DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2002.06990V1 [Quant-Ph] 17 Feb 2020 and Postselected Quantum Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2002.06990V1 [Quant-Ph] 17 Feb 2020 and Postselected Quantum Systems Footprints of quantum pigeons Gregory Reznik,1 Shrobona Bagchi,1 Justin Dressel,2, 3 and Lev Vaidman1, 2 1Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel 2Institute for Quantum Studies, Chapman University, Orange CA 92866, USA 3Schmid College of Science and Technology, Chapman University, Orange CA 92866, USA (Dated: February 18, 2020) We show that in the mathematical framework of the quantum theory the classical pigeonhole principle can be violated more directly than previously suggested, i.e., in a setting closer to the traditional statement of the principle. We describe how the counterfactual reasoning of the paradox may be operationally grounded in the analysis of the tiny footprints left in the environment by the pigeons. After identifying the drawbacks of recent experiments of the quantum pigeonhole effect, we argue that a definitive experimental violation of the pigeonhole principle is still needed and propose such an implementation using modern quantum computing hardware: a superconducting circuit with transmon qubits. I. INTRODUCTION A somewhat weaker failure of the classical pigeonhole principle can be obtained when the holes are also quan- Quantum paradoxes describe phenomena that would tum (e.g. spin states), since it is less surprising that be impossible if Nature strictly obeyed classical intrinsically quantum features do not follow classical physics. Quantum mechanics presents many para- rules. doxes. A particular class of quantum paradoxes arises Even if the \holes" in such a scenario are classical, when we consider quantum systems between an initial we still have to clarify the meaning of a \quantum pi- preparation and final measurement. Notable examples geon being in a hole". Standard quantum mechanics of such pre- and postselection paradoxes include the does not have a clear answer to the question: Where three-box paradox [1] where it is inferred that a parti- was a particle in between a preselection and postselec- cle with certainty has been in two distinct locations si- tion? In classical physics, the statement \this pigeon is multaneously, and the Hardy paradox [2] where it is in- in that hole" can be tested in parallel by many differ- ferred that each particle of a particle-antiparticle pair ent measurements that do not affect the situation. We has traveled through the same region of space with- do not assume this for quantum pigeons, because mea- out appearing there together. A more recent example surements performed on a quantum object generally is the quantum pigeonhole paradox [3, 4] where one change its state. A quantum pigeon can be prepared places a number of particles into a smaller number of in a superposition of several spatial locations, which boxes and infers that no two particles had occupied the also makes statements about such a pigeon occupying same box. This latter paradox has prompted extensive a particular hole not clearly defined. The exception is discussion and several experimental implementations when a quantum pigeon is described by a well-localized [5{9]. We revisit this pigeonhole paradox and propose wave packet with support only in one hole, in which a conceptually stronger variation. We also suggest case no paradoxical behavior arises. So, we need to that the existing experimental implementations have carefully define what we mean by a quantum pigeon not yet definitively demonstrated the paradox. occupying a particular hole. We will use the following The classical pigeonhole principle states that if one definition [11]: puts N pigeons into M pigeonholes, such that N > M, If we can infer with certainty [that] the re- then there must be at least one pigeonhole that con- sult of a measurement at time t of an ob- tains more than one pigeon. It was formulated by servable C equals to c, then C = c is an Dirichlet in the 19th century [10] and is widely used element of reality. in number theory and combinatorics. The principle In our case: If we can infer with certainty that the seems obvious and formalizes the fundamental concept measurement at time t of the presence of the pigeon of counting, yet it can be apparently violated by pre- in a particular hole would yield a positive result, then arXiv:2002.06990v1 [quant-ph] 17 Feb 2020 and postselected quantum systems. the pigeon was in the hole at time t. For a quantum system that is only preselected, a measurement outcome C = c will be obtained with II. ELEMENTS OF REALITY certainty only if the system is prepared in an eigen- state of C. However, when the system is both pre- To demonstrate a quantum violation of the classical and postselected, the condition for obtaining measure- pigeonhole principle one prepares a particular super- ment outcome C = c with certainty is different. position of N (quantum) pigeons distributed into M For a system preselected in a state jΨi and postse- (classical) holes, then later measures another particu- lected in a state jΦi, the probability for a particular lar superposition of the N pigeons. In between the result of an intermediate measurement is given by the preparation and a successful postselection one then Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) formula [12] predicts with certainty that any particular hole does jhΦjP jΨij2 not contain more than one pigeon. Moreover, this C=c Prob(C = c) = 2 2 : surprising prediction may be checked experimentally jhΦjPC=cjΨij + jhΦjPC6=cjΨij by placing a probe to count the pigeons in any box. (1) 2 Thus, the requirement for C = c to be an element of or zero pigeons: reality, i.e. Prob(C = c) = 1, becomes: ≤1 Y (m) X (j) Y (m) PX = P + PX P : (4) ( X X C = c is an element hΦjP jΨi 6= 0 m fjg m6=j () C=c : of reality hΦjPC6=cjΨi = 0 For the pigeonhole principle to fail, the observ- ≤1 (2) able C = PX should be inferred to have the value c = 1 with certainty for either choice of X. Since ≤1 >1 Provided that the postselection becomes impossible PC=1 = PX and PC6=1 = PX , (1) produces the fol- when C 6= c, we can infer that C would be measured lowing requirements: to be c with certainty when the postselection succeeds. ≤1 >1 The measurement in this definition is understood hΦjPX jΨi 6= 0; hΦjPX jΨi = 0: (5) as counterfactual, i.e., it did not necessarily happen. However, it is assumed that if the measurement of C had been performed, then it must have been the only A. How to place four pigeons in two holes with not more than one pigeon in each hole measurement on the system between the pre- and post- selection. Making more than one measurement would change the scenario and disrupt the inference. Even if We now demonstrate the failure of the pigeonhole the parts of the system are far away, performing mea- principle with four pigeons in two pigeonholes, mod- surement on one part can influence possible outcomes eled as four particles in two boxes. (We do not expect of the measurement of other parts. to perform experiments with real quantum pigeons.) A single measurement of the presence of more than one particle in any of the holes, yields with certainty >1 PX = 0. We prepare the particles in the initial state III. VIOLATING THE PIGEONHOLE PRINCIPLE WITH N PIGEONS IN TWO 1 jΨi = p jAi1jAi2jAi3jAi4 + jAi1jAi2jBi3jBi4+ HOLES 3 jBi jBi jBi jBi ; The classical pigeonhole principle is a global state- 1 2 3 4 ment about all holes: there should exist at least one (6) hole with a particular property (having more than one pigeon). We will now show for quantum mechanics then postselect the particles in the final state: that given a particular pre- and postselection scenario 1 we can infer with certainty that we will not find more jΦi = p jAi1jAi2jAi3jAi4 − jAi1jAi2jBi3jBi4+ than one pigeon in a single hole that we check. The 3 paradoxical situation is that we are certain not to find jBi1jBi2jBi3jBi4 : more than one pigeon in any one of the holes we try, no (7) matter how many times we try to find a hole contain- ing more than one pigeon. Nature seems to conspire Our requirements for (2) are then satisfied: against the experimenter by always hiding multiple pi- geons from view, provided that the experimenter only 1 1 hΦjP>1jΨi = (1 − 1) = 0; hΦjP≤1jΨi = : (8) checks one box at a time and obtains a successful post- A 3 A 3 selection. We consider N pigeons placed in two pigeonholes A Similarly, and B. The pigeons may be partitioned into subsets of 1 labeled pairs fj; kg, triples fj; k; lg and so forth. The hΦjP>1jΨi = 0; hΦjP≤1jΨi = : (9) B B 3 statement that pigeonhole X contains more than one pigeon then corresponds to the projection operator If we were to try to find more than one particle in box A between pre- and postselection, then we would be X Y (m) Y (m) certain to fail. Similarly, if we were to try to find more P>1 = P P + X X X than one particle in box B, we would be certain to fj;kg m=j;k m6=j;k fail. No matter how many times we attempt to find X Y (m) Y (m) Y (m) P P + ::: + P ; (3) multiple particles in any single box, we would fail. X X X fj;k;lg m=j;k;l m6=j;k;l m In fact, our example demonstrates even stronger vi- olation of classical reasoning. We put four particles (j) in two boxes such that there are no particles at all in where PX = jXijhXjj denotes the projection on a 0 =0 every box! That is, an observable C = PX testing state in which pigeon j is present in hole X, P(j) = X whether there are zero particles in box X will show I(j) − P(j) denotes the complementary projection on with certainty that there are none, c0 = 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1. Combinatorial Theory 1.3: No More Counting Please 1.3.1
