MHB Properties of Ackermann's function

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I want to show the following properties of Ackermann's function:

  1. $A(x,y)>y$.
  2. $A(x,y+1)>A(x,y)$.
  3. If $y_2>y_1$, then $A(x,y_2)>A(x,y_1)$.
  4. $A(x+1, y) \geq A(x,y+1)$.
  5. $A(x,y)>x$.
  6. If $x_2>x_1$, then $A(x_2, y)>A(x_1, y)$.
  7. $A(x+2, y)>A(x,2y)$.
I have done the following:

  1. Induction on $x$.
  2. Induction on $x$.
    Base case: For $x=0$ we have $A(0,y+1)=y+2>y+1=A(0,y)$, by the definition of $A$.

    Inductive hypothesis: We assume that it holds for $x=n$, that means $A(n,y+1)>A(n,y)$ (I.H.x)

    Inductive step: We want to show that $A(n+1, y+1)>A(n+1,y)$.
    By the definition of $A$ and by the property $1$ we have $A(n+1, y+1)=A(n,A(n+1, y))>A(n+1,y)$.

  3. Induction on $y$.
    Base case: For $y=0$ we have $A(x+1, 0)=A(x,1)=A(x,0+1)$.

    Inductive hypothesis: We assume that it holds for $y=m$, that means $A(x+1, m) \geq A(x,m+1)$ (I.H.)

    Inductive step: We want to show that $A(x+1, m+1) \geq A(x,m+2)$.
    By the definition we have $A(x+1, m+1)=A(x,A(x+1, m))$. By the (I.H.) and the property $1$ we have $A(x+1, m) \geq A(x,m+1)>m+1 \Rightarrow A(x+1, m) \geq A(x,m+1) \geq m+2$. By the property $3$ we have $A(x,A(x+1,m)) \geq A(x,m+2)$. So, we cocnlude that $A(x+1, m+1) \geq A(x,m+2)$.
  4. By the property $4$ we have $A(x+1, y) \geq A(x,y+1)$. So, we have $A(x,y) \geq A(x-1, y+1) \geq A(x-2, y+2) \geq \dots \geq A(0,x+y)=x+y+1>x$.
    But how can we prove this formally??

  5. Induction on $y$.
    Base case: For $y=0$ we have by the property $6$ $A(x+2, 0)>A(x,0)=A(x,2 \cdot 0)$.

    Inductive hypothesis: We assume that it holds for $y=m$, that means $A(x+2, m)>A(x,2m)$ (I.H.)

    Inductive step: We want to show that $A(x+2, m+1) > A(x,2(m+1))$.
    By the definition of $A$ we have $A(x+2, m+1)=A(x+1, A(x+2, m))$. By the (I.H.) we have $A(x+2, m)>A(x,2m)$. By the property $3$ we have $A(x+2, m+1)>A(x+1, A(x,2m))$. By the property $4$ we have $A(x+1, A(x,2m)) \geq A(x,A(x,2m)+1)$ According to the property $1$, $A(x,2m)>2m \Rightarrow A(x,2m) \geq 2m+1$ or equivalently $A(x,2m)+1 \geq 2m+2=2(m+1)$. By the property $3$ we have $A(x,A(x,2m)+1) \geq A(x,2(m+1))$. So, $A(x+2, m+1)>A(x,2(m+1))$.

Is this correct?? Could I improve something?? (Wondering)

Could you give me some hints to prove the properties $3, 6$ ?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At the proof of the properties $3$ and $6$ do we use the properties $2$ and $4$ respectively?

But how? (Wondering)

For example, for the property $3$ would the proof be as follows?

Induction on $x$.

Base case: For $x=0$ we have $A(0,y_2)=y_2+1>y_1+1=A(0,y_1)$

Inductive hypothesis: We assume that it holds for $x=n$, that means $A(n,y_2)>A(n,y_1)$ (I.H)

Inductive step: We want to show that $A(n+1,y_2)>A(n+1,y_1)$.

How can we continue?
 
I tried again to prove the property $3$:

$y_2>y_1 \Rightarrow y_2=y_1+d, d>0 \Rightarrow d=y_2-y_1>0$

Induction on $d$.

Base case: For $d=1$ we have $A(x, y_2)=A(x, y_1+1) \overset{(2)}{>}A(x, y_1)$.

Inductive hypothesis: We assume that it holds for $d=k$, that means that $A(x, y_2)=A(x, y_1+k)>A(x, y_1)$ (I.H.)

Inductive step: We want to show that $A(x, y_1+(k+1))>A(x, y_1)$
$A(x, y_1+k+1)=A(x, (y_1+k)+1)\overset{(2)}{>}A(x, y_1+k)\overset{ (I.H.) }{>}A(x, y_1)$ Is this correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)

The proof of the property $6$ is similiar, isn't it?

On which variable do we use the induction for the property $5$ ?
 
For the property $5$ do we do the following?

We will show that $$A(x, y) \geq A(0, x+y)$$ by induction on $k=x+y$. Base case: For $k=0$ we have $x=y=0$, so $A(0, 0) \geq A(0, 0)$.

Inductive hypothesis: We assume that it stands for $k=n$, $A(x, y) \geq A(0, n)$. (I.H.)

Inductive step: We will show that it stands for $k=n+1$, $x+1+y=n+1$, that means that $A(x+1, y) \geq A(0, n+1)=(n+1)+1=n+2$.
We have that $A(x+1, y) >A(x, y) \overset{ (I.H.) }{\geq} A(0, n)=n+1$.
$A(x+1, y)>n+1 \Rightarrow A(x+1, y) \geq n+2$. So, we have that $A(x, y) \geq A(0, x+y)=x+y+1>x+y$. Is this correct?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Back
Top