Extremal Uniquely Resolvable Multisets

Abstract: For positive integers $n$ and $m$, consider a multiset of non-empty subsets of $[m]$ such that there is a \textit{unique} partition of these subsets into $n$ partitions of $[m]$. We study the maximum possible size $g(n,m)$ of such a multiset. We focus on the regime $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$ and show that $g(n,m) \geq \Omega(\frac{nm}{\log_2 n})$. When $n = 2^{cm}$ for any $c \in (0,1)$, this lower bound simplifies to $\Omega(\frac{n}{c})$, and we show a matching upper bound $g(n,m) \leq O(\frac{n}{c}\log_2(\frac{1}{c}))$ that is optimal up to a factor of $\log_2(\frac{1}{c})$. We also compute $g(n,m)$ exactly when $n \geq 2^{m-1} - O(2^{\frac{m}{2}})$.

\section{Introduction}

In this paper, we study the maximum size of a multiset that admits a certain kind of unique partition. This problem was originally motivated by attempting to count the minimum number of rules required to guarantee the existence of a unique solution for a logic based problem called the zebra puzzle.

Fix $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. Let $\mathcal{F} = \{C_1,\ldots,C_k\}$ be a multiset consisting of non-empty subsets of $[m] = \{1,\ldots,m\}$. Suppose there exists a \textit{unique} partition $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $[k]$ such that for each $i \in [n]$, $\sqcup_{j \in A_i} C_j = [m]$ is a disjoint partition of $[m]$.

\[\textbf{Question: } \textit{What is the size $g(n,m)$ of the largest such multiset?}\]

This question is related to the study of block designs. We refer the reader to \cite{block} for a thorough treatment. Here, we include some basic definitions. Let $X$ be a finite set. A block design $(X,\mathcal{F})$ on $X$ is a collection $\mathcal{F}$ of subsets of $X$. $(X,\mathcal{F})$ is said to be $t$-\textit{balanced} if every $t$-subset of $X$ is a subset of exactly $\lambda$ blocks in $\mathcal{F}$. Block designs are almost always assumed to be \textit{uniform}, which means that every set in $\mathcal{F}$ must have the same cardinality. However, \textit{non-uniform} block designs are also studied. For example, pairwise balanced designs studied in \cite{pbd} are block designs with $t=2$ and non-uniform block sizes. Lastly, a block design is called \textit{resolvable} if we can partition $\mathcal{F}$ into classes such that the sets in each class form a partition of $X$ \cite{block}.

Let $X = [m]$ and $\mathcal{F}$ a collection of non-empty subsets of $[m]$. Our question is related to 1-balanced block designs, where every element $i \in [m]$ appears in $\lambda = n$ subsets of $[m]$. Further, we require $(X,\mathcal{F})$ to be \textit{uniquely} resolvable. As we will see later, in our regime of $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$, we need not include $[m]$ in $\mathcal{F}$, and no other set can be repeated without violating unique resolvability. To summarize, for parameters $n,m \in \mathbb{N}$, our problem can be viewed as determining the largest possible size of a non-uniform 1-balanced block design on $[m]$ with $\lambda = n$ that is uniquely resolvable.

However, since prior work has focused on uniform designs, we will merely borrow some terms such as resolvability for convenience, as opposed to viewing our problem as a question in block design.

The zebra puzzle is often used as a benchmark in testing algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems. The problem states that there are 5 people, each with a distinct attributes like nationality, color of house, preferred drink, preferred cigarette brand and pet. Examples of constraints include `The Englishman lives in the Red house', `Coffee is drunk in the Green house' and `The Spaniard owns the dog'. The puzzle then asks for the identity of the person with a zebra as a pet \cite{wiki}. Given enough rules, it is possible to determine exactly the attributes of every person. Motivated by this problem, we consider the minimum number of rules required to uniquely specify a solution for an arbitrary instance of the problem with $n$ people and $m$ attributes. In our formulation, we only permit rules that can be expressed as $2$-tuples, such as (Coffee, Green House) or (Spaniard, Dog) and do not permit compound rules. The minimum number of rules required in this formulation is $nm - g(n,m)$, where $g(n,m)$ is the size of the multiset discussed above. We provide a small example below to illustrate the correspondence.

\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{images_pdf/fig1.pdf}

    \caption{This corresponds to the case $(n,m) = (2,5)$. The rules of the puzzle here are (Red,Coffee), (Dog,Math), (Tennis,Dog) and (Tea,Cat). We number the attributes Color, Drink, Pet, Subject, Sport from 1 to 5 and create the corresponding multiset $\mathcal{F} = \{\{1,2\},\{3,4,5\},\{1\},\{2,3\},\{4\},\{5\}\}$. Given these rules, we know that one person must have the attributes (Red,Coffee,Dog,Math,Tennis) and the other person must have (Blue,Tea,Cat,CS,Chess). If we have an optimal number of rules that guarantees a unique solution to the puzzle, in any row with $k$ rules, we will have $m-k$ sets in the corresponding multiset diagram. So if $g(n,m)$ maximizes the number of sets that can be uniquely partitioned, it is easy to see why the optimal number of rules must be $nm-g(n,m)$.}
    \label{fig1}
\end{figure}

While this puzzle provides some motivation, the question itself is a very natural extremal combinatorics problem. The rest of this paper will not assume any knowledge about the puzzle.

\subsection{Main Results}

We first prove a simple result that $g(2,m) = m+1$ (Theorem 12) and introduce the Subset Criterion (Lemma 13), a useful tool for further analysis. The subset criterion reveals that for $n > 2^{m-1} - 1$, any extremal multiset must have at least $n-2^{m-1}+1$ copies of the whole set $[m]$ to maintain uniqueness, which is not particularly exciting. We focus on the more interesting regime of $n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$, for which we establish the following results.

\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] \textbf{Theorem 23:} Suppose $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$. Then
$g(n,m) > \frac{n(m+1)}{\log_2(n+1)+2} = \Omega\left(\frac{nm}{\log_2 n}\right)$.
When $n = 2^{cm}$ for any $c \in (0,1)$, this simplifies to
$g(n,m) \geq \Omega\left(\frac{n}{c}\right)$.
\item[(ii)] \textbf{Theorem 27:} Suppose $n = 2^{cm} \leq 2^{m-1}-1$ for any $c \in (0,1)$. Then
$g(n,m) \leq \frac{n}{c} \left(6 - 3.2\log_2(c)\right) = O\left(\frac{n}{c}\log_2\left(\frac{1}{c}\right)\right)$. So the upper bound matches the lower bound up to a $\log_2(\frac{1}{c})$ factor.
\item[(iii)] \textbf{Theorem 29:} Suppose $2^{m-1}+1-2^{\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor}\leq n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$. Then $g(n,m) = 2n + \lfloor \frac{2^{m-1}-1-n}{2} \rfloor$.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Preliminaries}
\begin{definition}[Resolvable Multiset]
Fix $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. $\mathcal{F}$ is a resolvable multiset if it is a multiset of non-empty proper subsets of $[m]$, say $\mathcal{F} = \{C_1,\ldots,C_k\}$, such that there exists a partition $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ of $[k]$ with the property that $\sqcup_{j \in A_i} C_j = [m]$ is a partition of $[m]$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Reassignment of a Partition]
Fix $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. Let $\mathcal{F} = \{C_1,\ldots,C_k\}$ be a resolvable multiset with partitions. If $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{P}'$ are distinct partitions, not just formed by a trivial renaming of the partition classes, then call $\mathcal{P}'$ a reassignment of $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{definition}

\begin{example}
In Figure 3, $\mathcal{P}'$ is a reassignment of $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{example}

\begin{definition}[Uniquely Resolvable Multiset]
A resolvable multiset is uniquely resolvable if the partition $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ corresponding to it is unique, up to a trivial renaming of the partition classes. For any $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, a uniquely resolvable multiset always exists. Namely, the multiset $\mathcal{F}$ containing $n$ copies of $[m]$ is uniquely resolvable.
\end{definition}

\begin{example}
Below are two examples of $\mathcal{F}$ that are uniquely resolvable and not uniquely resolvable respectively.
\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{images_pdf/fig2.pdf}

    \caption{This corresponds to the case $(2,4)$. $\mathcal{F}$ contains the 5 sets $C_1 = \{1,2\}, C_2 = \{3,4\}, C_3 = \{1\}, C_4 = \{2,3\}$ and $C_5 = \{4\}$. It is clear that there is only one possible partition $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,A_2\}$ here with $A_1 = \{1,2\}$ and $A_2 = \{3,4,5\}$. Therefore, this is a uniquely resolvable multiset. In fact, it also turns out to be extremal.}
    \label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{images_pdf/fig3.pdf}

    \caption{This corresponds to the case $(3,5)$. $\mathcal{F}$ contains the 9 sets $C_1 = \{1,2\}, C_2 = \{3,4\}, C_3 = \{5\}, C_4 = \{1,4\}, C_5 = \{3,5\}, C_6 = \{2\}, C_7 = \{1,5\}, C_8 = \{2,3\}$ and $C_9 = \{4\}$. There are two possible partitions. $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,A_2,A_3\}$ with $A_1 = \{1,2,3\}, A_2 = \{4,5,6\}$ and $A_3 = \{7,8,9\}$ is a valid partition, but so is $\mathcal{P}' = \{A_1',A_2',A_3'\}$ with $A_1' = \{1,5,9\}, A_2' = \{4,8,3\}$ and $A_3' = \{7,2,6\}$. Thus, $\mathcal{F}$ is resolvable but not uniquely so.}
    \label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\end{example}

\begin{definition}[Extremal Uniquely Resolvable Multiset]
Fix $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. A uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$ is called extremal if for all uniquely resolvable multisets $\mathcal{F}'$, we have $|\mathcal{F}'| \leq |\mathcal{F}|$. For brevity, we will refer to these as extremal multisets.
\end{definition}

