Well you have . So . Since and you have .
All I think can of is the following:
Since the reaminder become strictly smaller each step, the worst case is when the remainders go down by 1 each step, in which case the process will take "b" steps in total to complete. Therefore, the process will terminate in at most "b" steps.
But how can we prove that all reaminders satisfy the inequality r(i+2) < r(i)/2? By induction? or...? This seems to provide a much better upper bound on the number of steps to complete the process.
Any help is much appreciated!
[also under discussion in s.o.s. math board]
Remember, (if equal, the algorithm only has one step). If the algorithm starts with , then they are switched in the very next line. So, if our algorithm is to have more than one line, it is just assumed that right off the bat. In this case, is forced to happen.
yes, BrunoJ had a typo. But if you look at what he did, you can see that he assumed just as you wrote here.Also, I think we should have ?