    Chapter 1. Combinatorial Theory 1.3: No More Counting Please Slides (Google Drive) Alex Tsun Video (YouTube) In this section, we don't really have a nice successive ordering where one topic leads to the next as we did earlier. This section serves as a place to put all the final miscellaneous but useful concepts in counting. 1.3.1 Binomial Theorem n We talked last time about binomial coefficients of the form k . Today, we'll see how they are used to prove the binomial theorem, which we'll use more later on. For now, we'll see how they can be used to expand (possibly large) exponents below. You may have learned this technique of FOIL (first, outer, inner, last) for expanding (x + y)2. We then combine like-terms (xy and yx). (x + y)2 = (x + y)(x + y) = xx + xy + yx + yy [FOIL] = x2 + 2xy + y2 But, let's say that we wanted to do this for a binomial raised to some higher power, say (x + y)4. There would be a lot more terms, but we could use a similar approach. 1 2 Probability & Statistics with Applications to Computing 1.3 (x + y)4 = (x + y)(x + y)(x + y)(x + y) = xxxx + yyyy + xyxy + yxyy + ::: But what are the terms exactly that are included in this expression? And how could we combine the like-terms though? Notice that each term will be a mixture of x's and y's. In fact, each term will be in the form xkyn−k (in this case n = 4).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 6: Entropy
    Matthew Schwartz Statistical Mechanics, Spring 2019 Lecture 6: Entropy 1 Introduction In this lecture, we discuss many ways to think about entropy. The most important and most famous property of entropy is that it never decreases Stot > 0 (1) Here, Stot means the change in entropy of a system plus the change in entropy of the surroundings. This is the second law of thermodynamics that we met in the previous lecture. There's a great quote from Sir Arthur Eddington from 1927 summarizing the importance of the second law: If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equationsthen so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observationwell these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of ther- modynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Another possibly relevant quote, from the introduction to the statistical mechanics book by David Goodstein: Ludwig Boltzmann who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics. There are many ways to dene entropy. All of them are equivalent, although it can be hard to see. In this lecture we will compare and contrast dierent denitions, building up intuition for how to think about entropy in dierent contexts. The original denition of entropy, due to Clausius, was thermodynamic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pigeonhole Principle
    The Pigeonhole Principle The pigeonhole principle is the following: If m objects are placed into n bins, where m > n, then some bin contains at least two objects. (We proved this in Lecture #02) Why This Matters ● The pigeonhole principle can be used to show a surprising number of results must be true because they are “too big to fail.” ● Given a large enough number of objects with a bounded number of properties, eventually at least two of them will share a property. ● The applications are extremely deep and thought-provoking. Using the Pigeonhole Principle ● To use the pigeonhole principle: ● Find the m objects to distribute. ● Find the n < m buckets into which to distribute them. ● Conclude by the pigeonhole principle that there must be two objects in some bucket. ● The details of how to proceeds from there are specific to the particular proof you're doing. Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s. Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s. 1 11 111 1111 11111 There are 10 objects here. 111111 1111111 11111111 111111111 1111111111 Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s. 0 1 11 1 111 2 1111 11111 3 111111 4 1111111 11111111 5 111111111 6 1111111111 7 8 Theorem: For any natural number n, there is a nonzero multiple of n whose digits are all 0s and 1s.