While a resolvable multiset is allowed to contain repetitions, the only set that can repeat without violating the existence of a unique partition is $[m]$ itself. We will later see that when $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$, we can always remove $[m]$ from any extremal uniquely resolvable multiset and preserve its size (Lemma 17). So we can always find extremal uniquely resolvable multisets containing distinct non-empty proper subsets.

\begin{definition}[Classes of a Partition]
Let $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ be a partition of $\mathcal{F}$. Then $\{C_j : j \in A_i\}$ is a class of $\mathcal{P}$ corresponding to $A_i$ for each $i$, and the $C_j$ are the components of $A_i$. We will abuse notation to say that $A_i$ itself is a class corresponding to $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Class Size]
Let $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ be a partition of $\mathcal{F}$. Then $d_i = |A_i| \geq 1$ is the size of the class $A_i$ for each $i$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
In Figure 2, the class $A_1$ has size 2 (its 2 components are $\{1,2\}$ and $\{3,4\}$) and the class $A_2$ has size $3$ (its 3 components are $\{1\},\{2,3\}$ and $\{4\}$).
\end{example}

\begin{definition}[Proper subsets induced by a Class]
Let $\mathcal{F} = \{C_1,\ldots,C_k\}$ be a multiset and let $\mathcal{P} = \{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ be a partition of $\mathcal{F}$. Fix a class $A_i$. The proper subsets induced by $A_i$ are all the non-empty proper subsets of $[m]$ that can be formed by taking unions over some components in $A_i$. A size $d$ class induces $2^d-2$ proper subsets.
\end{definition}

\begin{example}
In Figure 2, $A_2$ induces the proper subsets $\{1\}$, $\{2,3\}$, $\{4\}$, $\{1,2,3\},\{1,4\}$ and $\{2,3,4\}$.
\end{example}

\section{Determining $g(n,m)$}

\subsection{Introductory Results}

\begin{theorem}
Suppose $n = 2$. Then for all $m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$,
\begin{equation}
g(2,m) = m+1
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $n=2$. Let $\mathcal{F} = \{C_1,\ldots,C_m,C_{m+1}\}$ with $C_i = \{i\}$ for $i \in [m]$ and $C_{m+1} = [m]$. Clearly, there is only one valid partition $\mathcal{P} = \{[m],\{m+1\}\}$. Therefore, $g(2,m) \geq m+1$. Conversely, let $\mathcal{F} = \{C_1,\ldots,C_k\}$ be an extremal multiset, so $k = g(n,m)$. We will show that $k \leq m+1$.

Consider the graph $G$ whose vertices are $C_1,\ldots,C_k$, where $\{C_i,C_j\}$ for $i \neq j$ is an edge iff $C_i \cap C_j \neq \varnothing$. Since each number $i \in [m]$ appears exactly twice in the sets $C_1,\ldots,C_k$, $G$ has at most $m$ edges. We claim that $G$ must be connected, so $k \leq m+1$ as desired.

Suppose by contradiction that $G$ has a proper connected component with vertex set $\{C_{i_1},\ldots,C_{i_l}\}$. Since $\mathcal{F}$ is resolvable into 2 classes, each element of $C_{i_1} \cup \ldots \cup C_{i_l}$ is in exactly two sets in $\{C_{i_1},\ldots,C_{i_l}\}$ and in no other set in $\{C_1,\ldots,C_k\} \setminus \{C_{i_1},\ldots,C_{i_l}\}$. Thus we can exchange the sets in $\{C_{i_1},\ldots,C_{i_l}\}$ that occur in one of the two partition classes with those in the other, contradicting the uniqueness of the partition.
\end{proof}

The result below provides a necessary condition for $\mathcal{P}$ to be the partition of a uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$, but it is not a sufficient condition.

\begin{lemma}[Subset Criterion]
Suppose $\mathcal{F}$ is a uniquely resolvable multiset with respect to $n,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the unique partition of $\mathcal{F}$. Let $d_1,\ldots,d_n$ be the sizes of the classes in $\mathcal{P}$. Then we have that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^n (2^{d_i} - 2) \leq 2^m - 2
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We will count the number of proper subsets of $[m]$ formed by each class. For any class $i$, there are $d_i \geq 1$ components. Therefore, by combining components, we can produce $2^{d_i} - 2$ proper subsets of $[m]$. Suppose the same proper subset of $[m]$ can be formed using only components of class $i$ and also using only components of class $j$ (with $i \neq j$). Then we can move the components forming that proper subset of $[m]$ in class $i$ to class $j$ and vice versa. This contradicts the fact that $\mathcal{P}$ is a unique partition of $\mathcal{F}$. So each class must contribute $2^{d_i} - 2$ new proper subsets. The total number of such subsets is given by $\sum_{i=1}^n (2^{d_i} - 2)$. This must be less than or equal to $2^m - 2$, the number of proper subsets of $[m]$, because otherwise some two classes must have at least one common proper subset by the pigeonhole principle.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Choice of Regime]
Suppose $n > 2^{m-1} - 1$. Observe that $d_i \geq 2$ for at most $2^{m-1} - 1$ values of $i \in [n]$. This means $d_i = 1$ for at least $n - 2^{m-1} + 1$ values of $i$, so any uniquely resolvable multiset corresponding to $(n, m)$ must be formed from one corresponding to $(2^{m-1}-1,m)$ by adding $n - 2^{m-1} + 1$ copies of the entire set $[m]$. Therefore, when $n > 2^{m-1}-1$, we trivially have $g(n,m) = g(2^{m-1},m) + n - 2^{m-1} + 1$. We thus focus on the regime $n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$, which has a lot more interesting structure.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Lower Bounds for $g(n,m)$ when $n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$}
The focus of this section is to show a lower bound for $g(n,m)$. In the next section, we will provide close upper bounds in a large regime.

\begin{lemma}
Suppose $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$. Then we have that
\begin{equation}
g(n,m) \geq 2n
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We will construct a uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$ with each class in the partition $\mathcal{P}$ having size $2$. Specify each class $A_i$ in $\mathcal{P}$ (for each $i \in [n]$) by a pair of disjoint proper subsets $\{C_1^{(i)},C_2^{(i)}\}$ of $[m]$ such that $C_1^{(i)} \cup C_2^{(i)} = [m]$. There are $\frac{2^m - 2}{2} = 2^{m-1}-1$ such pairs, so we can specify up to $2^{m-1} - 1$ classes, each of size 2, without repeating any proper subsets. The resultant multiset is $\mathcal{F} = \{C_{j}^{(i)} : i \in [n], j \in \{1,2\}\}$. We claim that $\mathcal{P}$ is the only possible partition.

If there was any reassignment of the components to form a different collection of classes, we must still have exactly two components in each class. If not, then some class must have at least 3 components, so some other class must have exactly one component, which must be $[m]$. But no class had a single component of size $m$ before the reassignment because we were working only with proper subsets. For any component $C$ in class of size 2, it must be paired with its complement, which was precisely the original partition $\mathcal{P}$. So we have that $g(n,m) \geq 2n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}[Regime of $n \geq 2^{m-1}-1$]
Lemma 15 above shows that $g(2^{m-1}-1,m) \geq 2^m - 2$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be extremal multiset corresponding to $(2^{m-1}-1,m)$. Lemma 17 below implies that we can assume every class in $\mathcal{F}$ has size at least 2. If even a single class had size $3$ or more, then the subset criterion would be violated. So $g(2^{m-1}-1,m) \leq 2^m - 2$. By Remark 14, when $n \geq 2^{m-1}-1$, $g(n) = g(2^{m-1}-1,m) + n - 2^{m-1} + 1 = n + 2^{m-1} - 1$.
\end{remark}

\begin{lemma}
Suppose $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$. Then there exists an extremal multiset $\mathcal{F}$ with a unique partition $\mathcal{P}$ such that each of the $n$ classes in $\mathcal{P}$ has size at least 2.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{F}_1$ be an extremal multiset with a unique partition $\mathcal{P}_1$ such that at least one class has size 1. Then we must have at least one class with size at least 3. If not, every class has size at most $2$ so the number of sets in $\mathcal{F}$ is less than the number of sets in the case when every class has size 2, a contradiction to Lemma 15.

Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be the classes with size 1 and size $l \geq 3$ respectively. So $A_1$ has only a single component $[m]$. Let the $l$ components of $A_2$ be $C_1^{(b)},C_2^{(b)},C_3^{(b)},\ldots,C_l^{(b)}$. Then reduce the number of sets in $A_2$ by combining $C_1{(b)}$ and $C_2{(b)}$. Then we can specify $A_1$ with 2 sets by breaking $[m]$ up into the corresponding components $C_1^{(a)}$ and $\cup_{i=2}^l C_i^{(a)}$.

We claim that this new multiset $\mathcal{F}_2$ with its partition $\mathcal{P}_2$ is still uniquely resolvable. Suppose by contradiction that there exists another partition $\mathcal{P}_2'$ for $\mathcal{F}_2$. We will obtain a new partition $\mathcal{P}_1'$ for $\mathcal{F}_1$, contradicting the fact that $\mathcal{P}_1$ was unique.

