Clever Danes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As we saw in our discussion of The Tolls of Elsinore, shippers could increase their profits by understating their cargoes' value strategically. Some shippers figured out that they could do even better by bribing the two inspectors who came on board. The King heard that among his eight inspectors at least three were corrupt. The King reasoned that the corrupt inspectors knew one another and that only if both inspectors entering a ship were corrupt would they take the bribe.

So the King arranged with some shippers he trusted to put the inspectors to the test. The trusted ship captains would offer bribes to the inspectors and would then report the cheating pairs to the King. The King thought he would first figure out who was cheating, before punishing anyone.

To that end, however, the King needs some mathematical help. He first asks you to instruct the inspector general to arrange the inspection teams such that a different pair visits each ship. For example, Nils and Bjorn might go to the first ship, Nils and Anders to the second and Bjorn and Anders to the third. Besides those three, the inspectors are Dagmar, Ejnar, Gudrun, Harald and Christofferson.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Warm-Up:

How many different ships would be needed to ensure that each ship received a distinct pair of inspectors?

Solution to warm-up:

The number of distinct pairs that can be created from eight people is "8 choose 2" or 28. One way to figure this out from first principles is to observe that if there were two people, then there is only one pair. With three people, the third person could be paired with either of the first two so there is 1 + 2. With four people, the fourth person could be paired with any of the first three, so 1 + 2 + 3. With 8 people, we have 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28.

The King decides that this approach would require too many honest captains. He asks you whether fewer ships might be sufficient to detect any number of cheating inspectors from three on up.

Problems:

1. How much better can you do (that is, what is the fewest number of ships needed to guarantee finding all the cheaters) if there are at least three cheaters?

Hint: As you'll see, it's easier to find cheaters when there are more of them.

2. Suppose that the cheaters realize they are being put to the test. Each cheater resolves to cheat if and only if he is with another cheater and neither he nor the other cheater took a bribe on the previous ship either of them visited (which may or may not be the same). How many ships would you need then?

Hint: You don't need many more.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe