Suppose that is a subset of such that the sum of any two (not necessarily distinct) elements of is never an element of What is the maximum number of elements may contain?
- A)
- B)
- C)
- D)
- E)
Answer
B
Key insight
{13, …, 25} works (smallest sum 26); if M is the largest element, pairing k with M − k caps the size at (M+1)/2 ≤ 13.
Solution
Construction. Take , which has elements. The smallest possible sum of two elements is , so no sum lands in .
Upper bound. Let be the largest element of . Every other element lies in . Group these numbers into pairs with . If both members of a pair were in , their sum would be in , forbidden. Also, if is even, the number cannot be in , since .
- If is odd, splits into pairs, each contributing at most one element, so .
- If is even, there are pairs plus the excluded , so .
Either way , and is achieved.
The answer is .
Why this works
An extremal problem has two halves: an example showing the value is reachable and an argument that nothing larger works. The natural example is "all large numbers," and the bound comes from pairing numbers that sum to the maximum element, a pigeonhole argument that is the standard tool for sum-free sets. Note that "not necessarily distinct" matters: it is what excludes .
Alternative approach
The odd numbers also form a valid set (odd + odd is even), and it also has elements. Seeing two different constructions of size and none of size supports the answer, but the pairing argument is what proves it.
The trap
Stopping at the construction and assuming a larger set must exist because 13 is the second-smallest choice.
Common mistakes
- Stopping at the construction and assuming a larger set must exist because 13 is the second-smallest choice.
- Forgetting that counts, which would allow into the set and suggest a bound of for even .
Techniques
Consider the largest/smallest element or boundary case · Pigeonhole principle