Any such $\mathcal{P}_2'$ would have to involve dividing the sets of $A_1$ into different classes, because otherwise we directly have a reassignment of $\mathcal{P}_1$ as well. So we have that $\cup_{i=2}^l C_i^{(a)}$ is paired with components from some other classes: let us call the union of these components $K$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] Move $C_1^{(a)}$ to where $K$ is.
\item[2.] Combine the sets $\cup_{i=2}^k C_i^{(a)}$ and $C_1^{(a)}$ and split the sets $C_1^{(b)}$ and $C_2^{(b)}$.
\item[3.] Move $K$ to wherever $C_1^{(b)}$ is.
\item[4.] Move $C_1^{(b)}$ to wherever $C_1^{(a)}$ was.
\end{itemize}

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{images_pdf/fig4.pdf}
\caption{Visual representation of the new assignment.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Since $A_1$ is now unaffected and $C_1^{(b)}$, $C_2^{(b)}$ are separated, this induces a reassignment of $\mathcal{P}_1$, a contradiction. It follows that the newly formed multiset $\mathcal{F}_2$ must also be uniquely resolvable and extremal as we have not changed the number of subsets. We have now eliminated the class of size 1. We can repeat this process as many times as required. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Lemma 17 shows us that when $n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$, even if we include $[m]$ in an extremal multiset $\mathcal{F}$, we can eliminate it.
\end{remark}

\begin{definition}
Fix $2 \leq k \leq m$. Let $P_k(m)$ be the largest possible integer $N$ such that there exists a uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$ corresponding to $(N,m)$ with a partition $\mathcal{P}$ that contains $N$ classes of size $k$ each.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that $P_k(m) \geq P_{k+1}(m)$. We just observe that for any uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$ corresponding to $(P_{k+1}(m),m)$ with $P_{k+1}(m)$ classes of size $k+1$, combing any two components of every class produces a uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}'$ corresponding to $(P_{k+1}(m),m)$ with every class of size $k$.

We note that \cite{colbourn2016disjoint} studies a related problem on finding a multiset of partitions of $[m]$ into $k$ components such that no two components from different partitions are the same. While similar in spirit, considering multisets that are uniquely resolvable makes our setting quite different.

\begin{lemma}
For any set $S$ with $N$ elements, there exist a set of $2^{N-1} - 1$ proper subsets of $S$ with each set containing at least $\lceil\frac{N}{2}\rceil$ elements such that no two sets are complements of each other.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $N$ is odd, this follows by simply counting all possible subsets of size $\lceil\frac{N}{2}\rceil$ or greater because the sum of the cardinalities of any two such sets is more than $N$. If $N$ is even, we can construct a family with all proper subsets of $S$ with size $\frac{N}{2}+1$ or larger. For the sets of size $\frac{N}{2}$, we can pair them up with their complements and add exactly one set from each pair to our family. This must also have size $2^{N-1}-1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
Choose an integer $k$ such that $2 \leq k < m$ and $\frac{m}{k-1} \geq 2$. Then
\begin{equation}
P_k(m) \geq 2^{\lfloor\frac{m}{k-1}\rfloor-1} - 1
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
For simplicity, assume that $k-1$ divides $m$. The proof for the other cases is similar.

\begin{enumerate}
\item Divide $[m]$ into $k-1$ sets: $S_1 = \{1,\ldots,\frac{m}{k-1}\}, S_2 = \{\frac{m}{k-1} + 1,\ldots,\frac{2m}{k-1}\}, \ldots, S_{k-1} = \{(k-2)\frac{m}{k-1} + 1,\ldots,m\}$.
\item Take $l = 2^{\frac{m}{k-1}-1} - 1$ proper subsets of each $S_i$ with size at least $\lceil \frac{m}{2(k-1)} \rceil \geq 1$ such that no two are complements of each other by by Lemma 20. For each $i \in [k-1]$, label the sets $X^{(i)}_1,\ldots,X^{(i)}_l$.
\item Construct $l$ tuples of sets of the form $(X^{(1)}_j,\ldots,X^{(k-1)}_j)$ for each $j \in [l]$.
\item We now construct $l$ classes each of size $k$. Choose any tuple $(X^{(1)},\ldots,X^{(k-1)})$. Let $C = \cup_{i=1}^{k-1} X^{(i)}$. So $C$ contains at least one element in $S_i$ for each $1 \leq i \leq k-1$. For each $i$, let $C_i = S_i \setminus C$ be the set of remaining elements in $S_i$. Then construct a class with the sets $\{C,C_1,\ldots,C_{k-1}\}$. Call $C$ the \textit{central component} of this class. Repeat this process for each tuple to create $l = 2^{\frac{m}{k-1}-1} - 1$ classes of size $k$.
\end{enumerate}

This construction clearly induces a partition $\mathcal{P}$ for a multiset $\mathcal{F}$ corresponding to $(2^{\frac{m}{k-1}-1}-1,m)$ with every class of size $k$. We claim $\mathcal{F}$ is uniquely resolvable.

Consider any central component $C$. Assume that originally in $\mathcal{P}$, $C$ was in the class $\{C,C_1,\ldots,C_{k-1}\}$. Since $C$ does not contain all the elements in $S_1$ by construction, it requires at least one set $C_1' \subseteq S_1$ in the same class even in $\mathcal{P}'$. It cannot have more than one subset that is a subset of $S_1$, because by the Pigeonhole principle, this would mean some other central component has no subset of $S_1$ in its class in $\mathcal{P}'$. So in fact $C$ has exactly one set $C_1' \subseteq S_1$ in its class in $\mathcal{P}'$. In fact, $C_1' = C_1$ because $C_1'$ must contain all the elements of $S_1$ not in $C$ without having an intersection with $C$, so we must have $C_1' = S_1 \setminus C = C_1$. Repeating the same argument for $i=2,\ldots,k-1$, $C$ must be in the same class in both $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{P}'$. Repeating the argument for every central component, we have that $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}'$. It follows that $\mathcal{F}$ is uniquely resolvable.

Consider any central component $C$. Assume that originally in $\mathcal{P}$, $C$ was in the class $\{C,C_1,\ldots,C_{k-1}\}$. Since $C$ does not contain all the elements in $S_1$ by construction, it requires at least one set $C_1' \subseteq S_1$ in the same class even in $\mathcal{P}'$. It cannot have more than one subset that is a subset of $S_1$, because by the Pigeonhole principle, this would mean some other central component has no subset of $S_1$ in its class in $\mathcal{P}'$. So in fact $C$ has exactly one set $C_1' \subseteq S_1$ in its class in $\mathcal{P}'$. In fact, $C_1' = C_1$ because $C_1'$ must contain all the elements of $S_1$ not in $C$ without having an intersection with $C$, so we must have $C_1' = S_1 \setminus C = C_1$. Repeating the same argument for $i=2,\ldots,k-1$, $C$ must be in the same class in both $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{P}'$. Repeating the argument for every central component, we have that $\mathcal{P} = \mathcal{P}'$. It follows that $\mathcal{F}$ is uniquely resolvable.

When $k-1$ does not divide $m$, a similar construction works. If $r$ is the remainder when $m$ is divided by $k-1$, just add the same $r$ integers into every central component.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
Suppose $2 \leq k < m$ and $\frac{m}{k-1} \geq 2$. Then for any $n \leq 2^{\lfloor\frac{m}{k-1}\rfloor-1} - 1$,
\begin{equation}
    g(n,m) \geq kn
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma 21, if $n \leq 2^{\lfloor\frac{m}{k-1}\rfloor-1} - 1$, we can construct a uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$ corresponding to $(n,m)$ with every class having size $k$, so $|\mathcal{F}| = kn \leq g(n,m)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}[Lower Bound]
Suppose $1 \leq n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$. Then
\begin{equation}
g(n,m) > \frac{n(m+1)}{\log_2(n+1)+2} = \Omega\left(\frac{nm}{\log_2 n}\right)
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma 22, it suffices to choose $k$ such that $n \leq 2^{\frac{m-(k-2)}{k-1}-1} - 1 = 2^{\frac{m+1}{k-1}-2} - 1$. $k = \left\lfloor \frac{m+1}{2 + \log_2(n+1)} \right\rfloor + 1$ satisfies this inequality, so
\[g(n,m) \geq n \left(\left\lfloor \frac{m+1}{\log_2(n+1)+2} \right\rfloor + 1\right) > \frac{n(m+1)}{\log_2(n+1)+2}\]
\end{proof}

\subsection{Upper Bounds for $g(n,m)$ when $n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$}

The natural question to ask is how close to optimal the lower bound from Section 3.2 is. We provide an upper bound in a large regime, namely, when $n = 2^{cm}$ for some $c \in (0,1)$ which matches the lower bound in Theorem 23 up to a $\log_2(\frac{1}{c})$ factor.

