Recursive structure of MOS scales: Difference between revisions

Line 429:

Suppose w(L, s) had three chunks L...s with r, r+1 and r+2 'L's. Then we have a length r+2 subword that's only 'L's, one that has one s at the end and one that has two 's's on either side, which means that the original scale was not MOS. Therefore the reduced word has two step sizes.

[Proof is incomplete]<!--

Without loss of generality assume r ≥ 1 (otherwise flip the roles of L and s). Let W'(λ, σ) be the reduced word with step sizes λ (corresponding to the chunk of L's of size r+1) and σ (corresponding the chunk of size r), and assume that W' is not a mos. Then for some k, W' must have k-steps of the following sizes:

# p₁ λ's and q₁ σ's, represented by subword W₁(λ, σ) in W'.

Line 440:

Line 441:

Note that the latter two words have at most k s's, and that W₂(Lr+1s, Lrs) has k chunks in total.

It suffices to consider the case where the intersection w₂ ∩ w₃ contains at least k-1 complete chunks, since otherwise we would contradict either the length of W₂(λ, σ) or the mos property of w (Todo: bring back the cases and diagrams to prove this rigorously). 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(Lr+1s, Lrs) 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).

It suffices to consider the case where the intersection w₂ ∩ w₃ contains at least k-1 complete chunks, since otherwise we would contradict either the length of W₂(λ, σ) or the mos property of w (Todo: bring back the cases and diagrams to prove this rigorously). 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(Lr+1s, Lrs) 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).-->

=== Preservation of generators ===

@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
 Suppose w(L, s) had three chunks L...s with r, r+1 and r+2 'L's. Then we have a length r+2 subword that's only 'L's, one that has one s at the end and one that has two 's's on either side, which means that the original scale was not MOS. Therefore the reduced word has two step sizes.
+[Proof is incomplete]<!--
 Without loss of generality assume r ≥ 1 (otherwise flip the roles of L and s). Let W'(λ, σ) be the reduced word with step sizes λ (corresponding to the chunk of L's of size r+1) and σ (corresponding the chunk of size r), and assume that W' is not a mos. Then for some k, W' must have k-steps of the following sizes:
 # p₁ λ's and q₁ σ's, represented by subword W₁(λ, σ) in W'.
@@ Line 440: / Line 441: @@
 Note that the latter two words have at most k s's, and that W₂(L<sup>r+1</sup>s, L<sup>r</sup>s) has k chunks in total.
-It suffices to consider the case where the intersection w₂ ∩ w₃ contains at least k-1 complete chunks, since otherwise we would contradict either the length of W₂(λ, σ) or the mos property of w (Todo: bring back the cases and diagrams to prove this rigorously). 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).
+It suffices to consider the case where the intersection w₂ ∩ w₃ contains at least k-1 complete chunks, since otherwise we would contradict either the length of W₂(λ, σ) or the mos property of w (Todo: bring back the cases and diagrams to prove this rigorously). 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).-->
 === Preservation of generators ===