\[lem: 9.9\], $t:=(s_1,\dotsc,s_{g(s)})$ satisfies conditions (i) and (ii) of Proposition \[prop:case1\]. In particular we have that $m(t) = p^{g(s)}-p^{g(s)-f(s)}-1$. Applying Proposition \[prop:case1\] to the sequence $t$, we deduce that $m(t,s_{g(s)+1})=p\cdot m(t)$ and that $(t,s_{g(s)+1})$ also satisfies both conditions of Proposition \[prop:case1\]. The statement now follows by repeated application of Proposition \[prop:case1\] ($k-g(s)$ iterations), giving $m(s) = p^{k-g(s)}\cdot m(t) = p^k-p^{k-f(s)}-p^{k-g(s)}$.

\[rem:inductive step\] Proposition \[prop:case1\] in fact governs the entire inductive step from $m(s)$ to $m(s,x)$, with Lemmas \[lem: 001\] and \[lem: 9.9\] providing the base cases (we may ignore ${\mathbbm{1}}_{P_{p^k}}$, corresponding to $s=(0,\dotsc,0)$, which was considered in [@GL1]). This can be seen easily using Figure \[fig:flowchart p&gt;=5\].

We remark that we could not directly apply Propositions \[prop:case1\] to sequences $s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)})\in[\overline{p}]^k$, since condition (ii) on multiplicities is not satisfied (see Lemma \[lem: 001\]). Furthermore, we also could not apply the proposition to sequences of the form $s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)},0,\dotsc,0)$, since $\Omega(s)\setminus\mathcal{B}_{p^k}(m(s))$ *does* contain thin partitions, namely ${\mathsf{t}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$, ${\mathsf{h}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$ and their conjugates. This is why Lemma \[lem: 9.9\] is necessary. $\lozenge$

\[lem: 9.9\ ], $ t:=(s_1,\dotsc, s_{g(s)})$ satisfies conditions (i) and (ii) of Proposition   \[prop: case1\ ]. In particular we have that $ m(t) = p^{g(s)}-p^{g(s)-f(s)}-1$. apply Proposition \[prop: case1\ ] to the succession $ t$, we deduce that $ m(t, s_{g(s)+1})=p\cdot m(t)$ and that $ (t, s_{g(s)+1})$ also satisfies both condition of Proposition   \[prop: case1\ ]. The affirmation now follows by repeat lotion of Proposition   \[prop: case1\ ] ($ k - g(s)$ iterations), giving $ m(s) = p^{k - g(s)}\cdot m(t) = p^k - p^{k - f(s)}-p^{k - g(s)}$. 

 \[rem: inductive step\ ] Proposition   \[prop: case1\ ] in fact governs the entire inductive footfall from $ m(s)$ to $ m(s, x)$, with Lemmas   \[lem: 001\ ] and   \[lem: 9.9\ ] providing the base case (we may ignore $ { \mathbbm{1}}_{P_{p^k}}$, corresponding to $ s=(0,\dotsc,0)$, which was considered in [ @GL1 ]). This can be seen easily using Figure   \[fig: flowchart p&gt;=5\ ]. 

 We note that we could not directly apply Propositions   \[prop: case1\ ] to succession $ s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)})\in[\overline{p}]^k$, since condition (ii) on multiplicities is not satisfied (see Lemma \[lem: 001\ ]). Furthermore, we besides could not apply the proposal to sequences of the form $ s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)},0,\dotsc,0)$, since $ \Omega(s)\setminus\mathcal{B}_{p^k}(m(s))$ * does * contain flimsy partitions, namely $ { \mathsf{t}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$, $ { \mathsf{h}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$ and their conjugates. This is why Lemma \[lem: 9.9\ ] is necessary. $ \lozenge$
\[lem: 9.9\], $t:=(s_1,\dotsc,s_{g(s)})$ satisfies cunditions (i) and (ii) of 'roposifion \[prop:zase1\]. In particular we have tiat $n(t) = p^{t(s)}-p^{g(s)-f(s)}-1$. Applying Proporition \[prlp:case1\] ti tht sequence $t$, we dxsuce that $m(t,s_{f(d)+1})=p\cdmv m(t)$ and that $(t,x_{g(s)+1})$ also sdtisfies both wovdntions of Proposition \[prop:case1\]. The stwtement nlw follows by tepeaued appmpcction of Proposition \[prop:case1\] ($k-g(a)$ iterauions), giving $m(s) = p^{l-g(s)}\cdot m(t) = p^k-p^{k-f(s)}-p^{k-g(s)}$.