\begin{lemma}
\cite{flum} Let $H_2(x)$ be the binary cross entropy function.
\begin{equation}
H_2(x) = -x\log_2(x) - (1-x)\log_2(1-x)
\end{equation}
Suppose $k \geq 2$. Then
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor} {m\choose{i}} \leq 2^{m H_2(\frac{1}{k})}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
For any $m$ and $3 \leq k \leq \frac{m}{2}$,
\begin{equation}
P_k(m) \leq 2^{mH_2(\frac{1}{k})}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a uniquely resolvable multiset $\mathcal{F}$ corresponding to $(P_k(m),m)$ with partition $\mathcal{P}$ where every class has size $k$. Note that each class must have at least one subset with at most $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor$ elements. If $\mathcal{F}$ is uniquely resolvable, the only subset it can contain multiple times is $[m]$, so each subset with size at most $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor$ appears at most once in $\mathcal{F}$. Therefore, by Lemma 24,
$ |\mathcal{F}| \leq \sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor} {m \choose{i}}
\leq 2^{mH_2(\frac{1}{k})}$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $k \geq 2$ be an integer such that $n > 2^{m H_2(\frac{1}{k})}$. Then $g(n,m) \leq kn$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose by contradiction that $g(n,m) > kn$. Consider an extremal multiset $\mathcal{F}$ corresponding to $(n,m)$ with partition $\mathcal{P}$ and class sizes $d_1,\ldots,d_n$. For all $i \in [n]$, let $r_i = \max(0,d_i - (k-1))$.
Note that $\sum_{i=1}^n r_i \geq n$ because otherwise $g(n,m) \leq kn$. Consider any class with positive $r_i$. So we know $d_i = k + r_i - 1$. We claim that this class must contain at least $r_i$ subsets with size at most $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor$.
If not, this class must contain at most $r_i-1$ subsets with size at most $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor$, so at least $k$ subsets must have size at least $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor + 1$. It follows that the sum of the cardinalities of the sets in the class is at least
\[k\left(\left\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \right\rfloor + 1\right) \geq k\frac{m-k+1}{k} + k = m+1\]
This is a contradiction. Therefore, each class must contain at least $r_i$ subsets with size at most $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor$. Since a uniquely resolvable multiset must contain at most $2^{m H_2(\frac{1}{k})}$ subsets with size at most $\lfloor \frac{m}{k} \rfloor$ by Lemma 25, it follows that $n \leq \sum_{i=1}^n r_i \leq 2^{m H_2(\frac{1}{k})}$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}[Upper Bound]
Let $c \in (0,1)$ and $n = 2^{cm}$ with $1 \leq n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$. Then
\begin{equation}
g(n,m) \leq \frac{n}{c} \left(6 - 3.2\log_2(c)\right)
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will make use of Lemma 26 and find $k$ such that $n = 2^{cm} > 2^{m H_2(\frac{1}{k})}$. Note that if $k \geq 3$,
\[H_2\left(\frac{1}{k}\right) < \frac{2\log_2(k)}{k}\]
So it suffices to find an integer $k \geq 3$ such that $\frac{2\log_2(k)}{k} \leq c$, or equivalently $\frac{\ln(k)}{k} \leq \frac{c\ln2}{2}$. Let $\epsilon = \frac{c\ln2}{2} \in (0,\frac{\ln2}{2})$. We claim that $k = \lceil \frac{1.6}{\epsilon} \ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right) \rceil$ suffices. We note that $k \geq 3$ because
$\frac{1.6}{\epsilon} \ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right) \geq  \frac{3.2}{\ln2} \ln\left(\frac{2}{\ln2}\right) \geq 4$. We want to show that $\frac{\ln k}{k} \leq \epsilon$. Since $\frac{\ln x}{x}$ is decreasing for $x \geq 3$, it suffices to show that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\ln\left(\frac{1.6}{\epsilon} \ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\right)}{\frac{1.6}{\epsilon} \ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)} \leq \epsilon
&\iff 0.6\ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right) - \ln\left(\ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)\right) - \ln(1.6) \geq 0
\end{align*}
Define $h(x) = 0.6\ln(x) - \ln(\ln(x)) - \ln(1.6)$. It suffices to show $h(x)$ is positive on $(0,\infty)$. The only critical point of $h(x)$ is at $x = e^{\frac{5}{3}}$. It is easy to verify that $h(e^{\frac{5}{3}}) > 0$ and $h''(e^{\frac{5}{3}}) > 0$. So $h(x)$ is always positive. It follows that
\begin{align*}
g(n,m)
&\leq n \left\lceil \frac{1.6}{\epsilon} \ln\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right) \right\rceil\\
&= n \left\lceil \frac{3.2}{c\ln2} \ln\left(\frac{2}{c\ln2}\right) \right\rceil\\
&\leq \frac{n}{c} \left(6 - 3.2\log_2(c)\right)
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
This upper bound of $\frac{n}{c} (6-3.2\log_2(c)) = O(\frac{n}{c}\log_2(\frac{1}{c}))$ is in the regime $n = 2^{cm}$ for any $c \in (0,1)$. If we look at our lower bound from Theorem 23 in this regime, since $\log_2(n) = cm$, we have that $g(n,m) \geq \Omega(\frac{nm}{\log_2(n)}) = \Omega(\frac{n}{c})$. Therefore, our bounds are tight up to a $\log_2(\frac{1}{c})$ factor.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Determining $g(n,m)$ when $2^{m-1} - O(2^{\frac{m}{2}}) \leq n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$}

Building on ideas from the previous sections, we can in fact obtain some exact results for $g(n,m)$ when $n$ is close to $2^{m-1}-1$.

\begin{theorem}
Suppose $m \geq 4$, and $2^{m-1}+1-2^{\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor} \leq n \leq 2^{m-1} - 1$. Then
\begin{equation}
g(n,m) = 2n + \left\lfloor \frac{2^{m-1}-1-n}{2} \right\rfloor
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}

Pick a maximum multiset $\mathcal{F}$ with partition $\mathcal{P}$. By Lemma 17, without loss in generality, each of the $n$ classes in $\mathcal{P}$ has size at least 2. Suppose $k'$ classes have at least size 3. Let $k = \lfloor\frac{2^{m-1}-1-n}{2}\rfloor$. By the subset criterion, $k'(2^3-2) + (n-k')(2^2-2) \leq 2^m - 2$, so $k' \leq k$. We will argue that in fact choosing $k' = k$ size 3 classes and $n-k$ size 2 classes produces an extremal multiset. Note that by Lemma 21, $P_3(m) \geq 2^{\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\rfloor-1}-1$, so our condition on $n$ ensures that $k \leq P_3(m)$.

$\Longrightarrow$ We first show that $g(n,m) \geq 2n+k$. Pick $k$ size 3 classes that are uniquely resolvable. This can be done because $k \leq P_3(m)$. Each size 3 class induces 6 proper subsets that form complementary pairs. Thus the remaining proper subsets form $\frac{2^m-2-6k}{2} \geq n - k$ complementary pairs and so the remaining $n-k$ classes can be specified with size 2. We claim this construction $(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{P})$ is uniquely resolvable. Suppose not. Then there exists some reassignment $\mathcal{P}'$.

Suppose $\mathcal{P}'$ contains a class of size 4 or more. Since the total number of subsets in the multiset must be preserved, we must have a component $C \in \mathcal{F}$ that was originally in a size 3 class $\{C,C_1,C_2\}$ in $\mathcal{P}$ which is now in a size 2 class in $\mathcal{P}'$ as $\{C,C^c\}$. (We cannot have size 1 classes because $[m] \not\in \mathcal{F}$.) This means $C^c \in \mathcal{F}$. $C^c = C_1 \cup C_2$ could not have appeared as a single component in any of the original $k$ size 3 classes as we could swap it with $C_1 \cup C_2$. Further, we only introduced $n-k$ subset pairs which did not contain the proper subsets of the first $k$ classes. So $C^c \not\in \mathcal{F}$, a contradiction. Therefore, $\mathcal{P}'$ must also only have classes of size $2$ or $3$.

Pick a component $C$ that was earlier in a size 3 class. If it is now in a size 2 class, then $C^c$ must exist as a single component. By the same argument as above, $C^c$ cannot exist. So $C$ must be in a size 3 class again. So $\mathcal{P}'$ has at least $k$ size 3 classes, and cannot have more than $k$ such classes because the number of subsets must be preserved. In fact, the assignment of the components to the $k$ size 3 classes must be the same because the original $k$ classes was a unique partition. The remaining $n-k$ classes must all be of size 2. No reassignment of just size 2 classes is possible because every class must be of the form $\{C,C^c\}$. Therefore, $\mathcal{P}$ is unique and $\mathcal{F}$ is uniquely resolvable. So $g(n,m) \geq |\mathcal{F}| = 3k + 2(n-k) = 2n+k$.

$\Longleftarrow$ We show that $g(n,m) \leq 2n + k$. Consider a maximum multiset $\mathcal{F}$ with partition $\mathcal{P}$ corresponding to $(n,m)$. By Lemma 17, we can assume that each of the $n$ classes has size $d_i \geq 2$ with at most $k$ classes of size 3 or more, so at least $n-k$ classes have size exactly 2. Without loss in generality, assume the last $n-k$ classes have size $2$. By the subset criterion, $\sum_{i=1}^n (2^{d_i}-2) = 2(n-k) + \sum_{i=1}^k (2^{d_i} - 2) \leq 2^m - 2$. Let us maximize
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{k} d_i
\end{equation}
subject to the constraints that
\begin{equation}
d_i \geq 2, d_i \in \mathbb{Z} \text{ for all } i \in [k]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^k 2^{d_i} \leq 2^m - 2 - 2n + 4k
\end{equation}

Setting $d_i = 3$ for $i \in [k]$ is a feasible solution, which results in $\sum_{i=1}^k d_i = 3k$. Consider any optimal solution. Suppose $d_{i'} = 2$ for some $i' \in [k]$. If $d_i \leq 3$ for all $i \in [k]$, then our objective is less than $3k$, a contradiction. Since $f(d) = 2^d$ is convex and strictly increasing, $f(d'+1) + f(d''-1) < f(d') + f(d'')$ for any $d' \leq d''-2$. If any $d_{i''} > 3$, we can replace $d_{i'},d_{i''}$ with $d_{i'}+1,d_{i''}-1$. So we may assume $d_i \geq 3$ for $i \in [k]$. If in fact $d_{i'} > 3$ for some $i'$, by our choice of $k$, the constraint in Equation 14 is violated. So $g(n,m) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n d_i \leq 3k + 2(n-k) = 2n + k$.

\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
By pairing sets more carefully for the central components in Lemma 21's construction when $k=3$, we can in fact show $P_3(m) \geq 2^{\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor} - 2$ for $m \geq 6$. Applying this to Theorem 29, we can slightly improve this result and show that when $m \geq 6$, $g(n,m) = 2n+\lfloor\frac{2^{m-1}-1-n}{2}\rfloor$ whenever $2^{m-1}+3-2^{\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor+1} \leq n \leq 2^{m-1}-1$. We omit this modification for brevity.
\end{remark}

\section{Discussion}
In the regime $n \leq 2^{m-1}$, we provide a lower bound for $g(n,m)$ of the form $\Omega(\frac{nm}{\log_2 n})$. When $n = 2^{cm}$ for any $c \in (0,1)$, this lower bound simplifies to $\Omega(\frac{n}{c})$, and we provide a matching upper bound up to a $\log_2(\frac{1}{c})$ factor, thus showing that our bounds are near optimal for most values of $n$. We also compute some exact values when $n \geq 2^{m-1} - O(2^{\frac{m}{2}})$. It would be interesting to see sharp bounds for $g(n,m)$ when $n$ is a polynomial in $m$. Additionally, we focused on finding the largest possible size of a non-uniform 1-balanced block design on $[m]$ with $\lambda = n$ that is uniquely resolvable. A natural generalization is to find bounds on non-uniform $t$-balanced block designs.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Hunter Novak Spink and Ryan Alweiss for their insightful comments and corrections, as well as Nikil Roashan Selvam, Bruce Rothschild, Adam Moreno and Rajeshwari Jadhav for helpful discussions and encouragement. The author is also grateful to the anonymous reviewer for their detailed comments and suggestions, especially regarding Theorems 12 and 29.

