Values in an inductively defined sequence of sets
Consider the following sequence of sets:
begin{align}
T_0 &= {(0,0)} \
T_{n+1} &= {(1+x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2):(x_1,y_1)in T_n, (x_2,y_2)in T_k text{ for some } kleq n} \
&quad cup {(x_1,1+y_1):(x_1,y_1)in T_n}.
end{align}
What values of $(a,b)$ are in $T_n$ for a given $n$?
For reference, here are the first couple values of $T_n$:
$T_1 = {(1,0),(0,1)}$
$T_2 = {(2,0),(3,0),(1,1),(2,1),(0,2)}$
$T_3$ is pretty big.
So far, I have that the first coordinate can take any value from $n$ to $2^n-1$, but I am having trouble finding a systematic way of describing corresponding possible values for the second coordinate.
If it helps, this question is derived from trying to determine the possible lengths of a propositional formula of height $n$.
combinatorics logic propositional-calculus
add a comment |
Consider the following sequence of sets:
begin{align}
T_0 &= {(0,0)} \
T_{n+1} &= {(1+x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2):(x_1,y_1)in T_n, (x_2,y_2)in T_k text{ for some } kleq n} \
&quad cup {(x_1,1+y_1):(x_1,y_1)in T_n}.
end{align}
What values of $(a,b)$ are in $T_n$ for a given $n$?
For reference, here are the first couple values of $T_n$:
$T_1 = {(1,0),(0,1)}$
$T_2 = {(2,0),(3,0),(1,1),(2,1),(0,2)}$
$T_3$ is pretty big.
So far, I have that the first coordinate can take any value from $n$ to $2^n-1$, but I am having trouble finding a systematic way of describing corresponding possible values for the second coordinate.
If it helps, this question is derived from trying to determine the possible lengths of a propositional formula of height $n$.
combinatorics logic propositional-calculus
1
There is a minor typo, for $(x_1,y_1)=(x_2,y_2)=(0,1) in T_1$ the first rule gives $(1,2) in T_2$. As a side remark, it might be useful to state the full original problem that you actually want to solve, rather than the part where you get stuck in your chosen path towards a solution, because your approach need not be the easiest strategy for solving it.
– Ronald Blaak
Nov 27 at 10:28
add a comment |
Consider the following sequence of sets:
begin{align}
T_0 &= {(0,0)} \
T_{n+1} &= {(1+x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2):(x_1,y_1)in T_n, (x_2,y_2)in T_k text{ for some } kleq n} \
&quad cup {(x_1,1+y_1):(x_1,y_1)in T_n}.
end{align}
What values of $(a,b)$ are in $T_n$ for a given $n$?
For reference, here are the first couple values of $T_n$:
$T_1 = {(1,0),(0,1)}$
$T_2 = {(2,0),(3,0),(1,1),(2,1),(0,2)}$
$T_3$ is pretty big.
So far, I have that the first coordinate can take any value from $n$ to $2^n-1$, but I am having trouble finding a systematic way of describing corresponding possible values for the second coordinate.
If it helps, this question is derived from trying to determine the possible lengths of a propositional formula of height $n$.
combinatorics logic propositional-calculus
Consider the following sequence of sets:
begin{align}
T_0 &= {(0,0)} \
T_{n+1} &= {(1+x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2):(x_1,y_1)in T_n, (x_2,y_2)in T_k text{ for some } kleq n} \
&quad cup {(x_1,1+y_1):(x_1,y_1)in T_n}.
end{align}
What values of $(a,b)$ are in $T_n$ for a given $n$?
For reference, here are the first couple values of $T_n$:
$T_1 = {(1,0),(0,1)}$
$T_2 = {(2,0),(3,0),(1,1),(2,1),(0,2)}$
$T_3$ is pretty big.
So far, I have that the first coordinate can take any value from $n$ to $2^n-1$, but I am having trouble finding a systematic way of describing corresponding possible values for the second coordinate.
