In a difference triangle, a row of $n$ integers is given, then their differences are written underneath, and then another row of difference is added, until there is a triangle of $n (n+1)/2$ integers. For example:
The above triangle also has the property that it has 15 distinct values with no values from 1 to 15 either missing or repeated. According to this query, this is the last difference triangle with nothing missing and nothing repeated.
That's similar to the last perfect ruler, with marks ${0,1,3,6}$. These marks measure all differences 1 to 6 with no lengths missing or repeated. For longer rulers, there are two options.
- No repeats allowed. The smallest ruler with $n$ marks is called a Golomb ruler.
- No missing values. The longest ruler with $n$ marks is an optimal sparse ruler.
We can look at difference triangles with these same conditions.
Order 6. $T_6 = 21$.
The smallest difference triangle with no repeats has large value 22 ($T_6 +1$) and misses 15.
The largest difference triangle with no misses has large value 20 ($T_6 -1$) and repeats 4.
Order 7. $T_7=28$.
The smallest known difference triangle with no repeats has large value 33 ($T_7 +5$) and misses ${16, 20, 22, 29, 30}$.
The largest known difference triangle with no misses has large value 24 ($T_7 -4$) and repeats 1 and 3.
What happens with orders 8 and beyond? With $T_8=36$, how close can we get to $36$ with either no repeats or no misses?



(Not an answer. Simply short algorithm description and some of results)
If denote upper row of the triangle as $$ (t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_{n-1}, t_n), \tag{1} $$ then (w.l.o.g.) we'll consider only rows with $t_1 \le t_n$ (if $t_1=t_n$, then $t_2 \le t_{n-1}$ and so on).
To find largest difference triangle with no misses for relatively small $n$ $(n \le 9)$, one can apply exhaustive search for upper row (I'm unable to find smarter deterministic algorithm).
Rough estimation:
$n=7$:
up to $28^7 \approx 13.5 \times 10^9$ tests to check the value $28$ for optimality;
up to $27^7 \approx 10.5 \times 10^9$ tests to check the value $27$ for optimality;
...
$n=8$:
up to $36^8 \approx 2.8 \times 10^{12}$ tests to check the value $36$ for optimality;
up to $35^8 \approx 2.3 \times 10^{12}$ tests to check the value $35$ for optimality;
...
This way,
"$8$-no-misses" problem has three $30$-solutions (only upper rows are listed here):
and there are no $k$-solutions for $k\ge 31$.
"$9$-no-misses" problem has at least one $38$-solution
(I didn't check it completely for this time).
To find smallest difference triangle with no repeats for relatively small $n$ $(n\le 10)$, I used recursive triangle construction.
Let $(n,k)$-no-repeats triangle is triangle with upper row $(1)$, where $$t_j \le k, \; j=1,2,\ldots,n.$$ Then if $n$-triangle is $(n,k)$-no-repeats triangle, then its left $(n-1)$-triangle (with upper row $(t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_{n-1})$) has the same property:
it is $(n-1,k)$-no-repeats triangle. Which admits to apply recursion.
This way,
"$8$-no-repeats" problem has only one $44$-solution:
and no $k$-solutions for $k\le 43$.
"$9$-no-repeats" problem has only one $59$-solution:
and no $k$-solutions for $k\le 58$.
"$10$-no-repeats" problem has only one $76$-solution:
and no $k$-solutions for $k\le 75$.
"$11$-no-repeats" problem has at least one $102$-solution:
and no $k$-solutions for $k\le 78$ (currently checking cases $k\in[79 .. 102]$).
For larger $n$ heuristic or randomized algorithms can probably give (almost) optimal solutions. Actually algorithm developed by Dmitry Kamenetsky works pretty nice and fast: when I've seen his $(8,44)$ and $(9,59)$ (optimal!) results for smallest difference triangle with no repeats, my "records" were $(8, 45)$ and $(9, 66)$ at that time.