Problem 620
Forum rules
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
In particular don't post any code fragments or results.
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
Problem 620
"The circles can overlap."
One could leave this out, as in the sequel the circles are represented by gears, which obviously can't overlap.
Also the drawing suggest that ghost gears that are somehow occupying the same space are not allowed.
So it started out as circles out that roll off each other without sliding, but the remainder to makes it into a Diophantine problem is murky.
Or have I misunderstood the problem totally?
Groetjes Albert
One could leave this out, as in the sequel the circles are represented by gears, which obviously can't overlap.
Also the drawing suggest that ghost gears that are somehow occupying the same space are not allowed.
So it started out as circles out that roll off each other without sliding, but the remainder to makes it into a Diophantine problem is murky.
Or have I misunderstood the problem totally?
Groetjes Albert
 RobertStanforth
 Administrator
 Posts: 1342
 Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:25 pm
Re: Problem 620
Hi Albert,
The 'planet' gears can overlap if they occupy different locations in the $z$ axis (i.e. the direction coming out of the page).
The 'planet' gears can overlap if they occupy different locations in the $z$ axis (i.e. the direction coming out of the page).

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:46 pm
Re: Problem 620
What arrangements are counted as distinct? It doesn't look like two arrangements of gears that differ only in orientation are counted as distinct.
 RobertStanforth
 Administrator
 Posts: 1342
 Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:25 pm
Re: Problem 620
Rotations and reflections do not give rise to distinct arrangements.
Re: Problem 620
Can two planets (with this same circumference) have exactly the same position?
 RobertStanforth
 Administrator
 Posts: 1342
 Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:25 pm
Re: Problem 620
As an epicyclic gear train allows the planets to rotate, what is the meaning of perfectly meshing of gears? Could you show how to drive the whole system? Thanks.
If you'd like to friend me, shoot me a message and I'll give you my friend key
 RobertStanforth
 Administrator
 Posts: 1342
 Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:25 pm

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:46 pm
Re: Problem 620
I left this alone for 2 days and finally solved it on my second attempt today. A comment: some of the clarifications on this section should be included in the problem description. The trouble I had was more about parsing semantics and I made a couple of wrong assumptions which could have been avoided if I had come back to this page earlier. Thanks for an elegant problem.

 Posts: 10
 Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:27 pm
Re: Problem 620
A correct configuration of gears will ALWAYS have their underlying circles as tangent to each other as described in the problem, correct?
How important is the shape of the teeth? If they were more square or more rounded, would it affect the answer? What if the teeth stuck out further or lesser? (Is this what is meant by "pitch" in the problem?)
How important is the shape of the teeth? If they were more square or more rounded, would it affect the answer? What if the teeth stuck out further or lesser? (Is this what is meant by "pitch" in the problem?)
Re: Problem 620
Yes.hexadoodle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:36 pmA correct configuration of gears will ALWAYS have their underlying circles as tangent to each other as described in the problem, correct?
With perfect meshing teeth two connecting gears, represented by their touching circles, will move perfectly in sync, with their angular velocties having the invers ratio of the number of their teeth.How important is the shape of the teeth? If they were more square or more rounded, would it affect the answer? What if the teeth stuck out further or lesser? (Is this what is meant by "pitch" in the problem?)
In the real world, perfectly meshing teeth are difficult to construct, and yes, the hight and the form ot the teeth are both important, but that does not affect the answer in this idealized problem.

