Eventually we can get because we end up expanding a term lik and eventually get then we can cut it out.
I don't think we can get because we will keep on getting and then replace it with , but if it ends with then it becomes . So in my head it looks like it'll be an inf loop which we can cut out enough to get .
b
For an element , defind to be the number of 's in .
.
Base Case:
Induction Hypothesis:
For any in , then for any cases, .
Assume that
Induction Step:
Case 1:
If then .
This is because the obviously won't be counted in the counter of .
So we just double the end, which will be the same.
Case 1:
Solution
2b
Proceed by structural induction.
Base Case:
Induction Hypothesis:
Combined strategy
Suppose that and
C1)
We that
If
Then it's either or . Why? Because the only remainders from dividing by , is or .
Then:
This means
This means
Then is as a remainder so:
The above cases are not congruent to .
C2 and C3)
These constructors don't change the number of 's.
If they're equal then none of these cases here are
C4)
We know that 's are removed.
So we get
That's
So we can see that none of these cases are congruent to .