This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Solutions to Assignment 1 Sophia Knight September 29, 2006 Question 1 Consider the following relation on finite sequences of natural numbers: n 1 n 2 n 3 ...n k < m 1 m 2 m 3 ...m l if and only if i such that n i < m i and j < i n j = m j . The case where k < l and i k n i = m i is regarded as a special case of this definition. We define n 1 n 2 n 3 ...n k m 1 m 2 m 3 ...m l as n 1 n 2 n 3 ...n k < m 1 m 2 m 3 ...m l or n 1 n 2 n 3 ...n k = m 1 m 2 m 3 ...m l . Show that is a partial order. Solution: We must show that is antisymmetric, transitive and reflexive. In order to include the special case of the definition, we consider a blank space to be an element of a sequence which is smaller than any number. Antisymmetric : If a = a 1 a 2 ...a m < b = b 1 b 2 ...b n , then at the first position i where a and b differ, a i < b i . If we also have b < a , then at the first position i where b and a differ, b i < a i . Clearly, the i = i , so both cannot be true. Thus, if a < b , then it is not the case that b < a , so if a b and b a , then a = b . So is antisymmetric. Transitive : Assume that a = a 1 a 2 ...a l < b = b 1 b 2 ...b m < c = c 1 c 2 ...c n . So, i 1 such that a i 1 < b i 1 and for all j < i 1 , a j = b j . And i 2 such that b i 2 < c i 2 and for all j < i 2 , b j = c j . So, let i = min( i 1 , i 2 ). Then for all j < i , a j = b j = c j . Furthermore, if i = i 1 = i 2 , then a i < b i < c i . Otherwise, i = i 1 or i = i 2 . If i = i 1 , then i < i 2 and so a i < b i = c i . If i = i 2 , then a i = b i < c i . In any case, a i < c i , so a < c . Finally, if a = b and b < c or if a < b and b = c , or if a = b = c then it is still the case that a c . So, if a b c , then a c , and the relation is transitive. Reflexive This is obvious from the definition. Show that is a wellfounded order. Solution: It turns out that its not a wellfounded order! Heres an infinite descending sequence: ((1);(0,1);(0,0,1);(0,0,0,1);...). We thank Artour Tomberg for this counterexample. It is wellfounded if we bound the lengths of the sequences. Here is the proof: We must show that for every nonempty subset S of finite sequences of natural numbers, there is a minimal element with respect to our relation, that is an element x with no other element in the set less than x . Let S = { s 1 , s 2 , ... } = { ( a 1 , 1 a 1 , 2 a 1 , 3 ...a 1 ,n 1 ); ( a 2 , 1 a 2 , 2 ...a 2 ,n 2 ); ( a 3 , 1 a 3 , 2 ...a 3 ,n 3 ); ... } Now, let a 1 = min { a 1 , 1 , a 2 , 1 , a 3 , 1 , ... } . We know that a 1 exists because N is a wellordered set. Let S 1 = { s m S  a m, 1 = a 1 } . If S 1 has an element of length one, then it is clear from the definition of 1 that this element is the least element of...
View
Full
Document
This note was uploaded on 12/01/2009 for the course COMP COMP 330 taught by Professor Panangaden during the Spring '04 term at McGill.
 Spring '04
 Panangaden

Click to edit the document details