    [Show full text]
  • Formalization of Some Central Theorems in Combinatorics of Finite
    Kalpa Publications in Computing Volume 1, 2017, Pages 43–57 LPAR-21S: IWIL Workshop and LPAR Short Presentations Formalization of some central theorems in combinatorics of finite sets Abhishek Kr Singh School of Technology and Computer Science, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai [email protected] Abstract We present fully formalized proofs of some central theorems from combinatorics. These are Dilworth’s decomposition theorem, Mirsky’s theorem, Hall’s marriage theorem and the Erdős-Szekeres theorem. Dilworth’s decomposition theorem is the key result among these. It states that in any finite partially ordered set (poset), the size of a smallest chain cover and a largest antichain are the same. Mirsky’s theorem is a dual of Dilworth’s decomposition theorem, which states that in any finite poset, the size of a smallest antichain cover and a largest chain are the same. We use Dilworth’s theorem in the proofs of Hall’s Marriage theorem and the Erdős-Szekeres theorem. The combinatorial objects involved in these theorems are sets and sequences. All the proofs are formalized in the Coq proof assistant. We develop a library of definitions and facts that can be used as a framework for formalizing other theorems on finite posets. 1 Introduction Formalization of any mathematical theory is a difficult task because the length of a formal proof blows up significantly. In combinatorics the task becomes even more difficult due to the lack of structure in the theory. Some statements often admit more than one proof using completely different ideas. Thus, exploring dependencies among important results may help in identifying an effective order amongst them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pigeonhole Principle
    Prof. Jim Loveys Rosalie Bélanger-Rioux MATH 352 : Problem Seminar 260235216 The Pigeonhole Principle The pigeonhole principle, also known as Dirichlet’s box or drawer principle, is a very straightforward principle which is stated as follows : Given n boxes and m > n objects, at least one box must contain more than one object. This was first stated in 1834 by Dirichlet. The proof is very easy : assume we are given n boxes and m > n objects. Then suppose, to the contrary, that no box contains more than one object, i. e., all n boxes contain either 0 or 1 object. This implies that the total number of objects, m, is smaller than or equal to n. This contradicts our hypothesis, and so the pigeonhole principle is true. Of course, this principle has many formulations and variations. For example, if n objects are put into n boxes, then at least one box is empty iff one box contains more than one object. Let us now give a more formal statement of Dirichlet’s box principle : There exists a one-one correspondence between two finite sets A and B, f : A -> B iff their number of elements is the same, i. E., |A| = |B|. No matter how we state the pigeonhole principle, using it in a problem solving situation implies two things : finding your “boxes” and finding your “objects”. The nice thing about this is that just about anything in mathematics can be made a “box” (a polygon, a volume in space, an edge, a color, a distance, an interval, a value…) or an “object” (a point, a polynomial, a vertex, a line…) to one’s liking.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Cardinal Numbers and the Axiom of Choice Equinumerosity March 18 & 20, 2014
    Elements of Set Theory Chapter 6: Cardinal Numbers and The Axiom of Choice Equinumerosity March 18 & 20, 2014 Lecturer: Fan Yang 1/28 2/28 What is the size of a set? X = f , , , g Y = f , , , , g ! = f0; 1; 2; 3; 4;::: g Do A and B have the same size? Does A have more elements than B? Are there exactly as many houses as people? Y has more elements than X. Yes, since there are 5 houses and 5 people. The infinite set ! has more elements than the finite sets X and Y . Yes, since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two Do ! and Z have the same size? What about Q and Z? sets. 0 1 2 3 ! Definition 6.1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Z A set A is said to be equinumerous or equipotent to a set B (written 3 1 11 − 2 2 4 A ≈ B) iff there is a bijection from A onto B. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Q A bijection from A onto B is also called a one-to-one correspondence Given two infinite sets A and B, how to compare their sizes? between sets A and B. 3/28 4/28 Example 6.1: Let A = fa; b; c; dg and B = fa; b; cg. Then A 6≈ B, since there is no bijection from A onto B. In general, for any two finite sets X and Y , if Y ⊂ X, then X 6≈ Y . Consider the following infinite sets. Clearly, Even ⊂ !.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mathematical Infinite As a Matter of Method
    Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science Vol.20 (2012) 1～13 1 The Mathematical Infinite as a Matter of Method Akihiro Kanamori∗ Abstract I address the historical emergence of the mathematical infinite, and how we are to take the infinite in and out of mathematics. The thesis is that the mathe- matical infinite in mathematics is a matter of method. The infinite, of course, is a large topic. At the outset, one can historically dis- cern two overlapping clusters of concepts: (1) wholeness, completeness, universality, absoluteness. (2) endlessness, boundlessness, indivisibility, continuousness. The first, the metaphysical infinite, I shall set aside. It is the second, the mathematical infinite, that I will address. Furthermore, I will address the mathematical infinite by con- sidering its historical emergence in set theory and how we are to take the infinite in and out of mathematics. Insofar as physics and, more broadly, science deals with the mathematical infinite through mathematical language and techniques, my remarks should be subsuming and consequent. The main underlying point is that how the mathematical infinite is approached, assimilated, and applied in mathematics is not a matter of “ontological commitment”, of coming to terms with whatever that might mean, but rather of epistemological articulation, of coming to terms through knowledge. The mathematical infinite in mathematics is a matter of method. How we deal with the specific individual is- sues involving the infinite turns on the narrative we present about how it fits into methodological mathematical frameworks established and being established. The first section discusses the mathematical infinite in historical context, and the second, set theory and the emergence of the mathematical infinite.
