Wikipedia entry you linked to.



Note that a pentagon here is a closed simple, i.e., not selfintersecting, circuit consisting of five segments and five vertices. It is neither assumed regular nor even convex.



It is a theorem that among $geq9$ different points in the plane, assumed in general position, i.e., no three in a line, you can always select $5$ that form the vertices of a convex pentagon. On the other hand the devil can place $8$ points in the plane such that no convex pentagon can be selected from them. This is the case for the $8$ points in your figure. It follows that $9$ is the "Ramsey number" for this little geometric problem.



Erdös and Szekeres 1935 conjectured the following generalization: Given $geq2^n-2+1$ points in the plane, assumed in general position, you can always select $n$ of them forming the vertices of a convex $n$-gon. In its full generality this conjecture is still open.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • @bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 17 at 8:54












up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









You should carefully read the Wikipedia entry you linked to.



Note that a pentagon here is a closed simple, i.e., not selfintersecting, circuit consisting of five segments and five vertices. It is neither assumed regular nor even convex.



It is a theorem that among $geq9$ different points in the plane, assumed in general position, i.e., no three in a line, you can always select $5$ that form the vertices of a convex pentagon. On the other hand the devil can place $8$ points in the plane such that no convex pentagon can be selected from them. This is the case for the $8$ points in your figure. It follows that $9$ is the "Ramsey number" for this little geometric problem.



Erdös and Szekeres 1935 conjectured the following generalization: Given $geq2^n-2+1$ points in the plane, assumed in general position, you can always select $n$ of them forming the vertices of a convex $n$-gon. In its full generality this conjecture is still open.






share|cite|improve this answer














You should carefully read the Wikipedia entry you linked to.



Note that a pentagon here is a closed simple, i.e., not selfintersecting, circuit consisting of five segments and five vertices. It is neither assumed regular nor even convex.



It is a theorem that among $geq9$ different points in the plane, assumed in general position, i.e., no three in a line, you can always select $5$ that form the vertices of a convex pentagon. On the other hand the devil can place $8$ points in the plane such that no convex pentagon can be selected from them. This is the case for the $8$ points in your figure. It follows that $9$ is the "Ramsey number" for this little geometric problem.



Erdös and Szekeres 1935 conjectured the following generalization: Given $geq2^n-2+1$ points in the plane, assumed in general position, you can always select $n$ of them forming the vertices of a convex $n$-gon. In its full generality this conjecture is still open.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 17 at 8:55

























answered Aug 17 at 8:39









Christian Blatter

165k7109309




165k7109309











  • @bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 17 at 8:54
















  • @bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
    – Christian Blatter
    Aug 17 at 8:54















@bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
– Christian Blatter
Aug 17 at 8:54




@bof: Thank you for reporting my carelessness. Hope it's o.k. now.
– Christian Blatter
Aug 17 at 8:54












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2885523%2fhappy-ending-problem-polygons%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

Carbon dioxide