\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}

Extremal Uniquely Resolvable Multisets


A Proof of the Optimal Leapfrogging Conjecture

Abstract: Suppose we place checkers in the lower left corner of a Go board and wish to move them to the upper right corner in as few moves as possible, where the pieces move as in the game of Chinese checkers. Auslander, Benjamin, and Wilkerson in 1993 generalized this game for integer lattices and defined a measure of speed for a starting configuration of pieces. They proved that the maximum speed of any configuration is 1, and only three configurations, called "speed-of-light" configurations, attain this speed. We prove their conjecture that the maximum speed of a non-speed-of-light configuration is 2/3 in the 2-dimensional case, and present a framework that should extend to higher dimensions.

\section{Introduction}
	Suppose we have some checkers placed in the lower left corner of a Go board, and we wish to move them to the upper right corner in as few moves as possible. There are no opponent pieces present, and the pieces move as they would in the game of Chinese Checkers, where for one move, a piece may either shift one unit in any direction, or repeatedly leapfrog over other pieces.

	Let us consider the Go board as a subset of the non-negative integer lattice $\mathds{Z}^2$. As an example, suppose we have four pieces placed at the coordinates $(0,0)$, $(1,0)$, $(0,1)$, and $(1,1)$, and wish to move them to the squares $(9,9)$, $(10,9)$, $(9,10)$, and $(10,10)$. For the pieces to complete the task in as few moves as possible, the pieces must first be moved into a configuration such that they may jump over each other in an optimal way.

	We may intuitively attempt lining the checkers up diagonally in what we will call a \textit{snake configuration}, that is, moving the pieces to coordinates $(0,0)$, $(1,1)$, $(2,2)$, and $(3,3)$. By repeating the three-move process of shifting the backmost piece to the right [$(0,0) \xrightarrow{} (1,0)$], leapfrogging that piece to the front [$(1,0) \xrightarrow{} (3,4)$], then shifting it right again [$(3,4) \xrightarrow{} (4,4)$], we can reach our destination in $4 + 4 + (3\times7) = 29$ moves.

	However a faster method exists. We first move the pieces into what we call a \textit{serpent configuration}, with the pieces on coordinates $(0,0)$, $(1,0)$, $(1,1)$, and $(2,1)$. Then we repeat the two-move process of leapfrogging the backmost piece to the front [$(0,0) \xrightarrow{} (2,2)$] then leapfrogging the new backmost piece to the front again [$(1,0) \xrightarrow{} (3,1)$], we may reach our destination in $1 + 1 + (2 \times 8) = 18$ moves. This is indeed the fastest way of moving the checkers from the bottom left to the upper right.

	We define a measure of the movement efficiency of a placement of pieces, and it may be shown that under this measure, the serpent is the most efficient configuration possible. In fact, it was shown by Auslander, Benjamin, and Wilkerson that the serpent configuration is maximally efficient, with only three configurations attaining this efficiency. For any non-maximal configurations, their efficiency was conjectured to have a strict upper bound, which we prove. \cite{Leapfrogging}

	\section{Abstracting the game}

	Suppose we have $p$ indistinguishable pieces and wish to move them in the positive direction over the integer lattice $\mathds{Z}^n$. If a piece is located at coordinate $l \in \mathds{Z}^n$, and some other coordinate $l + e_i$ is not occupied by a piece (for unit vector $e_i$), then the piece may \textit{shift} there. Alternatively if $l + e_i$ is occupied but $l + 2e_i$ is not, the piece may \textit{hop} over the occupant of $l + e_i$ to land at $l + 2e_i$, where it may remain or continue hopping over other adjacent pieces. One legal \textit{move} consists of either a shift or a \textit{jump}, a sequence of one or more hops by a single piece.\\

	Define a \textbf{placement} of size $p$ as a finite subset of $\mathds{Z}^n$, denoted by $X = \{\vec{x}_1, \dots , \vec{x}_p\}$. Define the \textit{centroid} of placement $X$ to be
	\[c(X) = \frac{1}{p}\sum_{u=1}^p \vec{x}_u\]

	For placements $X, Y$, define their \textit{displacement} as \[d(X,Y) = \sum_{i=1}^n |c_i(X) - c_i(Y)|\]

	For $m \geq 1$, an \textit{m-move trajectory} $X_0, X_1, ..., X_m$ is a sequence of placements where $X_{u+1}$ is reachable from $X_u$ in a single legal move. The \textit{speed} of an $m$-move trajectory from $X_0$ to $X_m$ is \[s = \frac{d(X_0,X_m)}{m}.\]

	We say that placements $X, Y$ are \textit{translates} if there exists $\vec{a} \in \mathds{Z}^n$ such that $X + \vec{a} = Y$. $X$ and $Y$ are represented by the same \textit{configuration} of pieces, and we define the \textit{speed} of a configuration $C$ to be the maximum speed attained by any trajectory between two translates represented by $C$. \\

	Auslander, Benjamin, and Wilkerson proved in 1993 the following: the maximum speed of any configuration $C$ is 1, and that only three configurations (called \textit{speed-of-light} configurations) attain this "speed of light" for $d\geq1$.\cite{Leapfrogging} These configurations are:

	\begin{itemize}
		\item The \textbf{atom} \{$x$\} (if $p = 1$)
		\item The \textbf{frog} \{$x$, $x + e_i$\}, $1 \leq i \leq n$ (if $p = 2$)
		\item The \textbf{serpent} \{$x$, $x + e_i$, $x + e_i + e_j$, $x + 2e_i + e_j$\} $1 \leq i \neq j \leq n$ (if $p = 4$ and $d >1$)
	\end{itemize}

	It was conjectured that the maximum attainable speed for any configuration on $p \neq 1,2,4$ is $2/3$, which we may observe is attained by the snake configuration with any number of pieces.\cite{Leapfrogging} We will show that $2/3$ is indeed the maximum possible speed attainable for any non-speed-of-light configuration in any dimension $n\geq2$.

	\section{Definitions and Properties}

	Let $m \in \mathds{Z}$ and placement $X \in \mathds{Z}^n$. Then \textit{border} $l_m$ is defined by: \[l_m = \{x \in X: ||x||=m\}\]

	For a placement $X$, we may define the \textit{tail} (respectively, \textit{head}) of $X$, by $t(X) = \min _u$ $|l_u| > 0$ (respectively, $h(X) = \max _u$ $|l_u| > 0$). Define the \textit{width} of a placement $X$ $w(X) = h(X) - t(X) + 1$. Define the \textit{back border} (respectively, \textit{front border} of $X$ as $T(X) := l_{t(X)}$ (respectively, $H(X) := l_{h(X)}$).\\

	We now define an underlying configuration which reoccurs in optimal play. A \textit{ladder} of length $k > 0$ is subset of a placement $X$: $L = \{p_0, p_1, ..., p_k\} \subseteq{X}$ such that $p_0$ is able to hop over $p_1,\dots, p_k$ successively. If $\{p_0\} = T(X)$ and $p_k \in H(X)$, then we say $L$ is a \textit{true ladder} of $X$. We call the move consisting of $p_0$ jumping over the rest of the ladder pieces an \textit{climb}, call $p_0$ the \textit{base} of the ladder, and the other pieces the \textit{rungs}.

	\begin{center}
		\begin{tikzpicture}
			\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{4}{4}
			\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (2,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (2,3) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (3,4) [circle, fill=black] {};
		\end{tikzpicture}

		An example of a ladder.
	\end{center}

	\begin{proposition}
		If a configuration $X$ contains a true ladder $L$, $X$ has even width.
	\end{proposition}

	\begin{proof}
		Observe that when a piece $p$ hops over another piece $p'$, $p$ either increases or decreases what border it belongs to by 2. Therefore since $l_0$ jumps from $B_{t(X)}$ to $B_{h(X) + 1}$, this implies $h(X) + 1 - t(X)$ is even.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{proposition}
		A placement $X$ with $n>1$ pieces can perform a move that simultaneously increases $t(X)$ and $h(X)$ if and only if it has a true ladder.
	\end{proposition}

	\begin{proof}
		$(\impliedby)$Performing a ladder climb increases both $t(X)$ and $h(X)$, as $l_0$ moves from $T(X)$, leaving that border empty, and jumps in front of $l_k \in H(X)$, thus advancing the front border. \\

		$(\implies)$ If a move on $X$ exists that advances the front and back borders forward, since only one piece can change positions, the back border must only have one piece, and it must be the piece which moves. Call this piece $p$. Since $n > 1$ $w(X) > 1$, so $p$ must jump from $T(X)$ to in front of $H(X)$. Denote the sequence of pieces hopped over by $p$ by $p_1$, $p_2$, ... $p_k$. Since $p_k \in H(X)$, $\{p_0, p_1, ... , p_k\}$.
	\end{proof}

	We may classify possible moves into seven categories.

	\begin{itemize}
		\item \textit{Ascent}: A move that increases $h(X)$ and $t(X)$.
		\item \textit{Front Push}: A move that increases $h(X)$ but not $t(X)$.
		\item \textit{Back Push}: A move that increases $t(X)$ but not $h(X)$.
		\item \textit{Dead Move}: A move that changes neither the tail nor head of $X$
		\item \textit{Front Retreat}: A move that decreases the head of $X$
		\item \textit{Back Retreat}: A move that decreases the tail of $X$
		\item \textit{Reverse Ladder Climb}: A move that decreases both the head and the tail of $X$.
	\end{itemize}

	An ascent is necessarily a ladder climb for nontrivial placements. For a legal $m$-move trajectory $M = \{X_0, X_1, ..., X_m\}$, where $X_0$ is a translate of $X_M$, define the \textit{moveset} of $M$ as a collection of moves $ m(M) = \{x_0 \to x_0',$ ... $, x_{m-1} \to x_{m-1}'\}$, where $x_i$ is the location of the piece that moves in $X_i$, and $x_i'$ is the location of the moved piece in $X_{i+1}$.