If it helps, this question is derived from trying to determine the possible lengths of a propositional formula of height $n$.
combinatorics logic propositional-calculus
combinatorics logic propositional-calculus
edited Nov 27 at 17:02
Taroccoesbrocco
5,02261839
5,02261839
asked Feb 7 at 22:02
Daniel Mourad
587
587
1
There is a minor typo, for $(x_1,y_1)=(x_2,y_2)=(0,1) in T_1$ the first rule gives $(1,2) in T_2$. As a side remark, it might be useful to state the full original problem that you actually want to solve, rather than the part where you get stuck in your chosen path towards a solution, because your approach need not be the easiest strategy for solving it.
– Ronald Blaak
Nov 27 at 10:28
add a comment |
1
There is a minor typo, for $(x_1,y_1)=(x_2,y_2)=(0,1) in T_1$ the first rule gives $(1,2) in T_2$. As a side remark, it might be useful to state the full original problem that you actually want to solve, rather than the part where you get stuck in your chosen path towards a solution, because your approach need not be the easiest strategy for solving it.
– Ronald Blaak
Nov 27 at 10:28
1
1
There is a minor typo, for $(x_1,y_1)=(x_2,y_2)=(0,1) in T_1$ the first rule gives $(1,2) in T_2$. As a side remark, it might be useful to state the full original problem that you actually want to solve, rather than the part where you get stuck in your chosen path towards a solution, because your approach need not be the easiest strategy for solving it.
– Ronald Blaak
Nov 27 at 10:28
There is a minor typo, for $(x_1,y_1)=(x_2,y_2)=(0,1) in T_1$ the first rule gives $(1,2) in T_2$. As a side remark, it might be useful to state the full original problem that you actually want to solve, rather than the part where you get stuck in your chosen path towards a solution, because your approach need not be the easiest strategy for solving it.
– Ronald Blaak
Nov 27 at 10:28
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As mentioned in the comment, it is probably better to ask the actual problem you wanted to solve. The current question has a rather messy and lengthy solution and might not be too useful. For that reason I only give here the main results and the main steps required in a proof.
The set of points $T_n$ is a convex set of lattice points $(x,y)$ in the 2D plane. It is relatively easy to show that $0 leq x leq 2^n-1$ and $0 leq y leq 2^{n-1}$. For the actual boundaries of the set, you will find that the set is bounded from below by two lines $x+y geq n$ and $y geq 0$. The upper limit is more complicated and consists of inequalities, the number of which increases with the value of $n$. One can show that for given $n$ and $x in [0,2^n-1]$ that all points are found by
$$
max (n-x,0) leq y leq 2^{k+1} + (n-k-2)(x+1) qquad qquad qquad (*)
$$
where $k$ is an integer dependent on $x$ and given by
$$
2^k leq x + 1 < 2^{k+1}.
$$
For proving this result a number of steps are required.
1) The range of $x$ and $y$. From the transformation it is immediately clear that $x,y geq 0$. With the help of induction you can prove that the domain is restricted by $T_n subset [0,2^n-1] times [0,2^{n-1}]$ for $ngeq1$ using the maximum growth possible in either direction.
2) With induction you can also show that
$$
(x,0) in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad nleq xleq2^n-1
$$
$$
(x,n-x)in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad 0 leq x leq n
$$
You can also use this to show that $x+ygeq n$ which establishes the lower bounds in $(*)$
3) If you would represent the sets graphically and consider the transformation for low values of $n$, it will be clear that the set $T_n$ is convex and that the boundary is a polygon.
4) The vertices of the polygon-boundary of $T_n$ are given by $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k)$ for $0leq k leq n$. Note that each vertex under the first transformation rule maps on to the boundary of $T_{n+1}$, i.e., $(x,y) rightarrow (2x+1,2y)$ gives that $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k) rightarrow (2^{k+1}-1,[(n+1)-(k+1)]2^{k+1})$ complemented with applying the second transformation on $(0,n) rightarrow (0,n+1)$. The only other vertex to be added to make the boundary complete is the point $(n,0)$.
