Generator-offset property: Difference between revisions

Inthar (talk | contribs)
Inthar (talk | contribs)
m Proof: Clean up abuse/unclear use of "preimage"
Line 127: Line 127:
We can write sizes of intervals in S as vectors (p, q, r) using the basis (a, b, c).  
We can write sizes of intervals in S as vectors (p, q, r) using the basis (a, b, c).  


Suppose for sake of contradiction that P has only one preimage (α, β, γ) in S. Then projecting to S<sub>2</sub> shows that S<sub>2</sub>'s generator is the k-step (α + γ)*(a~c) + βb, and Σ<sub>2</sub>'s imperfect generator is located at index n, like Σ<sub>1</sub>'s imperfect generator is. Then S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub> are the same mode of the same mos pattern (up to knowing which step size is the bigger one). Assume the L of S<sub>1</sub> (it could be s, but it doesn’t matter) is the result of identifying b and c, and all instances of s in S<sub>1</sub> come from a. Then the steps of S<sub>2</sub> corresponding to the L of S<sub>1</sub> must be either all b’s or all a~c’s, thus these steps are all b’s in S (otherwise they would be identified with the a, against the assumption that S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub> are the same mos pattern and mode). So S has only two step sizes (a and b), contradicting the assumption that S has exactly three step sizes.
Suppose for sake of contradiction that only one size (α, β, γ) in S projects to P in S<sub>1</sub>. Then projecting to S<sub>2</sub> shows that S<sub>2</sub>'s generator is the k-step (α + γ)*(a~c) + βb, and Σ<sub>2</sub>'s imperfect generator is located at index n, like Σ<sub>1</sub>'s imperfect generator is. Then S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub> are the same mode of the same mos pattern (up to knowing which step size is the bigger one). Assume the L of S<sub>1</sub> (it could be s, but it doesn’t matter) is the result of identifying b and c, and all instances of s in S<sub>1</sub> come from a. Then the steps of S<sub>2</sub> corresponding to the L of S<sub>1</sub> must be either all b’s or all a~c’s, thus these steps are all b’s in S (otherwise they would be identified with the a, against the assumption that S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub> are the same mos pattern and mode). So S has only two step sizes (a and b), contradicting the assumption that S has exactly three step sizes.


Only two sizes of k-steps of S can project to P in S<sub>1</sub>, for if P has three preimages (α, β, γ), (α, β’, γ’), (α, β’’, γ’’) in S, then β, β’ and β’’ are three distinct values. Thus these would project to three different k-steps in S<sub>3</sub>, contradicting the mos property of S<sub>3</sub>.
Only two sizes of k-steps of S can project to P in S<sub>1</sub>, for if there are three sizes of k-steps (α, β, γ), (α, β’, γ’), (α, β’’, γ’’) in S that project to P, then β, β’ and β’’ are three distinct values. Thus these would project to three different k-steps in S<sub>3</sub>, contradicting the mos property of S<sub>3</sub>.


So suppose Q = (α, β, γ) ≠ R = (α, β’, γ’) are the two preimages of P in S. Then I has preimage (α’, β’’, γ’’), which we denote T. Here the values in each component differ by at most 1, and α ≠ α’. Either β’’ = β or β’’ = β’. Assume β’’ = β’. Then γ’’ = γ. The cyclic words Λ<sub>1</sub> = the pattern of α and α’, Λ<sub>2</sub> = the pattern of β and β’, and Λ<sub>3</sub> = the pattern of γ and γ must form mosses. By way of illustration, the chain of k-steps might look like this in S:
So suppose Q = (α, β, γ) ≠ R = (α, β’, γ’) are the two k-steps in S that project to P. Then T = (α’, β’’, γ’’) projects to I. Here the values in each component differ by at most 1, and α ≠ α’. Either β’’ = β or β’’ = β’. Assume β’’ = β’. Then γ’’ = γ. The cyclic words Λ<sub>1</sub> = the pattern of α and α’, Λ<sub>2</sub> = the pattern of β and β’, and Λ<sub>3</sub> = the pattern of γ and γ must form mosses. By way of illustration, the chain of k-steps might look like this in S:


       1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9
       1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9
Line 139: Line 139:
  Λ<sub>3</sub> = γ γ γ γ’ γ γ γ γ γ
  Λ<sub>3</sub> = γ γ γ γ’ γ γ γ γ γ


We don’t know which P’s have preimage Q and which P’s have preimage R, but we now do know that Σ<sub>2</sub> has one more R than Σ<sub>3</sub>, and thus that:
We now do know that Σ<sub>2</sub> has one more R than Σ<sub>3</sub>, and thus that:


Λ<sub>2</sub> is λβ μβ’, 2 ≤ μ ≤ ceil(n/2).
Λ<sub>2</sub> is λβ μβ’, 2 ≤ μ ≤ ceil(n/2).
Line 169: Line 169:


We need only consider stacks up to f-many k-steps. Either:
We need only consider stacks up to f-many k-steps. Either:
# the stack has only preimages of P’s and it either contains R or not; or
# the stack has only Q's and R's; or
# the stack has one T and does not contain any R (since it’s more than f &minus; 1 generators away).
# the stack has one T and does not contain any R (since it’s more than f &minus; 1 generators away).
These give exactly three distinct sizes for every interval class. Hence S is SV3.
These give exactly three distinct sizes for every interval class. Hence S is SV3.