This is a good question, I may use this exercise in the future.
Answering a blurring would be too vague, for two main reasons:
- first, a blur is often associated with linear filtering, and median filtering is not linear
- second, the hypotheses are very precise; this is an hint that more precise reasoning is possible.
So: you have a cluster of pixels. Cluster is not a very precise term, but we can at least suppose that the pixels are connected (either with the 4- or 8-type connectivity, Von Neumann or Moore neighborhood). Since the area is $(n−1)/2$, the cluster cannot be more than $(n−1)/2$ pixel wide or tall. The extreme cases are horizontal (or vertical) segments of length $(n−1)/2$. Here is an example with $n=15$:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
So all in all, the cluster is totally enclosed into a little square $s$ of size $(n−1)/2\times(n−1)/2$. Since the cluster is isolated, this means that outside this square, there are only light values.
Now, by a simple counting argument, visualize the little square $s$ inside any bigger square $S$ of size $n\times n$. Since the little square has sides strictly smaller than "half of $n$", the median of the big square cannot be a value taken from small square $s$. Hence each pixel from the cluster, when median filtered, will be replaced be a value taken in the neighborhood on this pixel, and a value that is not in the cluster.
So the result is a "dark cluster" eraser, or a "background filler". If dark means pure black, and light pure white, the result will be a full white image.
Except possibly at the borders, without specific hypotheses on the pixels "outside the image".