\[rem:ijduchive step\] Propositlon \[prop:case1\] in sqct governs ghe entire inductive sjep from $m(s)$ to $m(s,x)$, with Lemmas \[leo: 001\] anb \[lem: 9.9\] provieibg hve base casxs (we iay ignore ${\mathbbm{1}}_{P_{p^n}}$, correxponding to $s=(0,\dptsr,0)$, whuch was considered in [@GL1]). This can be segn easily gsnng Figure \[fig:flowcharr p&gt;=5\].

We remdrk gyat we cpumd not dicectly applg Propositiins \[prop:case1\] to sequtncqw $s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)})\in[\kverlige{[}]^k$, since condition (ii) on multiplicities is not satisfied (see Lemmq \[lem: 001\]). Furthermore, we also coujd not apply the proposition to sequences of the xorm $a=(0,\aotwc,0,f_{w(w)},0,\dltsc,0)$, since $\Omega(s)\setminus\mathcal{B}_{p^k}(m(s))$ *does* cogfaon thin partitioks, namely ${\mathsf{t}_{p^l}[{m(d)+1}]}$, ${\kwthsf{h}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$ ana theix cknjugates. This is ahy Lemia \[len: 9.9\] is nectssaru. $\lozenge$

\[lem: 9.9\], $t:=(s_1,\dotsc,s_{g(s)})$ satisfies conditions (i) and Proposition In particular have that $m(t) to sequence $t$, we that $m(t,s_{g(s)+1})=p\cdot m(t)$ that $(t,s_{g(s)+1})$ also satisfies both conditions Proposition \[prop:case1\]. The statement now follows by repeated application of Proposition \[prop:case1\] ($k-g(s)$ giving $m(s) = p^{k-g(s)}\cdot m(t) = p^k-p^{k-f(s)}-p^{k-g(s)}$. \[rem:inductive step\] Proposition \[prop:case1\] in fact the inductive from to $m(s,x)$, with Lemmas \[lem: 001\] and \[lem: 9.9\] providing the base cases (we may ignore corresponding to $s=(0,\dotsc,0)$, which was considered in [@GL1]). can be seen easily Figure \[fig:flowchart p&gt;=5\]. We remark we not directly Propositions to $s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)})\in[\overline{p}]^k$, since condition on multiplicities is not satisfied (see Lemma \[lem: 001\]). Furthermore, we also could not apply the proposition sequences of $s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)},0,\dotsc,0)$, since *does* thin namely ${\mathsf{t}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$, ${\mathsf{h}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$ conjugates. This is why Lemma \[lem: $\lozenge$
\[lem: 9.9\], $t:=(s_1,\dotsc,s_{g(s)})$ satisfies conDitions (i) anD (ii) of proPosItIon \[pRop:cAse1\]. In particulaR We haVe that $m(t) = p^{g(s)}-p^{g(s)-f(s)}-1$. ApplyiNg ProPoSItioN \[PrOp:casE1\] to the sEQuENCe $t$, We DeDucE tHAt $M(t,s_{g(s)+1})=P\cdOt m(t)$ and That $(t,s_{g(s)+1})$ alSo sAtIsfies both coNDiTions of ProPosItion \[prop:casE1\]. ThE stateMeNt nOW follOws By repEated aPPlicatIon of PropOsITion \[prOP:case1\] ($k-g(S)$ ITeRatiOns), giving $m(s) = p^{k-g(s)}\cdOT m(T) = P^k-p^{k-f(s)}-p^{k-g(s)}$.

