MHB Pumping Lemma proof for L=0^p 1^p 0^p 1^p-: Review my proof please-:

  • Thread starter Thread starter shivajikobardan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Review
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the validity of a proof related to a lemma involving specific cases of strings in the form of $0^p1^p0^p1^p$. Concerns are raised about the inclusion of case 1, where $v=0^p$, $x=1^p$, and $y=\varepsilon$, which is deemed prohibited by the lemma's conditions. In case 3, it is noted that the language $L$ includes patterns that do not conform to the specified forms, prompting questions about the implications of this observation. Ambiguities in the proof are criticized, particularly regarding what is excluded from $L$ and the assumptions made about $y$. Case 5 lacks clarity, especially concerning the conditions on $y$ and $x$, suggesting potential violations of the lemma's conditions. The need for a more detailed and structured proof is emphasized, recommending a clearer presentation and better readability for diagrams.
shivajikobardan
Messages
637
Reaction score
54
Please review my proof. Is this correct or not?
1636814677938.png


1636815724413.png
1636815703046.png
 
Technology news on Phys.org
Why do you consider case 1) where $v=0^p$, $x=1^p$ and $y=\varepsilon$? It is prohibited by condition (2) of the lemma.

In case 3) you write: "$L$ contains pattern not in form $0^p1^p0^p1^p$". This is true: $L$ contains words that do not have this form and do not even have the form $0^n1^n0^n1^n$ for any $n$. What conclusion do you draw from this? Then you write: "So $\notin L$. What exactly does not belong to $L$? It's a bad style to write such ambiguous claims in a proof. Finally, case 3) assumes that $y=\varepsilon$. What if this is not so?

The description of case 5) is not clear (does $y$ have to be empty? does $x$ has to end on the boundary between zeros and ones?), but it seems that it is again prohibited by condition 2 of the lemma.

A proof should contain more words. For example, this proof should start like this: "Let $p$ be the number whose existence is stated in the lemma. Let $w=0^p1^p0^p1^p$. Consider the following five exhaustive cases".

Please type you proof in the body of the forum post. Pictures can easily be described, for example: "$vxy$ spans the first boundary between 0s and 1s" (the diagram at the bottom of page 1). The bottom of page 1 is far too dark for comfortable reading.
 
Anthropic announced that an inflection point has been reached where the LLM tools are good enough to help or hinder cybersecurity folks. In the most recent case in September 2025, state hackers used Claude in Agentic mode to break into 30+ high-profile companies, of which 17 or so were actually breached before Anthropic shut it down. They mentioned that Clause hallucinated and told the hackers it was more successful than it was...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K