    [Show full text]
  • Math and Proofs Class 5
    Math and Proofs Class 5 October 24th, 2017 Recap of Last Class We looked at equivalence relations, functions, and bijections. At the very end, we started to talk about cardinality. This class: more about cardinality Math and Proofs October 24th, 2017 2 / 9 Recap: Functions and Bijections Let A and B be sets A function from A to B is a set of ordered pairs where the first element in each pair is in A and the second is in B AND each input element appears exactly once. A bijection is a function where each output element appears exactly once too. Math and Proofs October 24th, 2017 3 / 9 Cardinality Two sets A and B are equivalent if there's a bijection between them. Remember what this means: A and B are equivalent if they have the same number of elements Math and Proofs October 24th, 2017 4 / 9 Application of Cardinality for Finite Sets: Pigeonhole Principle Pigeonhole Principle: If you put n pigeons in m pigeonholes and n > m, then there must be a hole with more than one pigeon. Examples: Prove that in any room with at least 8 people, at least two of them were born on the same day of the week. Minneapolis has 413,000 people. Humans have no more than 300,000 hairs of their heads. Prove that there are (at least) two people in Minneapolis with the same number of hairs on their heads. Suppose 5 points are chosen in (or on) the equilateral triangle of side length 1 inch. Prove that there are two points in the triangle that are 1 no farther than 2 inch apart.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pigeonhole Principle Functions
    The Pigeonhole Principle & Functions ProblemProblem SetSet TwoTwo duedue inin thethe boxbox upup front.front. The pigeonhole principle is the following: If m objects are placed into n bins, where m > n, then some bin contains at least two objects. (We sketched a proof in Lecture #02) Why This Matters ● The pigeonhole principle can be used to show results must be true because they are “too big to fail.” ● Given a large enough number of objects with a bounded number of properties, eventually at least two of them will share a property. ● Can be used to prove some surprising results. Using the Pigeonhole Principle ● To use the pigeonhole principle: ● Find the m objects to distribute. ● Find the n < m buckets into which to distribute them. ● Conclude by the pigeonhole principle that there must be two objects in some bucket. ● The details of how to proceeds from there are specific to the particular proof you're doing. A Surprising Application Theorem: Suppose that every point in the real plane is colored either red or blue. Then for any distance d > 0, there are two points exactly distance d from one another that are the same color. Proof: Consider any equilateral triangle whose side lengths areThought:Thought: d. Put ThereThere this are aretriangle twotwo colorscolors anywhere here,here, soso if ifin we wethe plane. By startthestart pigeonhole pickingpicking points,points, principle, we'llwe'll bebe droppingdropping because themthem there are three vertices,intointo oneone two ofof two twoof bucketsthebuckets vertices (red(red oror must blue).blue). have the same color. These vertices are at distance d from each other, asHowHow required.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Counting, Pigeonholing, Permutations 1 Counting By
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology Course Notes 8 6.042J/18.062J, Fall ’02: Mathematics for Computer Science Professor Albert Meyer and Dr. Radhika Nagpal Basic Counting, Pigeonholing, Permutations 1 Counting by Matching Counting is a theme throughout discrete mathematics: how many leaves in a tree, minimal color­ ings of a graph, trees with a given set of vertices, five-card hands in a deck of fifty-two, consistent rankings of players in a tournament, stable marriages given boy’s and girl’s preferences, and so on. A good way to count things is to match up things to be counted with other things that we know how to count. We saw