5) The rest of the boundary are straight lines connecting the vertices, giving rise to the upper limit in $(*)$.
A full prove along these lines is possible but quite a bit of writing.
The derivation can be simplified and made more intuitive, if we consider the sets $S_n=cup_{i=0}^n T_n$. With the innitial condition $T_0={(0,0)}$, we then find that
begin{eqnarray}
S_{n+1}
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=1}^{n+1} T_n right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in T_i text{ with } 0 leq i leq k} cup {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in S_k} right] cup left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup S_0\
& = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {p+(0,1)|pin S_{n}} cup S_0
end{eqnarray}
Effectively, this means that $S_n$ is obtained by adding the grid-points $(x,y)$ in the triange $x,ygeq$ and $x+y<n$ to $T_n$.
By considering $q=(0,1)$ in the first set, it is obvious that almost all points generated by the second set in the prescription for $S_{n+1}$ are already included by the first set. The only exception are the points $(0,y)$ with $1 leq y leq n+1$. Including the point $(0,0)$, we can therefore summarize the sets $S_n$ by
begin{eqnarray}
S_0 & = & {(0,0)} \
S_{n+1} & = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {(0,k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
We now apply a particular translation of the points in each set $S_n$, that will depend explicitly on $n$. This does of course not affect their number or the shape of the set in a graphical representation, and obtain the sets $R_n$
$$
R_n = {p-(2^{n-2}-1,0) | p in S_n}
$$
This results in $R_0={(frac{3}{4},0)}$ and $R_1={(frac{1}{2},0),(frac{1}{2},1),(frac{3}{2},0)}$, but for $n geq 2$ the set $R_n$ will only contain integer grid-points.
Applying this translation to the transformation for $T_n$, we find that this results in
begin{eqnarray}
R_0 & = & {(frac{3}{4},0)} \
R_{n+1} & = & {p+q|p,q in R_n} cup {(1-2^{n-1},k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
This means that in each iteration the domain is mainly scaled by a factor 2 in both $x$ and $y$ direction with respect to the origin (this is the reason for the particular choice or translation) and a single vertical line of points is added on the extreme left side. With this in mind, it is then easy to check and prove by induction that for $n geq 2$, the set $R_n$ contains all integer grid-points that are bounded by the inequalities $y geq 0$, $x geq 1-2^{n-2}$, and $ y leq (k-1) (x+2^{n-2}) + 2^{k+1}$ for $0 leq k < n$, as well as that the corresponding vertices of the polygon are given by ${(2^{n-k}-2^{n-2}, k 2^{n-k})| 0 leq k leq n} cup {(1-2^{n-2},0)}$.
Transforming this result back to the set $S_n$ and $T_n$ gives the results as mentioned above.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2640868%2fvalues-in-an-inductively-defined-sequence-of-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As mentioned in the comment, it is probably better to ask the actual problem you wanted to solve. The current question has a rather messy and lengthy solution and might not be too useful. For that reason I only give here the main results and the main steps required in a proof.
The set of points $T_n$ is a convex set of lattice points $(x,y)$ in the 2D plane. It is relatively easy to show that $0 leq x leq 2^n-1$ and $0 leq y leq 2^{n-1}$. For the actual boundaries of the set, you will find that the set is bounded from below by two lines $x+y geq n$ and $y geq 0$. The upper limit is more complicated and consists of inequalities, the number of which increases with the value of $n$. One can show that for given $n$ and $x in [0,2^n-1]$ that all points are found by
$$
max (n-x,0) leq y leq 2^{k+1} + (n-k-2)(x+1) qquad qquad qquad (*)
$$
where $k$ is an integer dependent on $x$ and given by
$$
2^k leq x + 1 < 2^{k+1}.
$$
For proving this result a number of steps are required.
