Recursive structure of MOS scales: Difference between revisions
| Line 416: | Line 416: | ||
If w₂ contains fewer complete chunks (<L...Ls preceded by where < is the left chunk boundary) or at least 2 more than w₃, we are done, since they must automatically have different numbers of s's. It suffices to consider the case where the intersection w₂ ∩ w₃ contains at least k-1 complete chunks, since otherwise W₂(L<sup>r+1</sup>s, L<sup>r</sup>s) would have at least k+1 chunks, which would contradict the length of W₂(λ, σ). If the intersection had exactly k-1 chunks, this implies that one substring is a proper subset of the other, a contradiction. Thus the intersection has to have exactly k chunks, implying w₂ = w₃, and that W₂(L<sup>r+1</sup>s, L<sup>r</sup>s) is exactly K+1 letters long, only one more than w₁(L, s). This contradicts the fact that W₂(λ, σ) has at least two more λ's than W₁(λ, σ). | If w₂ contains fewer complete chunks (<L...Ls preceded by where < is the left chunk boundary) or at least 2 more than w₃, we are done, since they must automatically have different numbers of s's. It suffices to consider the case where the intersection w₂ ∩ w₃ contains at least k-1 complete chunks, since otherwise W₂(L<sup>r+1</sup>s, L<sup>r</sup>s) would have at least k+1 chunks, which would contradict the length of W₂(λ, σ). If the intersection had exactly k-1 chunks, this implies that one substring is a proper subset of the other, a contradiction. Thus the intersection has to have exactly k chunks, implying w₂ = w₃, and that W₂(L<sup>r+1</sup>s, L<sup>r</sup>s) is exactly K+1 letters long, only one more than w₁(L, s). This contradicts the fact that W₂(λ, σ) has at least two more λ's than W₁(λ, σ). | ||
[Something's still off, as it doesn't seem to derive a contradiction from assuming that the reduced word is a non-mos arrangement of two chunk sizes...] | |||
=== Preservation of generators === | === Preservation of generators === | ||