an example of this early in the term when we counted the size of a powerset of a set of size n by finding an exact matching between elements of the powerset and the 2n binary strings of length n. The matching doesn’t have to be exact, i.e., a bijection, to be informative. For example, suppose we want to determine the cardinality of the set of watches in the 6.042 classroom on a typical day. The set of watches can be correlated with the set of people in the room; specifically, for each person there is at most one watch (at least, let’s assume this). Now we know something about the cardinality of the set of students, since there are only 146 people signed up for 6.042. There are also three lecturers and eight TA’s, and these would typically be the only nonstudents in the room.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Combinatorics University of Toronto Scarborough Lecture Notes
    Introduction to Combinatorics University of Toronto Scarborough Lecture Notes Stefanos Aretakis July 4, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Introduction . .2 1.2 The prisoners' Problem . .3 1.3 Solution to the prisoners' Problem . .3 1.4 Combinatorial Principles: Contradiction, Reduction and Induction . .5 2 The Pigeonhole Principle 5 2.1 Theory . .5 2.2 Systematic approach . .6 2.3 Solved Problems . .6 2.4 Ramsey Theory . 12 2.5 Erd¨os{Szekeres Theorem . 14 2.6 Diophantine Approximations . 16 2.7 Practice Problems . 18 3 The Principle of Extremals 19 3.1 Theory . 19 3.2 Solved Problems . 19 3.3 Practice Problems . 22 4 The Principle of Invariants 23 4.1 Theory . 23 4.2 Solved Problems . 23 4.3 Semi-invariants . 26 4.4 Practice Problems . 26 5 Permutations and Combinations 27 5.1 Additive and Multiplicative Principle . 27 5.2 Solved Problems . 28 5.3 Permutations . 29 5.4 Combinations . 30 1 5.5 Identities of the binomial coefficients . 31 5.6 Practice Problems . 33 6 Combinations with Repetition 33 6.1 Solutions to linear equations . 35 6.2 The Path Problem . 36 6.3 Practice Problems . 37 7 Inclusion{Exclusion principle 37 7.1 Theory . 37 7.2 Solved Problems . 38 7.3 Practice Problems . 39 8 Recurrence Relations 40 8.1 Theory . 40 8.2 Solved Problems . 41 8.3 Practice Problems . 45 9 Generating Functions 46 9.1 Theory . 46 9.2 Solved Problems . 51 9.3 Applications in recurrence relations . 56 9.4 Practice Problems . 58 10 Partitions of Natural Numbers 59 10.1 Theory .
    [Show full text]
  • Counting and Probability Counting and Probability
    CHAPTER 9 COUNTING AND PROBABILITY Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. SECTION 9.4 The Pigeonhole Principle Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. The Pigeonhole Principle The pigeonhole principle states that if n pigeons fly into m pigeonholes and n > m, then at least one hole must contain two or more pigeons. This principle is illustrated in Figure 9.4.1 for n = 5 and m = 4. (a) (b) Figure 9.4.1 3 The Pigeonhole Principle Illustration (a) shows the pigeons perched next to their holes, and (b) shows the correspondence from pigeons to pigeonholes. The pigeonhole principle is sometimes called the Dirichlet box principle because it was first stated formally by J. P. G. L. Dirichlet (1805–1859). Illustration (b) suggests the following mathematical way to phrase the principle. 4 Example 1 – Applying the Pigeonhole Principle a. In a group of six people, must there be at least two who were born in the same month? In a group of thirteen people, must there be at least two who were born in the same month? Why? b. Among the residents of New York City, must there be at least two people with the same number of hairs on their heads? Why? 5 Example 1(a) – Solution A group of six people need not contain two who were born in the same month. For instance, the six people could have birthdays in each of the six months January through June. A group of thirteen people, however, must contain at least two who were born in the same month, for there are only twelve months in a year and 13 > 12.
    [Show full text]