1) The range of $x$ and $y$. From the transformation it is immediately clear that $x,y geq 0$. With the help of induction you can prove that the domain is restricted by $T_n subset [0,2^n-1] times [0,2^{n-1}]$ for $ngeq1$ using the maximum growth possible in either direction.
2) With induction you can also show that
$$
(x,0) in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad nleq xleq2^n-1
$$
$$
(x,n-x)in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad 0 leq x leq n
$$
You can also use this to show that $x+ygeq n$ which establishes the lower bounds in $(*)$
3) If you would represent the sets graphically and consider the transformation for low values of $n$, it will be clear that the set $T_n$ is convex and that the boundary is a polygon.
4) The vertices of the polygon-boundary of $T_n$ are given by $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k)$ for $0leq k leq n$. Note that each vertex under the first transformation rule maps on to the boundary of $T_{n+1}$, i.e., $(x,y) rightarrow (2x+1,2y)$ gives that $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k) rightarrow (2^{k+1}-1,[(n+1)-(k+1)]2^{k+1})$ complemented with applying the second transformation on $(0,n) rightarrow (0,n+1)$. The only other vertex to be added to make the boundary complete is the point $(n,0)$.
5) The rest of the boundary are straight lines connecting the vertices, giving rise to the upper limit in $(*)$.
A full prove along these lines is possible but quite a bit of writing.
The derivation can be simplified and made more intuitive, if we consider the sets $S_n=cup_{i=0}^n T_n$. With the innitial condition $T_0={(0,0)}$, we then find that
begin{eqnarray}
S_{n+1}
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=1}^{n+1} T_n right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in T_i text{ with } 0 leq i leq k} cup {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in S_k} right] cup left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup S_0\
& = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {p+(0,1)|pin S_{n}} cup S_0
end{eqnarray}
Effectively, this means that $S_n$ is obtained by adding the grid-points $(x,y)$ in the triange $x,ygeq$ and $x+y<n$ to $T_n$.
By considering $q=(0,1)$ in the first set, it is obvious that almost all points generated by the second set in the prescription for $S_{n+1}$ are already included by the first set. The only exception are the points $(0,y)$ with $1 leq y leq n+1$. Including the point $(0,0)$, we can therefore summarize the sets $S_n$ by
begin{eqnarray}
S_0 & = & {(0,0)} \
S_{n+1} & = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {(0,k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
We now apply a particular translation of the points in each set $S_n$, that will depend explicitly on $n$. This does of course not affect their number or the shape of the set in a graphical representation, and obtain the sets $R_n$
$$
R_n = {p-(2^{n-2}-1,0) | p in S_n}
$$
This results in $R_0={(frac{3}{4},0)}$ and $R_1={(frac{1}{2},0),(frac{1}{2},1),(frac{3}{2},0)}$, but for $n geq 2$ the set $R_n$ will only contain integer grid-points.
Applying this translation to the transformation for $T_n$, we find that this results in
begin{eqnarray}
R_0 & = & {(frac{3}{4},0)} \
R_{n+1} & = & {p+q|p,q in R_n} cup {(1-2^{n-1},k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
This means that in each iteration the domain is mainly scaled by a factor 2 in both $x$ and $y$ direction with respect to the origin (this is the reason for the particular choice or translation) and a single vertical line of points is added on the extreme left side. With this in mind, it is then easy to check and prove by induction that for $n geq 2$, the set $R_n$ contains all integer grid-points that are bounded by the inequalities $y geq 0$, $x geq 1-2^{n-2}$, and $ y leq (k-1) (x+2^{n-2}) + 2^{k+1}$ for $0 leq k < n$, as well as that the corresponding vertices of the polygon are given by ${(2^{n-k}-2^{n-2}, k 2^{n-k})| 0 leq k leq n} cup {(1-2^{n-2},0)}$.
