solutions 5

Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications with MathZone

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ICS 6D ( Discrete Mathematic): Solution to Homework #5 Section 4.2 4. a) It’s true for 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 because 18 = 7+7+4, 19 = 4+4+7+4, 20 = 4+4+4+4+4, 21 = 7+7+7. b) Inductive hypothesis: Assume that for some k we have that P ( i ) is true for all i s.t. 18 ≤ i ≤ k . (Note that “usually” the inductive hypothesis in a strong induction proof would be that P ( i ) is true for all i ≤ k , but that actually only applies to proofs of theorems where the base case is k = 0. Here the base case is k = 18 and hence we can only assume that P ( i ) is true for i between 18 and k .) c) What we need to prove is that P ( k + 1) holds, i.e. that k + 1 can be represented as a sum of 7’s and 4’s, assuming the inductive hypothesis on k , as stated above. d) The proof is simple: Since k + 1 = k + 4 if k = k- 3 then if you can represent k = k- 3 as a sum of 7’s and 4’s then you can do the same with k + 1. In other words P ( k- 3) implies P ( k + 1). But is P ( k- 3) implied by the inductive assumption stated in part (b)? Yes, because k ≥ 21 and therefore k- 3 ≥ 18, and at the same time obviously k- 3 ≥ k , so therefore the inductive assumption, that P ( i ) holds for all i between 18 and k , covers the case i = k- 3, and therefore it implies P ( k- 3). Since we’ve seen that P ( k- 3) implies P ( k + 1), this implies P ( k + 1), as needed. e) This finishes the proof because part (a) covered the cases n = 18 , 19 , 20 , 21, and part (d) showed that for any k ≥ 21, if P ( i ) holds for all i between 18 and k then it holds for k + 1, and this implies that P ( n ) holds for all n ≥ 21. Thus P ( n ) holds for all n ≥ 18. 10. The answer is that exactly n- 1 breaks are needed. Let P ( n ) state that every n-squared rectangular bar needs exactly n- 1 breaks to be broken to single pieces. The base case: P (1) is obviously true. The (strong) inductive case: Let k be any integer k ≥ 1. Assume that P ( i ) holds for all i s.t. 1 ≤ i ≤ k . We’ll show that P ( k + 1) holds as well. Why? Assume you have a ( k + 1)-squared rectangular bar. Assume you broke it somehow using a single break, and therefore now you have two rectangular bars, with n 1 and n 2 pieces each s.t. n 1 + n 2 = k + 1. Moreoever we have 1 ≤ n 1 , n 2 ≤ k . Therefore the inductive assumption kicks in for both n 1 and n 2 , and therefore we know that it takes exactly n 1- 1 steps to break the first bar and exactly n 2- 1 steps to break the second bar. (Note that you couldn’t do this step that easily using standard induction!!) Therefore it took ( n 1- 1) + ( n 2- 1) + 1 = ( n 1 + n 2 )- 1 = ( k + 1)- 1 steps to break the main bar, which was what we needed to show.the main bar, which was what we needed to show....
View Full Document

This homework help was uploaded on 01/30/2008 for the course ICS 6D taught by Professor Jarecki during the Fall '07 term at UC Irvine.

Page1 / 3

solutions 5 - ICS 6D ( Discrete Mathematic): Solution to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online