Proofs for recursive sets using induction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving properties of the recursive set T*, defined by specific induction rules. The proofs demonstrate that there are no strings in T* with exactly 3^k + 1 zeros, 2^(k+1) digits, or whose digits sum to 97. The inductive proofs establish a clear basis and induction step for each case, confirming the absence of such strings in T* for all natural numbers k.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of recursive definitions and sets
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Knowledge of ternary strings and their properties
  • Basic concepts of number theory related to powers and sums
NEXT STEPS
  • Study mathematical induction techniques in depth
  • Explore recursive set definitions and their implications
  • Investigate properties of ternary strings and their construction
  • Learn about combinatorial proofs and their applications in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students studying formal languages, recursion, and proof techniques in theoretical computer science.

evanx
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
T* is a recursive definition, a subset of the family of ternary strings. Let T* be the smallest set such that:

BASIS: 0 is in T*
INDUCTION STEP: If x,y in T*, then so are x0y, 1x2 and 2 x1.

a) Prove that if k in N, then there is no string in T* with exactly [tex]3^k +1[/tex] zeros.
b) Prove that if k in N, then there is no string in T* that has exactly [tex]2^(^k^+^1^)[/tex] digits.
c) Prove that there is no string in T* whose digits sum to 97.

I have started drawing combinations of elements in T* and am at a lost for the correlation about x0y and the zeros for a). As for b), I suspect that the answer has soemthing to do with any string being one with odd numbered digits since I can have x, x0y, ax0yb, etc. But I have no idea on how to formalise my suspicions. For part c), I fail to see the connection between the sum of T*'s digits and x,y.

Please help, I have wrecked my brains for a week over this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any suggestions?
 


a) To prove that there is no string in T* with exactly 3^k +1 zeros, we will use proof by induction on k.
Basis: For k = 0, there is only one string in T* with 3^k +1 zeros, which is the string "0". Therefore, the statement is true for k = 0.
Induction Step: Assume that for some k in N, there is no string in T* with exactly 3^k +1 zeros. We will prove that there is no string in T* with exactly 3^(k+1) +1 zeros.
Suppose there exists a string x in T* with exactly 3^(k+1) +1 zeros. Since x is in T*, it must have been formed by applying the induction step on some strings y and z in T*. This means that y0z, 1y2, and 2y1 are also in T*. However, the number of zeros in these strings is 3^k +2, which is not equal to 3^(k+1) +1. This contradicts our assumption that x has exactly 3^(k+1) +1 zeros. Therefore, there is no string in T* with exactly 3^(k+1) +1 zeros. By induction, we can conclude that there is no string in T* with exactly 3^k +1 zeros for any k in N.

b) To prove that there is no string in T* that has exactly 2^(k+1) digits, we will use proof by induction on k.
Basis: For k = 0, there is only one string in T* with 2^(k+1) digits, which is the string "0". Therefore, the statement is true for k = 0.
Induction Step: Assume that for some k in N, there is no string in T* with exactly 2^(k+1) digits. We will prove that there is no string in T* with exactly 2^(k+2) digits.
Suppose there exists a string x in T* with exactly 2^(k+2) digits. Since x is in T*, it must have been formed by applying the induction step on some strings y and z in T*. This means that y0z, 1y2, and 2y1 are
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K