Transforming this result back to the set $S_n$ and $T_n$ gives the results as mentioned above.
add a comment |
As mentioned in the comment, it is probably better to ask the actual problem you wanted to solve. The current question has a rather messy and lengthy solution and might not be too useful. For that reason I only give here the main results and the main steps required in a proof.
The set of points $T_n$ is a convex set of lattice points $(x,y)$ in the 2D plane. It is relatively easy to show that $0 leq x leq 2^n-1$ and $0 leq y leq 2^{n-1}$. For the actual boundaries of the set, you will find that the set is bounded from below by two lines $x+y geq n$ and $y geq 0$. The upper limit is more complicated and consists of inequalities, the number of which increases with the value of $n$. One can show that for given $n$ and $x in [0,2^n-1]$ that all points are found by
$$
max (n-x,0) leq y leq 2^{k+1} + (n-k-2)(x+1) qquad qquad qquad (*)
$$
where $k$ is an integer dependent on $x$ and given by
$$
2^k leq x + 1 < 2^{k+1}.
$$
For proving this result a number of steps are required.
1) The range of $x$ and $y$. From the transformation it is immediately clear that $x,y geq 0$. With the help of induction you can prove that the domain is restricted by $T_n subset [0,2^n-1] times [0,2^{n-1}]$ for $ngeq1$ using the maximum growth possible in either direction.
2) With induction you can also show that
$$
(x,0) in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad nleq xleq2^n-1
$$
$$
(x,n-x)in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad 0 leq x leq n
$$
You can also use this to show that $x+ygeq n$ which establishes the lower bounds in $(*)$
3) If you would represent the sets graphically and consider the transformation for low values of $n$, it will be clear that the set $T_n$ is convex and that the boundary is a polygon.
4) The vertices of the polygon-boundary of $T_n$ are given by $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k)$ for $0leq k leq n$. Note that each vertex under the first transformation rule maps on to the boundary of $T_{n+1}$, i.e., $(x,y) rightarrow (2x+1,2y)$ gives that $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k) rightarrow (2^{k+1}-1,[(n+1)-(k+1)]2^{k+1})$ complemented with applying the second transformation on $(0,n) rightarrow (0,n+1)$. The only other vertex to be added to make the boundary complete is the point $(n,0)$.
5) The rest of the boundary are straight lines connecting the vertices, giving rise to the upper limit in $(*)$.
A full prove along these lines is possible but quite a bit of writing.
The derivation can be simplified and made more intuitive, if we consider the sets $S_n=cup_{i=0}^n T_n$. With the innitial condition $T_0={(0,0)}$, we then find that
begin{eqnarray}
S_{n+1}
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=1}^{n+1} T_n right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in T_i text{ with } 0 leq i leq k} cup {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in S_k} right] cup left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup S_0\
& = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {p+(0,1)|pin S_{n}} cup S_0
end{eqnarray}
Effectively, this means that $S_n$ is obtained by adding the grid-points $(x,y)$ in the triange $x,ygeq$ and $x+y<n$ to $T_n$.
By considering $q=(0,1)$ in the first set, it is obvious that almost all points generated by the second set in the prescription for $S_{n+1}$ are already included by the first set. The only exception are the points $(0,y)$ with $1 leq y leq n+1$. Including the point $(0,0)$, we can therefore summarize the sets $S_n$ by
begin{eqnarray}
S_0 & = & {(0,0)} \
S_{n+1} & = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {(0,k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
We now apply a particular translation of the points in each set $S_n$, that will depend explicitly on $n$. This does of course not affect their number or the shape of the set in a graphical representation, and obtain the sets $R_n$
$$
R_n = {p-(2^{n-2}-1,0) | p in S_n}
$$
This results in $R_0={(frac{3}{4},0)}$ and $R_1={(frac{1}{2},0),(frac{1}{2},1),(frac{3}{2},0)}$, but for $n geq 2$ the set $R_n$ will only contain integer grid-points.