	For a move trajectory $M$, let $A(M)$ represent the number of ascents in $m(M)$, $FP(M)$ represent the number of front pushes, $BP(M)$ the number of back pushes, $DM(M)$ the number of dead moves, $FR(M)$ the number of front retreats, $BR(M)$ the number of back retreats, and $RA(M)$ the number of reverse ascents. \\

	Now, define the \textit{efficiency} $\omega(M)$ of a trajectory $M$ or it's corresponding moveset $m(M)$ as follows:
	$$\omega(M)  := A(M) - (1/2) \cdot (FP(M) + BP(M)) - 2 \cdot DM(M) - (7/2) \cdot (FR(M) + BR(M)) - 5 \cdot RA(M)  $$

	Note that if we partition a trajectory $M = M_1 \oplus M_2 \oplus ... \oplus M_k$, then $\omega (M) = \omega(M_1) + ... + \omega(M_k)$.

	\begin{lemma}
		A $m$-move trajectory $M$ of a configuration $C$ has speed greater than $2/3$ if and only if $\omega(M) > 0$
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		Since the move types are mutually exclusive, $A(M) + FP(M) + BP(M) + DM(M) + FR(M) + BR(M) + RA(M) = m$. Additionally, the displacement of $M$ can be characterized by $A(M) - RA(M) + (1/2)\times(FP(M) - FR(M) + BP(M) - BR(M))$. Therefore the speed of $M$ is

		$$\frac{A(M) - RA(M) + FP(M)/2 - FR(M)/2 + BP(M)/2 - BR(M)/2}{A(M) + FP(M) + BP(M) + DM(M) + FR(M) + BR(M) + RA(M)}.$$

		Therefore,
		$$2/3 < \frac{A(M) - RA(M) + FP(M)/2 - FR(M)/2 + BP(M)/2 - BR(M)/2}{A(M) + FP(M) + BP(M) + DM(M) + FR(M) + BR(M) + RA(M)} \iff 0 < \omega(M)$$

	\end{proof}

	\begin{theorem}
		For any trajectory $M$ with no two ascents occurring in a row and not both beginning and ending with an ascent, $\omega(M) \leq 0$.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		After an ascent, if a front push, back push, front retreat, or back retreat occurs, this changes the width of the placement, and since prior to the first move the placement had even parity, for another ascent to occur, another one of the listed moves must occur.

		Without loss of generality let us assume $M$ begins with an ascent, therefore it cannot end with one. Let us partition the moveset $m(M)$ into separate blocks $B_1,\dots, B_k$ where each block begins with an ascent and contains no other ascents. Since no two ascents can occur in a row, each block must consist of at least two moves. Additionally since each new block must begin with an ascent, a block must end with a placement with even width.

		$B_i$ contains one ascent and at least one other move $a$. If $a$ is any type of move besides a front or back push, $\omega(B_i)$ is negative. Otherwise, if $a$ is a front push or back push the resulting placement has odd width and another front push, back push, front retreat, or back retreat must occur. This implies $\omega(B_i) \leq 0$, with equality holding only when $B_i$ is of the form $\{A, FP/BP, FP/BP\}$. Since $B_i \leq 0$ for all $1 \leq i \leq k$, $\omega(M) \leq 0$, as desired.

	\end{proof}

	We add the condition that $M$ cannot both begin and end with an ascent due to the cyclic nature of translations - if such a translation begins and ends with an ascent, and $M$ = $\{X_0, ..., X_m\}$, then all other configurations represented in the orbit have translations with consecutive ladder climbs. For simplicity, when we say "in a row" from now on, we will act as if a moveset for translates is cyclic and count the first move as adjacent to the last move.

	\section{$p=1,2,4$}

	For a configuration which is not speed of light, observe that it may reach speed arbitrarily close to speed 1 by first shifting into a speed-of-light configuration, repeating its set of moves sufficiently long, then moving back to the original configuration. We will consider only trajectories which do not use this strategy. Rigorously, if a trajectory between translates does not perform any moves corresponding to any "speed-of-light" configuration's optimal moveset, call the corresponding configuration \textit{non-speed-of-light}.

	\begin{theorem}
		A non-speed-of-light configuration $C$ with 1, 2, or 4 pieces cannot have speed greater than 2/3.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		There is only one configuration with 1 piece which is speed of light, so $p=1$ is true. \\

		For $p=2$, any trajectory containing a jump (which must be an ascent) must contain the frog's optimal trajectory (a jump), therefore any non-speed-of-light configuration is limited to only shifts. Therefore, the optimal trajectory of $C$ cannot contain any ascents, thus $C$ cannot have speed greater than 2/3.\\

		For $p=4$, if $C$ has optimal trajectory without two ascents in a row, $C$ has speed at most 2/3. Suppose then that $C$ has two ascents in a row, without loss of generality let us assume its trajectory begins with two ascents. $C$ must have even width, and every border must contain a piece due to the parity of the ends of each successive ladder. Since $C$ can perform two ascents in a row, it has width 4. $C = \{p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4\}$ with $p_i$ on $l_i$. Say $p_1$ has jump $p_1: \xrightarrow{p_2} a_1 \xrightarrow{p_4} a_2$ for open locations $a_1, a_2$. $d(p_1, p_2)=1$, $d(a_1, p_2)=1$, and $d(a_1, p_4)=1$. Similarly, write the next move by $p_2$ as $p_2: \xrightarrow{p_3} b_1 \xrightarrow{p_1=a_2} b_2$. $d(p_2, p_3) = 1$ $d(p_3,b_1)=1$, and $d(a_2, b_1) = 1$.

		Suppose $p_1$, $p_2$, and $p_4$ are colinear ($p_1$ on $x$, $p_2$ on $x + u_i$, $p_4$ on $x + 3u_i$), $a_2$ = $x + 4u_i$ and $a_1 = x + 2u_i$. However for $p_2$ to jump over $p_3$ and $p_1$, it must start on $a_1$, a contradiction. Say $p_1$ starts on $x$, $p_2$ on $x + u_i$, then $a_1$ is $x + 2u_i$, $p_4$ starts on $x + 2u_i + u_j$, and $a_2$ is  $x + 2u_i + 2u_j$. There are only two locations both adjacent to $p_2$ and 2 away from $a_2$, $a_1$ and  $x + u_i + u_j$. However if $p_3$ is on  $x + u_i + u_j$ and we perform the two ascents, we have performed the serpent configuration's trajectory, a contradiction. Thus it is impossible for a non-speed-of-light configuration $C$ to have two ascents in a row, so $C$ must have speed at most 2/3.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{center}
		\begin{tikzpicture}
			\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{4}{4}
			\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (2,0) [circle, fill=red] {};
			\node at (3,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (4,0) [circle, fill=black!25] {};
			\draw[black!50, thin](4.25,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
			\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
			\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
			\draw[black!50, thin](3.25,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);

			\gridThreeD{6}{0}{black!75}{4}{4}
			\node at (2+6,2) [circle, fill=black!25] {};
			\node at (1+6,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (0+6,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (2+6,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
			\node at (1+6,1) [circle, fill=red] {};
			\draw[black!50, thin](1.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
			\draw[black!50, thin](2.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
			\draw[black!50, thin](3.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
			\draw[black!50, thin](4.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
		\end{tikzpicture}

		We cannot place $p_3$ without a contradiction.
	\end{center}

	\section{$p=3$}

	\begin{theorem}
		No configuration of 3 pieces $C$ exists with speed greater than 2/3.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		To show this, we will demonstrate that no placement $X$ exists for $p=3$ such that two successive ascents are possible. If $X$ has two or three pieces occupying the same border, then the back or front border has two pieces, rendering successive ascents impossible. Otherwise assume $X$ has pieces occupying all different borders. The only possible way for $X$ to be able to perform a ladder climb is if it has width 4, since a piece jumping over two other pieces can travel distance at most 4. Let us consider the four borders passing through $X$, without loss of generality say $l_1 - l_4$. $l_{1}$ and $l_{4}$ must contain one piece each, $p_1$ and $p_3$ respectively, implying the last piece, $p_2$ can either lay on $l_2$ or $l_3$. If $p_2$ lies on $l_3$, $p_1$ cannot jump. Otherwise, $p_2$ lays on $l_2$. If $p_1$ can perform an ascent, the pieces now lay on $l_2$, $l_4$, and $l_5$, which implies $p_2$ cannot jump.

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}
				\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{4}{4}
				\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (2,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\draw[black!50, thin](4.25,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](3.25,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);

				\node at (5,2) {$\xrightarrow{}$};

				\gridThreeD{6}{0}{black!75}{4}{4}
				\node at (2+6,2) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1+6,0) [circle, fill=red] {};
				\node at (2+6,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[red!50, thin](2.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](3.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](4.25+6,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
			\end{tikzpicture}

			After a jump, $p$ is isolated and cannot jump.

		\end{center}
		Therefore no placement $X$ with $p=3$ pieces exists such that two consecutive ascents can be performed, as desired. No such configuration of $\mathds{Z}^n$ exists with speed greater than $2/3$.
	\end{proof}

	\section{$p>4$}

	\begin{lemma}
		For $p>4$, there does not exist a trajectory with moveset containing more than 4 consecutive ascents.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		The proof follows similarly to the proof of Theorem 3 in "Optimal Leapfrogging"
	\end{proof}

	Suppose we have some configuration $C$ with greater than 4 pieces with an $m$-move trajectory $M$. If $m(M)$ contains no two successive ascents, $M$ has speed less than or equal to 2/3. Suppose $m(M)$ at some point has two consecutive ascents, and without loss of generality $M$ begins with consecutive ascents.

	\begin{proposition}
		If configuration $C$ has a translation with moveset $M$ such that $M$ begins with two consecutive ascents, $M$ has even width and at least one piece occupying every border between the front and back borders of $M$.
	\end{proposition}

	\begin{proof}
		$C$ must have a true ladder and therefore must have even width. Note that a ladder must have its base on opposite border parity as its rungs (which all must have the same border parity). The two ladders corresponding to the consecutive ascents (which are ladder climbs) must have bases on successive borders, and their rungs must span all of $C$ up to parity, therefore any border in the span of $C$ must have at least 1 piece from one of the two ladders on it.
	\end{proof}

	Define a piece's \textit{measure} by taking its location modulo 2, $\overbar{(x_1, x_2, ... x_n)}_2$. Note that when a piece jumps, its measure stays constant. This restricts the number of locations in $\mathds{Z}^n$ a piece can jump to, given its starting position.