 Posts: 471
 Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:30 pm
 Location: India
 Contact:
Re: Problem 620
The question introduces $c, s, p$ and $q$ as circumference of the circles but in the second para says they are the numbers of teeth. Am confused about the interpretation of these values in the final summation. I'm already confused about whether the 'module' is something implicitly given or not?
Many people have solved it so far. Am assuming I'm missing something. But still, can anyone clarify??
Thanks.
Many people have solved it so far. Am assuming I'm missing something. But still, can anyone clarify??
Thanks.
It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment.
 RobertStanforth
 Administrator
 Posts: 1342
 Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:25 pm
Re: Problem 620
The gears have a pitch (i.e. toothtotooth distance) of 1cm. Hence a circle's circumference in centimetres is equal to its number of teeth when it's considered as a gear.
Re: Problem 620
I have been beating my head against a wall with this problem since it was published three weeks ago. In the last couple of days, I feel like I have started to get some traction, but sadly I keep seeing the red X with the despondent little man in it.
I would post some digits or some additional data points that my program is giving me beyond G(20) = 205, but with still fewer than 100 solvers, I am worried that some would feel that it is too soon to post additional information.
Is anyone willing to let me PM them some numbers so you can tell me if I am at least in the ball park?
Thanks,
bunderscore
I would post some digits or some additional data points that my program is giving me beyond G(20) = 205, but with still fewer than 100 solvers, I am worried that some would feel that it is too soon to post additional information.
Is anyone willing to let me PM them some numbers so you can tell me if I am at least in the ball park?
Thanks,
bunderscore
 RobertStanforth
 Administrator
 Posts: 1342
 Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:25 pm
Re: Problem 620
Thank you for not posting partial/intermediate values.amidar1 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:55 pmI would post some digits or some additional data points that my program is giving me beyond G(20) = 205, but with still fewer than 100 solvers, I am worried that some would feel that it is too soon to post additional information.
Is anyone willing to let me PM them some numbers so you can tell me if I am at least in the ball park?
Please be patient: people are still competing for the remaining leaderboard places without external assistance.
Good luck with the problem!
Robert
Re: Problem 620
Understood. Thank you, Robert, for considering.RobertStanforth wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:29 amThank you for not posting partial/intermediate values.
Please be patient: people are still competing for the remaining leaderboard places without external assistance.
Good luck with the problem!
Robert
This problem was quite a journey for me!
Cheers,
bunderscore

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:43 pm
Re: Problem 620
Oh I wasted too much time figuring out what the problem want us to do...
I want to post some clarifications so that future people will have less struggle.
1. Although the shape of teeth does not change answer, the number of teeth matters. Suppose we have a teeth every 0.5cm instead of 1cm, the answer will be different.
2. Circumference is not radius, which is obvious but may be forgotten sometimes.
I want to post some clarifications so that future people will have less struggle.
1. Although the shape of teeth does not change answer, the number of teeth matters. Suppose we have a teeth every 0.5cm instead of 1cm, the answer will be different.
2. Circumference is not radius, which is obvious but may be forgotten sometimes.

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:00 am
Re: Problem 620
I've been reading this problem for a while now and I don't understand what it's asking. Can someone explain what I'm looking at with the given arrangement? I cannot figure out what the constraints on the shapes of the gears are, or what it means that they mesh perfectly.
In particular, if I assume that all circles must be tangent, and that the points of tangency have to be a halfinteger number of centimetres apart, then I get g(16,5,5,6)=0. Why is this assumption wrong?
In particular, if I assume that all circles must be tangent, and that the points of tangency have to be a halfinteger number of centimetres apart, then I get g(16,5,5,6)=0. Why is this assumption wrong?
Re: Problem 620
Hi Dani
Thus, the second part of your assumption is false, as it implies an additional (false) restriction about the relative distance of the inner gears. You need to come up with another restriction resulting from the fact that all gears are connected.
For example, imagine a sticky chewing gum that got into the moving gears and happens to switch gears at some of the tangent touching points (leading to different paths). What can be said about the total length traveled, when the gum eventually happens to return to its starting point?
Take a close look at the illustration given, showing a valid configuration. You can see that the teeth do not interlock with their counterpart teeth in the same relative position at the various touching points of the gears.dani.spivak wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:39 amIn particular, if I assume that all circles must be tangent, and that the points of tangency have to be a halfinteger number of centimetres apart, then I get g(16,5,5,6)=0. Why is this assumption wrong?
Thus, the second part of your assumption is false, as it implies an additional (false) restriction about the relative distance of the inner gears. You need to come up with another restriction resulting from the fact that all gears are connected.
For example, imagine a sticky chewing gum that got into the moving gears and happens to switch gears at some of the tangent touching points (leading to different paths). What can be said about the total length traveled, when the gum eventually happens to return to its starting point?

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:00 am
Re: Problem 620
I see my mistake, the gears do not have to be centred on each other at the same time. I think I have an idea of what you're getting at with the piece of gum analogy, but I'd like to clarify if the following conditions capture the problem:
1) The circles must all be tangent to each other
2) there exists an initial positioning of gear ends every cm on their circumferences, such that when they turn at a rate of 1cm/s (with the inner one in the opposite direction), at each point of tangency exactly 0.5 seconds pass between the gear end of one circle passing and the gear end of the other circle passing.
1) The circles must all be tangent to each other
2) there exists an initial positioning of gear ends every cm on their circumferences, such that when they turn at a rate of 1cm/s (with the inner one in the opposite direction), at each point of tangency exactly 0.5 seconds pass between the gear end of one circle passing and the gear end of the other circle passing.