Applying this translation to the transformation for $T_n$, we find that this results in
begin{eqnarray}
R_0 & = & {(frac{3}{4},0)} \
R_{n+1} & = & {p+q|p,q in R_n} cup {(1-2^{n-1},k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
This means that in each iteration the domain is mainly scaled by a factor 2 in both $x$ and $y$ direction with respect to the origin (this is the reason for the particular choice or translation) and a single vertical line of points is added on the extreme left side. With this in mind, it is then easy to check and prove by induction that for $n geq 2$, the set $R_n$ contains all integer grid-points that are bounded by the inequalities $y geq 0$, $x geq 1-2^{n-2}$, and $ y leq (k-1) (x+2^{n-2}) + 2^{k+1}$ for $0 leq k < n$, as well as that the corresponding vertices of the polygon are given by ${(2^{n-k}-2^{n-2}, k 2^{n-k})| 0 leq k leq n} cup {(1-2^{n-2},0)}$.
Transforming this result back to the set $S_n$ and $T_n$ gives the results as mentioned above.
add a comment |
As mentioned in the comment, it is probably better to ask the actual problem you wanted to solve. The current question has a rather messy and lengthy solution and might not be too useful. For that reason I only give here the main results and the main steps required in a proof.
The set of points $T_n$ is a convex set of lattice points $(x,y)$ in the 2D plane. It is relatively easy to show that $0 leq x leq 2^n-1$ and $0 leq y leq 2^{n-1}$. For the actual boundaries of the set, you will find that the set is bounded from below by two lines $x+y geq n$ and $y geq 0$. The upper limit is more complicated and consists of inequalities, the number of which increases with the value of $n$. One can show that for given $n$ and $x in [0,2^n-1]$ that all points are found by
$$
max (n-x,0) leq y leq 2^{k+1} + (n-k-2)(x+1) qquad qquad qquad (*)
$$
where $k$ is an integer dependent on $x$ and given by
$$
2^k leq x + 1 < 2^{k+1}.
$$
For proving this result a number of steps are required.
1) The range of $x$ and $y$. From the transformation it is immediately clear that $x,y geq 0$. With the help of induction you can prove that the domain is restricted by $T_n subset [0,2^n-1] times [0,2^{n-1}]$ for $ngeq1$ using the maximum growth possible in either direction.
2) With induction you can also show that
$$
(x,0) in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad nleq xleq2^n-1
$$
$$
(x,n-x)in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad 0 leq x leq n
$$
You can also use this to show that $x+ygeq n$ which establishes the lower bounds in $(*)$
3) If you would represent the sets graphically and consider the transformation for low values of $n$, it will be clear that the set $T_n$ is convex and that the boundary is a polygon.
4) The vertices of the polygon-boundary of $T_n$ are given by $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k)$ for $0leq k leq n$. Note that each vertex under the first transformation rule maps on to the boundary of $T_{n+1}$, i.e., $(x,y) rightarrow (2x+1,2y)$ gives that $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k) rightarrow (2^{k+1}-1,[(n+1)-(k+1)]2^{k+1})$ complemented with applying the second transformation on $(0,n) rightarrow (0,n+1)$. The only other vertex to be added to make the boundary complete is the point $(n,0)$.
5) The rest of the boundary are straight lines connecting the vertices, giving rise to the upper limit in $(*)$.
A full prove along these lines is possible but quite a bit of writing.
The derivation can be simplified and made more intuitive, if we consider the sets $S_n=cup_{i=0}^n T_n$. With the innitial condition $T_0={(0,0)}$, we then find that
begin{eqnarray}
S_{n+1}
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=1}^{n+1} T_n right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in T_i text{ with } 0 leq i leq k} cup {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in S_k} right] cup left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup S_0\
& = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {p+(0,1)|pin S_{n}} cup S_0
end{eqnarray}
Effectively, this means that $S_n$ is obtained by adding the grid-points $(x,y)$ in the triange $x,ygeq$ and $x+y<n$ to $T_n$.
