verty said:
Let ##\alpha## be however long, it doesn't matter. Use induction on n.
After a few hours of trying, I managed to make it through the synthetic method using induction on n and another proposition (I'll call it "Length of Concatenated Strings", that was proven in class:
PROPOSITION 1: LENGTH OF CONCATENATED STRINGS
∀α, β |α ⋅ β| = |α| + |β|
So here's the base case:
BASE CASE: Suppose n = 0, α is an arbitrary string. Then
LHS = |αn| = |α0| = |λ| = 0 = 0|α| = n|α| = RHS
I'll pause here to note that I'm not confident this is right; in fact, I suspect it's wrong. This particular sequence of steps where I go from
the length of the empty string |λ| (which is 0 by definition) to n|α|:
Is one I didn't really "believe" while I was writing (but I kept going because I wanted to at least feel like I was making some progress). My reasoning is that 0 = 0|α|, since the length of a string |α| ε ℕ and therefore 0|α| = 0 due to the multiplication property of 0. Then, since I established in the premise of the base case that n = 0, I substitute 0|α| = n|α| to "complete" the proof.
I don't know how to explain it, but this seems "finicky" to me. I don't feel that I did it "right". Still, I continued to the inductive step, again just wanting to feel like I was making some headway:
INDUCTION HYPOTHESIS: If n = k, then |αn| = n|α|
INDUCTION STEP: Suppose n = k + 1. THEN
LHS = |αn| = |αk + 1| = |(αk) ⋅ α| = |k|a| ⋅ a| = k|α| + |α| = (k+1)|a| = n|a| = RHS
Again, I don't "feel" that this many of these steps are right. In particular:
Based on PROPOSITION 1, |k|α| ⋅ α| actually yields |k|α|| + |α|, but I reasoned that
|k|α|| + |α| = k|α| + |α|
Since k ε ℕ and |α| ε ℕ (definition of the length of a string). That is, | k * |α| | should be the same thing as just k * |α|, since neither k nor |α| are strings and length is a property of strings, so the extra | | are superfluous.
This:
is based on the definition of multiplication, i.e. n * k = k
0 + k
1 + ... + k
n. I don't know if I can use it here, though.
Finally, this:
This is the iffiest step of all. It's based on the fact that I let n = k + 1 at the beginning of the inductive step, but I'm not sure that I can actually use that anymore once I've already transformed that k + 1 into a k in the step
Anyhow, that's what I've got so far. Apologies if my questions seem stupid. This is my first time practicing induction in a very long time. I'd appreciate it if you (or anyone else) could let me know if I'm on the right track with this answer, or point me in the right direction if I'm not.