Return-Path: <kfoury@cs.bu.edu> X-Spam-HitLevel: X-Spam-DCC: sonic.net: cs3.bu.edu 1117; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on cs3.bu.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Pyzor: Received: from [76.19.13.95] ([76.19.13.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by cs3.bu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kA6HbJ6h011436; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:37:29 -0500 Message-ID: <454F72D5.20209@cs.bu.edu> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:37:25 -0500 From: Assaf Kfoury <kfoury@cs.bu.edu> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: samepst@cs.bu.edu CC: cs520@cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Problem Set 7 Problem 1 References: <33141.71.192.166.44.1162833620.squirrel@cs-squirrelmail.bu.edu> In-Reply-To: <33141.71.192.166.44.1162833620.squirrel@cs-squirrelmail.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Clamav-Status: No Status: RO Content-Length: 586 X-UID: 46 X-Keywords:
Yes, you can make this assumption. Whatever your approach, state clearly
your assumptions. The crucial part in this exercise is to set up the
appropriate induction hypothesis.
Assaf
samepst@cs.bu.edu wrote:
>I'm running into a counterexample when I weaken lemma 0.2 in handout 14
>along the lines lemma 1.0 in handout 16. This is because variables are not
>considered values in the Handout 14, whereas they are in handout 16. So
>the counterexample to weakening of lemma 0.2 is t = x.
>
>Can it be assumed that variables are values in handout 14?
>
>Thank You,
>-Sam Epstein
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 16:31:59 EST