By considering $q=(0,1)$ in the first set, it is obvious that almost all points generated by the second set in the prescription for $S_{n+1}$ are already included by the first set. The only exception are the points $(0,y)$ with $1 leq y leq n+1$. Including the point $(0,0)$, we can therefore summarize the sets $S_n$ by
begin{eqnarray}
S_0 & = & {(0,0)} \
S_{n+1} & = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {(0,k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
We now apply a particular translation of the points in each set $S_n$, that will depend explicitly on $n$. This does of course not affect their number or the shape of the set in a graphical representation, and obtain the sets $R_n$
$$
R_n = {p-(2^{n-2}-1,0) | p in S_n}
$$
This results in $R_0={(frac{3}{4},0)}$ and $R_1={(frac{1}{2},0),(frac{1}{2},1),(frac{3}{2},0)}$, but for $n geq 2$ the set $R_n$ will only contain integer grid-points.
Applying this translation to the transformation for $T_n$, we find that this results in
begin{eqnarray}
R_0 & = & {(frac{3}{4},0)} \
R_{n+1} & = & {p+q|p,q in R_n} cup {(1-2^{n-1},k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
This means that in each iteration the domain is mainly scaled by a factor 2 in both $x$ and $y$ direction with respect to the origin (this is the reason for the particular choice or translation) and a single vertical line of points is added on the extreme left side. With this in mind, it is then easy to check and prove by induction that for $n geq 2$, the set $R_n$ contains all integer grid-points that are bounded by the inequalities $y geq 0$, $x geq 1-2^{n-2}$, and $ y leq (k-1) (x+2^{n-2}) + 2^{k+1}$ for $0 leq k < n$, as well as that the corresponding vertices of the polygon are given by ${(2^{n-k}-2^{n-2}, k 2^{n-k})| 0 leq k leq n} cup {(1-2^{n-2},0)}$.
Transforming this result back to the set $S_n$ and $T_n$ gives the results as mentioned above.
As mentioned in the comment, it is probably better to ask the actual problem you wanted to solve. The current question has a rather messy and lengthy solution and might not be too useful. For that reason I only give here the main results and the main steps required in a proof.
The set of points $T_n$ is a convex set of lattice points $(x,y)$ in the 2D plane. It is relatively easy to show that $0 leq x leq 2^n-1$ and $0 leq y leq 2^{n-1}$. For the actual boundaries of the set, you will find that the set is bounded from below by two lines $x+y geq n$ and $y geq 0$. The upper limit is more complicated and consists of inequalities, the number of which increases with the value of $n$. One can show that for given $n$ and $x in [0,2^n-1]$ that all points are found by
$$
max (n-x,0) leq y leq 2^{k+1} + (n-k-2)(x+1) qquad qquad qquad (*)
$$
where $k$ is an integer dependent on $x$ and given by
$$
2^k leq x + 1 < 2^{k+1}.
$$
For proving this result a number of steps are required.
1) The range of $x$ and $y$. From the transformation it is immediately clear that $x,y geq 0$. With the help of induction you can prove that the domain is restricted by $T_n subset [0,2^n-1] times [0,2^{n-1}]$ for $ngeq1$ using the maximum growth possible in either direction.
2) With induction you can also show that
$$
(x,0) in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad nleq xleq2^n-1
$$
$$
(x,n-x)in T_n qquadtext{for}qquad 0 leq x leq n
$$
You can also use this to show that $x+ygeq n$ which establishes the lower bounds in $(*)$
3) If you would represent the sets graphically and consider the transformation for low values of $n$, it will be clear that the set $T_n$ is convex and that the boundary is a polygon.
