and thus abandoned that strategy. I went on to create elaborate codes using the 4 cards, noting someuseless points as well as one important one: if the mathematicians pre-agree on a certain ordering of the 52 cards of the deck then they can both see the same "code" for any 4 cards in the followingmanner. The one that is first in the ordering is given a 1, and so on, so that any of the 24 combina-tions of the digits 1,2,3 and 4 may be communicated. I attempted to make use of the special cases of the cards, i.e. where there are 2 of a kind, 3 of a kind, and so on, and use that to indicate the value.That kind of information proved difficult and sometimes impossible to translate, making the solutiona sub 100% one.The 100% solution is this: First, use the first card to indicate the suit. Then, using the same codingtechnique among the remaining 3 cards, we can create 6 different codes: {{1,2,3}, {1,3,2}, ...{3,2,1}}. The way we "double" that 6 to create 12 codes is by picking which of the two cards thathad the same suit to keep (and thus making use of that card's value). We pick the one that is less thanor equal to 6 "less" than the other one, working mod 13. For example, given the 8 and 3 of hearts,we keep the 3, since it is 5 less than 8; given the 8 and Ace (1) of hearts, we keep the 8 because it is 6less than 1 (1-6 = -5 = 8 mod 13). We could have also picked the one that is less than or equal to 6greater than the other one, it doesn't matter; all that does is that both mathematicians know whichdirection they are working. Finally, we code the number our chosen card is less than the other onewith the remaining 3 cards. Once that is done, we hand over the pile; the other mathematician seesthe suit of the card, and knows to add some number to its value to obtain that of the unknown card.The similar principle between this problem and the next is the crux of both: that there always existsthat "ordering" of the two numbers between 1 and 13 so that their difference has absolute value lessthan or equal to 6. (The second problem uses the geometric analog of this discrete integer principle.)So, how can Amayak and Arutyun preform this super trick? Similarly, it has many (even more, infact) very-close solutions: note first that just drawing a random semi-circle gives you a 50% chance,and it isn't particularly hard to do better. However, the 100% solution is just that; it does require ashort lemma, to prove the existence of the "chain" we'll be using (equivalent to the pair of #'s in thecard trick).

2

Magic Tricks.nb

Lemma:

For any arrangement of

N

points on a circle,

a series of points of size

N

, i.e. an ordering

P

1

,

P

2

,...

P

N

so that each

P

i

is adjacent on the circumference to

P

i

1

and

P

i

1

(mod

N

), and thedistance between

P

i

and

P

i

1

clockwise along the circumference of the circle is less than or equal to

Π

, assuming a unit circle,

i

Ε

1,

N

. (Note: This does not require

P

N

be less than or equal to

Π

units from

P

1

.)Proof: Assume that such an ordering doesn't exist. Then there must be some troublesome point, i.e.one that is more than

Π

from the point "behind" it in our sequencing. Then we simply have to recre-ate the ordering again, starting at this "troublesome point;" since it was more than

Π

from the pointbehind it, it must be less than

Π

from the point in front of it because the circle has circumference 2

Π

and all the points are distinct, and so the ordering should work. After doing so, we realize that therecannot be any more troublesome points, because the first troublesome point's existence implies thatthere are no points at all on

12

of the circumference, and thus the cycle just has to start at the firstpoint in the other

12

of the circle, and the resulting series can never violate our conditions.

Let's take a look at some examples:

Magic Tricks.nb

3

scribd