At a party some guests know each other and some do not. For each guest, count how many of the other guests they know. Could all these counts be different, or must two guests always end up with the same count? This page proves that two counts always agree at every party of at least two people, without knowing who knows whom, and shows which assumptions the proof cannot do without.
Key terms
Party handshake puzzle
Definition A party has guests, where . Any two different guests either know each other or do not. Knowing is mutual, so if one guest knows another, the second also knows the first, and nobody counts themselves. The count of a guest is the number of other guests they know. The puzzle asks us to show that some two different guests always have the same count, whatever the acquaintances are. Each count is one of the numbers , since a guest can know at most the others. The counts and cannot both occur, because a guest with count knows every other guest, so every other guest knows at least that one and has count at least . The counts that occur therefore all lie among or all among . That leaves at most different values for guests, and by the pigeonhole principle two guests share a value. The same puzzle is often told with handshakes, where each pair of guests shakes hands at most once and each guest counts their own handshakes. It promises that some count is shared, not which one, and not that everyone has the same count.
In plain words If somebody knows no one, then nobody knows everyone. So the guests have fewer possible counts than there are guests, and two of them must share a count.
Example Take six guests. The possible counts are six values for six guests, so at first it looks as if each guest could have a different count. That would need one guest with count and another with count , but the guest with count knows the guest with count , which is impossible. In an actual party of six standing in a line, where each guest knows only the people right next to them, the counts are . Several counts are shared here, and the argument above never needed to know which count would repeat.
Pigeonhole principle
Definition If objects are placed in boxes, where and are whole numbers with , then at least one box contains at least two objects. More generally, for any whole numbers and , some box contains at least objects, where means the smallest whole number that is at least . The reason is a count. If every box held fewer than objects, each would hold fewer than , and the boxes together would hold fewer than . The principle says that some box is shared, not which one, and when it promises nothing, since every object could then have a box of its own.
In plain words If there are more pigeons than holes, some hole gets at least two pigeons.
Example Among any people, two were born in the same month, since birthdays go into months. Among any people, some month holds at least birthdays. Twelve people could all have different birth months, so the number cannot be lowered. In the party puzzle the guests are the objects and the counts that can actually occur are the boxes, guests in at most boxes.
Simple graph
Definition A simple graph consists of vertices and edges, where each edge joins two different vertices, any two vertices are joined by at most one edge, and edges have no direction. Two vertices joined by an edge are called neighbors, and the degree of a vertex is its number of neighbors. In a simple graph with vertices every degree is one of , because a vertex can be joined only to the other vertices, and to each of them at most once. A party is a simple graph with the guests as vertices and an edge for each pair of guests who know each other, and the count of a guest is the degree of that vertex. The rules of the puzzle match the definition exactly. Mutual knowing means edges without direction, nobody counting themselves means no edge from a vertex to itself, and counting each pair at most once means at most one edge per pair.
In plain words Dots and lines, where every line joins two different dots, no two lines join the same pair, and the lines have no arrows.
Example Four guests , , and , where knows and , and knows , give a simple graph with the three edges , and . The degrees are for , for , for and for , each at most . The graph of the seven bridges of Königsberg is not simple, since two bridges join the island to each bank.
Degree sequence
Definition The degree sequence of a graph is the list of the degrees of its vertices, usually written from largest to smallest. The degree sequence of a simple graph with vertices has three properties. Every entry is between and . The entries add up to twice the number of edges, since each edge adds to the degrees of both of its ends, so the sum is even and the number of odd entries is even. Finally, the entries and never both appear. These conditions are necessary only. A list can have all three properties and still not be the degree sequence of any simple graph.
In plain words Write down how many people each guest knows. Not every list can occur, and the restrictions on the list are what force two counts to agree.
Example The six guests in a line have degree sequence , with sum , twice the acquainted pairs. The list for four guests has all three properties, since its entries lie between and , its sum is even, and it contains no . Still no party has these counts. Two guests with count each know all three others, so each of the remaining two guests knows both of them and has count at least , not .
Vertices of equal degree
Definition Every simple graph with at least two vertices has two different vertices of the same degree. Both conditions matter. A graph with one vertex has no pair to compare, and when edges may repeat or have a direction, the degrees can all be different, as the example and the questions below show. The theorem guarantees at least one pair of equal degrees, but it does not say which degree repeats, and it does not say that all the degrees are equal. In fact, for every there are simple graphs with vertices in which exactly two vertices share a degree and all the other degrees are different.
In plain words In any network of mutual connections among two or more members, with at most one connection between any two members and nobody connected to themselves, at least two members have the same number of connections.
Example Following someone on a social network is not mutual, and there the conclusion fails. Put people in a row and let each one follow everyone later in the row. The first follows people, the next , and so on down to the last, who follows nobody, so the follow counts are all different. The proof for parties breaks at the step that ruled out and together. The first person follows the last, but the last person does not have to follow back.
Check yourself
- List every possible pattern of counts at a party of three guests, and check that two counts always agree.
Show the answer
Three guests form three pairs, and any number of these pairs from to can be acquainted. With no acquainted pair the counts are . With one pair, the two guests in it have count and the third has count , giving . With two pairs, one guest belongs to both and has count , and the other two have count , giving . With all three pairs every guest has count . In each of the four cases two counts agree, as the theorem says, and the counts and never appear together.
- Suppose the guests count handshakes, and two guests are now allowed to shake hands more than once. Must two guests still have the same count? Which step of the proof breaks?
Show the answer
No. Take three guests , and , where and shake hands twice and and shake hands once. The counts are for , for and for , all different. The proof used the fact that a count is at most , here , because a guest can shake hands with each of the others at most once. With repeated handshakes the guest reaches , so the counts are no longer limited to the values , there are no longer fewer available counts than guests, and the pigeonhole principle has nothing to say. In graph language, the drawing has two edges between and , so it is not a simple graph.
- At a party of five, can it happen that exactly two guests share a count while the other three counts are different from each other and from the shared one? If so, which count is shared?
Show the answer
It can happen, and the shared count is always . In such a party the five counts take exactly four different values. They lie between and and do not include both and , so the four values are or . Call the shared value . The sum of all five counts is twice the number of acquainted pairs, so it is even.
With the values the sum is , so is even, which means or . If , two guests know everybody, so each of the other three guests knows both of them and has count at least , and nobody could have count . So .
With the values the sum is , so is or . If , two guests know nobody, so each of the other three guests can know only the other two of those three and has count at most , and nobody could have count . So again .
Both cases really occur. Let the guests be , , , and , let know everyone, and let also know and . The counts are for , for , for and , and for . In the opposite party, where two guests know each other exactly when they did not before, each count becomes , giving . In both, only the count is shared.