4) The vertices of the polygon-boundary of $T_n$ are given by $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k)$ for $0leq k leq n$. Note that each vertex under the first transformation rule maps on to the boundary of $T_{n+1}$, i.e., $(x,y) rightarrow (2x+1,2y)$ gives that $(2^k-1,[n-k]2^k) rightarrow (2^{k+1}-1,[(n+1)-(k+1)]2^{k+1})$ complemented with applying the second transformation on $(0,n) rightarrow (0,n+1)$. The only other vertex to be added to make the boundary complete is the point $(n,0)$.
5) The rest of the boundary are straight lines connecting the vertices, giving rise to the upper limit in $(*)$.
A full prove along these lines is possible but quite a bit of writing.
The derivation can be simplified and made more intuitive, if we consider the sets $S_n=cup_{i=0}^n T_n$. With the innitial condition $T_0={(0,0)}$, we then find that
begin{eqnarray}
S_{n+1}
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=1}^{n+1} T_n right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in T_i text{ with } 0 leq i leq k} cup {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup T_0\
& = & left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+q+(1,0)|p in T_{k}; q in S_k} right] cup left[ bigcup_{k=0}^{n} {p+(0,1)|pin T_{k}} right] cup S_0\
& = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {p+(0,1)|pin S_{n}} cup S_0
end{eqnarray}
Effectively, this means that $S_n$ is obtained by adding the grid-points $(x,y)$ in the triange $x,ygeq$ and $x+y<n$ to $T_n$.
By considering $q=(0,1)$ in the first set, it is obvious that almost all points generated by the second set in the prescription for $S_{n+1}$ are already included by the first set. The only exception are the points $(0,y)$ with $1 leq y leq n+1$. Including the point $(0,0)$, we can therefore summarize the sets $S_n$ by
begin{eqnarray}
S_0 & = & {(0,0)} \
S_{n+1} & = & {p+q+(1,0)|p,q in S_n} cup {(0,k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
We now apply a particular translation of the points in each set $S_n$, that will depend explicitly on $n$. This does of course not affect their number or the shape of the set in a graphical representation, and obtain the sets $R_n$
$$
R_n = {p-(2^{n-2}-1,0) | p in S_n}
$$
This results in $R_0={(frac{3}{4},0)}$ and $R_1={(frac{1}{2},0),(frac{1}{2},1),(frac{3}{2},0)}$, but for $n geq 2$ the set $R_n$ will only contain integer grid-points.
Applying this translation to the transformation for $T_n$, we find that this results in
begin{eqnarray}
R_0 & = & {(frac{3}{4},0)} \
R_{n+1} & = & {p+q|p,q in R_n} cup {(1-2^{n-1},k) |0 leq k leq n+1 }
end{eqnarray}
This means that in each iteration the domain is mainly scaled by a factor 2 in both $x$ and $y$ direction with respect to the origin (this is the reason for the particular choice or translation) and a single vertical line of points is added on the extreme left side. With this in mind, it is then easy to check and prove by induction that for $n geq 2$, the set $R_n$ contains all integer grid-points that are bounded by the inequalities $y geq 0$, $x geq 1-2^{n-2}$, and $ y leq (k-1) (x+2^{n-2}) + 2^{k+1}$ for $0 leq k < n$, as well as that the corresponding vertices of the polygon are given by ${(2^{n-k}-2^{n-2}, k 2^{n-k})| 0 leq k leq n} cup {(1-2^{n-2},0)}$.
Transforming this result back to the set $S_n$ and $T_n$ gives the results as mentioned above.
edited Dec 3 at 15:18
answered Nov 27 at 22:28
Ronald Blaak
2,394310
2,394310
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2640868%2fvalues-in-an-inductively-defined-sequence-of-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
There is a minor typo, for $(x_1,y_1)=(x_2,y_2)=(0,1) in T_1$ the first rule gives $(1,2) in T_2$. As a side remark, it might be useful to state the full original problem that you actually want to solve, rather than the part where you get stuck in your chosen path towards a solution, because your approach need not be the easiest strategy for solving it.
– Ronald Blaak
Nov 27 at 10:28