	Define a \textit{isolating partition} of $M$ as follows. First, partition $m(M)$ sequentially into blocks $A_1, ... A_k$ such that each block begins with two or more consecutive ascents, but does not have consecutive ascents anywhere else and does not end with an ascent. Then, within each block $A_i$, sub-partition the blocks the in the same manner we did previously, that is creating a new sub-partition $A_{(i,j)}$ at each ladder climb, so $A_i = A_{(i,1)} + ... + A_{(i,j_i)}$, where $j_i$ is the number of ladder climbs in partition $A_i$.

	Let $L(A_i)$ be the number of ladder climbs $A_i$ begins with. It is clear $\omega(A_i) < L(A_i)$. We wish to show $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$, since $\omega(M) = \omega(\sum A_i) = \sum \omega(A_i)$. Since $A_i$ can only begin with 2, 3, or 4 ladder climbs, we only have these three cases to consider.

	Two translations with the same beginning and end placements, and with the same number of moves, must have the same speed. Therefore, in considering $M$, if we desire, we may instead consider some other arbitrary moveset $M'$ with the same number of moves, and start and end placements, as $M$ and any result proven about the speed of $M$ will hold for $M'$.

	Let us make the following change to any moveset $M$ as a whole - if at any point, we have placement $X$ with $l_{t(X)}$ containing two pieces $p_1$, $p_2$, and proceed to first front push with $p_1$, make moves not affecting $p_1$ or $p_2$ or the borders, then a back push with $p_2$, switch the ordering of the two moves if performing the moves in reverse order results in two legal moves. This changes the move types - we now first have a dead move, then an ascent. This also changes the partitioning of the moveset. If we are not able to reverse the ordering, then we leave that sequence as is. This does not alter $\omega(M)$, as a front push followed by a back push contributes $-1$, as does a dead move followed by an ascent.

	\begin{lemma}
		If some subpartition $A_{i,j}$ begins in configuration $C_{i,j}$ with the second border of $C_{i,j}$ containing 2 or more pieces, with the first move an ascent, $\omega(A_{i,j}) \leq -1$. Moreover, if $\omega(A_{i,j}) = -1$, $A_{i,j}$ consists of an ascent and a dead move, either the resulting $C_{i,j + 1}$ has its second border containing 2 or more pieces, or $C_{i,j}$ has a \textit{twist configuration,} pieces on $x$, $x + e_u$, $x + e_u + e_v$, $x + e_u + e_v - e_w$ (it is possible some of $u,v,w$ are equal).
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		Let the back border be $l_1$. The only way for any $\omega(A_{i,j}) = 0$ is if it begins with an ascent, then has two moves which are some combination of front and back pushes. However after the ascent in $A_{i.j}$, a back push is not possible. If we perform a dead move or do not move one of those two pieces, $\omega(A_{i,j}) \leq -1$. Let us then assume we move those pieces, $p_1$ and $p_2$, let $p_1$ front push and $p_2$ back push. However by our earlier stipulation, we must reverse these moves if possible, which implies $\omega(A_{i,j}) = -1$ if the moves are reversible. If they are not reversible, $p_2$ must have interfered with $p_1$'s ladder climb, which implies the pieces have same measure. Thus $d(p_1, p_2) > 3$ (as they are on the same border), and therefore there must be two pieces on $l_3$ and we cannot ladder climb, thus $\omega(A_{i,j}) \leq -1$.

		Additionally if the moves were not reversible, $\omega(A_{i,j}) < -1$, as the only way for $\omega(A_{i,j}) = -1$ is for the next two moves to be front or back pushes, but we may use the same argument as above to demonstrate that we either have not left $A_{i,j}$ or were forced to perform a dead move instead. Thus if $\omega(A_{i,j}) = -1$, we know $A_{i,j}$ consists of an ascent and a dead move.

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}

				\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{5}{5}
				\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (0,1) [circle, fill=black] {};

				\node at (2,2) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (2,3) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (3,2) [circle, fill=black!50] {};

				\node at (2,0) [circle, fill=black!25] {};
				\node at (0,2) [circle, fill=black!25] {};

				\node at (1.5,1.5) {$\nearrow$};

				\draw[black!50, thin](4.25,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](5.25,-.25) -- ++ (-5.5,5.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](5.25,.75) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);

			\end{tikzpicture}

			We must make 3 moves, after the ladder climb we optimally either perform a dead move or a front/back push, removing the possibility of an ascent after.
		\end{center}

		If $\omega(A_{i,j}) = -1$, the first move in $A_{i,j}$ was a ladder climb so there are pieces $p_0$, $p_1$ on $x$, $x + e_u$ respectively. First, suppose  $d(p_2, p_1) = 2$ for $p_2 \in l_2$. Then $p_2$ is located at $x + e_u + e_v - e_w$, the most general option for $p_2$ to lie on border $l_2$. The unique point both pieces can jump over in the forward direction is $x + e_u + e_v$, so we are left with exactly the twist configuration on the first 3 borders.

		Otherwise suppose there is no piece at $x + e_u + e_v$ - since $p_2$ ascends after $p_1$ moves, there must be $p_3 \in l_3$ that $p_2$ jumped over, but $p_1$ could not have jumped over $p_3$ for its move so there either must be a second piece on $l_3$ or $p_1$ must have shifted to $l_3$.

		Otherwise, $p_1$ and $p_2$ are more than distance 2 apart and therefore must have either jumped over separate pieces, or one piece must have shifted up to the third border. Therefore $C_{i,j+1}$ must have two pieces on $l_2$.
	\end{proof}

	From here, we will assume the backmost border of any starting placement is $l_1$.

	\begin{lemma}
		If a partition $A_i$ begins with exactly four consecutive ladder climbs, $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		First observe that the width of the starting configuration is at least 6, since we have more than 4 pieces.

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}
				\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{4}{5}
				\gridThreeD{6}{0}{black!75}{4}{5}
				\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (2,1) [circle, fill=black] {};

				\node at (8,4) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (9,4) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (9,5) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (10,5) [circle, fill=black!50] {};

				\node at (2,2) {$\times$};
				\node at (3,1) {$\times$};
				\node at (5,2.5) {$\ldots$};
				\node at (8,3) {$\times$};
				\node at (7,4) {$\times$};

				\draw[black!50, thin](3.25,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
				\draw[red!50, thin](4.25,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);

				\draw[black!50, thin](10.25,1.75) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
				\draw[red!50, thin](10.25,0.75) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](10.25,2.75) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](10.25,3.75) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);

			\end{tikzpicture}

			The forced start and end of the configuration. The x's mark where pieces cannot be, and the red borders must contain at least 2 pieces.
		\end{center}

		Climbing pieces, $p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4$, must be in a serpent configuration both before and after the ascents, and after, they must be the four frontmost pieces. Suppose $p_1$ starts on $l_1$.  $|l_5| \geq 2$, containing the pieces that $p_2$ and $p_4$ jumped over, since if $p_2$ and $p_4$ jumped over the same piece at $x +2e_i + 2e_j$, this would block the climb of $p_1$. Therefore after the four jumps, we are now in $A_{i,4}$ and unable to back push. The only pieces that may front push are $p_1 ... p_4$. Say $p_4$ hopped over $p_5 \in l_5$ and $p_2$ hopped over $p_5' \in l_5$. $p_5$ cannot lay on the same plane as $p_1...p_4$.

		Suppose neither $p_5$ nor $p_5'$ lie on the plane containing $p_1 ... p_4$. Of $p_1...p_4$, $p_5$ can only jump over $p_4$ and $p_5'$ can only jump over $p_2$, as they have adjacent measures. Therefore if $p_5$ or $p_5'$ is to ascend from its current position, $p_3$ or $p_1$ must shift to complete a ladder and $p_5$ or $p_5'$ must leave the border first, both dead moves, so $\omega(A_{i,4}) \leq -3$.

		Otherwise consider if $p_5'$ lays on the plane containing $p_1...p_4$, it must then be located at  $x + e_u + 3e_v$, which must be at least distance 4 away from $p_5'$. $p_5$ and $p_5'$ have different measures. Suppose $p_5'$ ascends from its spot, so $p_5$ must move. $p_5$ may either dead move, or front push after a dead move from $p_3$. $p_1$ or $p_3$ must also move to clear a ladder for $p_5'$, so a dead move and two pushes must be performed. However since $d(p_5', p_5) > 2$, $|l_6| \geq 2$ or $p_5$ shifted onto $l_6$, even if $p_5'$ can ascend, $\omega(A_{i,4}) \leq -2$ and $\omega(A_{i,5}) \leq -1$.

		Otherwise, if the next ascent happens from beyond $l_5$, $p_5$ and $p_5'$ must all vacate. If one of those pieces front pushes by doing a ladder climb described previously, the other must back push - however we must reverse these moves which results in two dead moves, and we may always reverse these since $p_5$ and $p_5'$ cannot have the same measure, so $\omega(A_{i,4}) \leq -3$. Therefore we must perform a dead move and back push to vacate the border, and a corresponding front push at the front of the configuration. If there were two or more pieces on $l_6$, we still cannot ascend, so $\omega(A_{i,4}) \leq -3$. Otherwise, this one piece must be at $x + 3e_u + 2e_v$ since both $p_1$ and $p_3$ must have hopped over it, however this location cannot be adjacent to $p_5$, so $p_5$ must have shifted and thus we still cannot ladder climb. Thus  $\omega(A_{i}) \leq 0$.

