Stuck with a simple induction problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter leden
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction Stuck
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving by induction that in a sequence of 0s and 1s, starting with 1 and not allowing consecutive 0s, the number of 0s is never greater than the number of 1s. A participant suggests using strong induction and breaking the sequence into fragments, noting that if a string with more 0s than 1s exists, it must be the smallest such string. They establish that this smallest string must have a length of at least three and cannot end in two consecutive 0s. The argument concludes that if the string ends in a 0, it must take the form x10, leading to a contradiction regarding the number of 0s in the smaller string x. The proof effectively demonstrates that the original claim holds true.
leden
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Suppose you are building a sequence consisting of 0 and 1 in such a way that:
- you start with 1
- no consecutive 0s are allowed
Examples of such sequences are: 1, 1010, 110111101 etc. Empty sequence is also allowed.

I want to prove by induction that the number of 0s in such a sequence is never greater than the number of 1s.

(Btw, I managed to prove that the length of such a sequence is at least the number of 1s inside, but I am not sure that the proof for this is any similar to this one.)

I tried almost every form of induction I could think of (except nested induction), but simply couldn't prove it. Please help.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Try strong induction and break the string of length k into fragments.
 
If a string with more 0's then 1's is possible, there has to be a smallest string.
It must have a length at least 3, because 1, 10 and 11 are the only possible smaller strings, and they don't have more 0's then ones

This string can't have the form x1, because x would also have more 0s then 1s, so it must end in a 0.

The string can't end with 2 zero's because no consecutive 0's are allowed, so the string must have the form x10. If x10 has more zero's then ones, then so has x, which isn't possible, because x was the smallest string with more zeros then ones.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K