	\end{proof}

	\begin{lemma}
		If a partition $A_i$ begins with exactly three consecutive ascents $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}
		We have $\omega(A_i) < 3$, and we see $\omega(A_{i,1} + A_{i,2}) = 2$, as these subpartitions are only the first two ladder climbs, and $2 < i \leq l_i$, $\omega(A_{i,l}) \leq 0$. We wish to find two $A_{i,j_1}$ and $A_{i,j_2}$ with $\omega(A_{i,j_1}) < 0$ and $\omega(A_{i,j_2}) < 0$, or alternatively one $A_{i,j}$ such that $\omega(A_{i,j}) \leq -2$.

		Without loss of generality let us assume $p_1$ began at $x$ on $l_1$, $p_2$ began at $x + e_u$, and $p_3$ began at $x + e_u + e_v$ for $u \neq v$.

		Suppose $l_4$ contains two or more pieces, $p_4$ and $p_4'$. By the shape of the configuration, only one of $l_4$ and $l_4'$ may ladder climb to the front. If one piece ladder climbs to the front and the other back pushes, we are reduced to the case from the previous lemma of four ascents, since the situation mirrors that of before. Otherwise, one piece is forced to dead move since neither piece can front push, and this forces $\omega(A_{i,j}) \leq 1/2$, and $\omega(A_{i,j}) \leq 0$ follows.

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}
				\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{3}{5}
				\gridThreeD{5}{0}{black!75}{3}{5}
				\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (2,1) [circle, fill=black] {};

				\node at (7,4) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (8,4) [circle, fill=black!50] {};
				\node at (8,5) [circle, fill=black!50] {};

				\node at (2,2) {$\times$};
				\node at (3,1) {$\times$};
				\node at (4,2.5) {$\ldots$};
				\node at (6,4) {$ \times$};

				\draw[red!50, thin](4.25,-.25) -- ++ (-4.5,4.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](3.25,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);

				\draw[red!50, thin](8.25,1.75) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](8.25,2.75) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](8.25,3.75) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);

			\end{tikzpicture}

			The forced start and end of the configuration if $l_4$ contains 1 piece..
		\end{center}

		Otherwise, $l_4$ only contains one piece $p_4$, which implies we must have started in a serpent subconfiguration as before. If $l_5$ contains one piece $p_5$, $p_2$ must have hopped over $p_5$ but $x + 2e_u + 2e_v$ must be unoccupied, so $d(p_5, p_4) > 2$. The next ascent can only occur optimally from $l_4$, so a piece must move adjacent to $p_4$, a dead move. If any other moves occur before the ascent, $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$, otherwise after $p_4$ ascends, there are 2 pieces on $l_5$ so $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.

		Thus $l_5$ must contain at least 2 pieces, one adjacent to $p_5$, and one that $p_2$ hops over in its ascent. Call these $p_5$ and $p_5'$ respectively, as before $p_5$ is not coplanar with $p_1 ... p_4$. Suppose $p_4$ makes the next ascent from $l_4$ - it cannot do so immediately, but if there remain 2 pieces on $l_5$, the lemma asserts $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$. Thus before $p_4$ ascends, $p_5'$ must move. If $p_5'$ performs a dead move and another piece moves, $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$. If $p_5'$ performs a dead move, then $p_4$ ascends, we may switch the order of the moves if we can, so the moveset began with four consecutive ascents. If we cannot switch the order of the moves, $p_5'$ must have been a part of the ladder in the $p_4$ ascent, however as in the previous proof, there must be 2 pieces on $l_6$, and $p_5$ cannot ascend without a dead move from $p_1$ or $p_3$ which forces $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$. Lastly, suppose after the three ascents $p_5'$ performed a front push after a front push from $p_3$. Since $p_4$ needed to jump over $p_3$ to complete the snake, $p_4$ cannot ladder climb unless a piece moves to $p_3$'s former spot - this must be a dead move, thus $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.

		Otherwise, suppose the next ascension occurs on $l_5$ or beyond. $p_4$ must back push, and a corresponding front push must occur since we can't back push again (and if we perform anything else $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$). Now there are at least two pieces on $l_5$, and we are forced to front push from $l_5$ with $p_5'$, then perform another push. If we back push, we are forced to swap the move order, and since $p_5$ and $p_5'$ have different measure, we always can, so this forces  $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$. Otherwise, we must perform another front push, however then $p_5$ still cannot ascend as it is not coplanar with $p_1...p_3$ or $p_5'$ and thus can jump over at most only one of those, which forces $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.

		We have exhausted all cases and therefore $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$ as desired.

	\end{proof}

	\begin{lemma}
		If a partition $A_i$ begins with exactly two consecutive ascents, $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.
	\end{lemma}

	\begin{proof}

		We see that we must start as depicted:

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}
				\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{3}{3}
				\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,1) [circle, fill=black] {};

				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);

				\node at (4,1.5) {\ldots};

				\gridThreeD{5}{0}{black!75}{3}{3}
				\node at (8,3) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (7,3) [circle, fill=black] {};

				\draw[black!50, thin](8.25,1.75) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
			\end{tikzpicture}
		\end{center}

		After the ascents the front two borders must have only two adjacent pieces:

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}

			\end{tikzpicture}
		\end{center}

		If after an ascent, we make any sequence of moves besides exactly two pushes followed by another ascent, we must have a subpartition with negative score, call this suboptimal. If there is a suboptimal subpartition,  $\omega(A_i) \leq 0$.

		If for any configuration, the frontmost two borders $l_{j-1}$, $l_j$ have one piece each, and the backmost border $l_1$ has 1 piece on it, $l_{2}$ has 2 or more pieces, and it has even width, suboptimality is forced. This also holds if instead of $l_{2}$ having two pieces, it has one, but the piece on $l_1$ is not adjacent. If we perform the next ascent from $l_1$, suboptimality is forced. Alternatively, we perform two front pushes to move one of the pieces on $l_1$ to $l_{j+2}$ first. We can either push the frontmost piece forward to create a ladder or perform a front push by ladder climbing from further back, then we ladder climb a piece on $l_2$. However we cannot ascend after as either there cannot be a ladder leading to the front, as $l_{j}$ is vacant, or the four frontmost pieces form a snake. Otherwise, if we perform the next ladder climb on $l_{2}$, we must push the backmost piece forward, and move one of the pieces off $l_{i+1}$. However this second move must be a dead move, as $l_{i+1}$ is not on the right parity of border to front push by ladder climb. We cannot perform an ascent in 2 moves or less otherwise, thus suboptimality is always forced in this scenario.

		If $l_3$ contains two or more pieces, suboptimality is forced. If $l_3$ contains exactly one piece $p_3$ (located at $x + e_i + e_j$) but two pieces on $l_4$, or one piece which $p_3$ cannot jump over, we apply our previous observation.

		\begin{center}
			\begin{tikzpicture}
				\gridThreeD{0}{0}{black!75}{3}{3}
				\node at (0,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,0) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (1,1) [circle, fill=black] {};
				\node at (2,1) [circle, fill=black] {};

				\node at (2,2) {$\times$};
				\node at (3,1) {$\times$};
				\node at (1,2) {$\times$};
				\node at (2.5,2.5) {$\ldots$};

				\draw[red!50, thin](3.25,-.25) -- ++ (-3.5,3.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](1.25,-.25) -- ++ (-1.5,1.5);
				\draw[black!50, thin](2.25,-.25) -- ++ (-2.5,2.5);
			\end{tikzpicture}

			The only possible starting configuration where we can perform a third ascent optimally.
		\end{center}

		Otherwise $p_4$ on $l_4$ must be jumped over by both $p_1$ and $p_3$, forcing it to be on $x + 2e_i + e_j$ and forcing there to be no pieces on $x + 2e_i + 2e_j$ and $x + 3e_i + e_j$. To avoid suboptimality the next ladder climb occurs on $l_3$ or $l_4$. If $p_4$ can jump forward, there must be two pieces on $l_5$, assign them as $p_5$ and $p_5'$ as in the previous proofs. If after the next two moves $l_5$ has two pieces, or one piece but $p_4$ cannot jump, suboptimality is forced. Thus in the next two moves we must make two front pushes with one a ladder climb from $l_5$, then an ascent.

		If $p_4$ made the next ascent, $p_3$ had to jump forward and $p_5'$ front pushed, after the ascent, the frontmost pieces are a snake.  If there was only one piece on $l_6$ it must be located on $x + 3e_i + 2e_j$ and thus cannot be adjacent to $p_5$. Either $p_5$ cannot hop or there are at least 2 pieces on $l_6$, so this must be suboptimal.

		If $p_3$ made the next ascent, $p_5'$ front pushed by ladder climbing. Either $l_5$ is empty or it contains $p_5$. Either there are 2 pieces on $l_6$ or both $p_1$ and $p_3$ hopped over one piece at $x + 3e_i + 2e_j$, but $p_5'$ could not have started adjacent to this square so there must be 2 pieces on $l_6$. Additionally the third to front border cannot have a piece on it, which forces the next climb to come from $l_5$. Due to the configuration's front structure, $p_4$ must necessarily back push, which forces a piece on $l_5$, and the front structure is forced to front push, but since there are two pieces on $l_6$, suboptimality is forced.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{theorem}
		If $C$ is a configuration with $p>4$, $C$ has speed less than or equal to $2/3$.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{proof}
		Consider any $m$-move trajectory $M$ of $C$. If $M$ contains no consecutive ladder climbs $\omega(M) \leq 0$. Otherwise, adjust $M$ as necessary to get $M'$ and perform an isolating partition of $M'$. $\omega(M) = \omega(M') = \omega(\sum A_i) = \sum \omega(A_i) \leq 0$. Since in any case $\omega(M) \leq 0$, $M$ has speed less than 2/3.
	\end{proof}