\[rem:iNductiVe STeP\] pRopOsiTion \[prop:caSe1\] In facT Governs THe ENTIre INductive step fRom $m(s)$ to $m(s,x)$, wITh LEmmas \[lEm: 001\] And \[LEm: 9.9\] provIding ThE BasE cases (we may IgnoRe ${\mathbbm{1}}_{p_{p^k}}$, corREspondiNG to $s=(0,\dotSc,0)$, whicH waS coNsidEReD iN [@GL1]). thIS caN Be SeeN EasIly using fiGuRe \[fig:FlowCHART p&gt;=5\].

we rEmarK that We could not dirEctLy apPLy PRoposItionS \[proP:cAse1\] to SequenCes $s=(0,\dOtSc,0,s_{f(s)})\in[\overline{P}]^k$, siNce conditIon (Ii) On mUlTipliCIties iS noT saTisfied (See LemmA \[Lem: 001\]). fuRTHErMore, we also could not ApPLY tHe proposItion tO SeQuENces of thE fOrm $S=(0,\dotSC,0,S_{f(s)},0,\doTsc,0)$, sINcE $\Omega(s)\sEtminuS\MaThCal{B}_{p^k}(m(S))$ *dOes* conTaIn tHin PartiTIons, Namely ${\Mathsf{t}_{p^K}[{m(s)+1}]}$, ${\maTHsf{h}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$ and theIR conjugates. ThIS iS WHy lEmma \[Lem: 9.9\] Is necessary. $\LozeNGe$

\[lem: 9.9\], $t:=(s_1,\do tsc,s_{g(s )})$sat isf ie s co ndit ions (i) and ( i i) o f Proposition \[prop:c ase1\ ]. In p a rt icula r we ha v et h at$m (t ) =  p ^ {g (s)}- p^{ g(s)-f( s)}-1$. Ap ply in g Propositio n  \ [prop:case 1\]  to the sequ enc e $t$,  w e d e ducetha t $m( t,s_{g ( s)+1}) =p\cdot m (t ) $ andt hat $(t , s _{ g(s) +1})$ also satisf i es both condition s of P ro p os i t ion  \[ prop:case1 \] . The stateme n tn o w  fo l lows by repea ted applica t ion  of Pr op osi t ion \[ prop: ca s e1\ ] ($k-g(s)$  ite rations),  givin g  $m(s)=  p^{k-g (s)}\c dot  m( t) = p^ k- p^{ k- f (s) } -p ^{k - g(s )}$.

\[ re m: induc tive s t e p\]Pro posi tion\[prop:case1\ ] i n fa c t g overn s the  ent ir e ind uctive  step  f rom $m(s)$ to $ m(s, x)$, with  Le mm as\[ lem:0 01\] a nd\[l em: 9.9 \] prov i din gt h e  b ase cases (we mayig n o re  ${\math bbm{1} } _{ P_ { p^k}}$,co rre spon d i ng to  $s= ( 0, \dotsc,0 )$, wh i ch  w as cons id ered i n[@G L1] ). Th i s ca n be s een easi ly us i ng Figure \[fi g :flowchart p& g t; = 5 \] . 

We  re mark that w e co u ld n ot d i re ctl y  appl y Pro po s it i ons \[prop:case1\]to  seque nces$s=(0,\dotsc, 0,s_{f(s)} ) \ i n[\overl ine{ p }] ^ k$, since cond ition  (ii) on m u ltiplici tiesis not s atisfied( s ee Lemma  \[ lem : 0 01\ ] ) .Furthermore,w e  als ocould n otapply t hepro pos iti on  to seque nces ofth efo rm  $s =(0,\ d otsc,0,s _{ f(s )} ,0, \dots c ,0)$,since  $\O me ga ( s)\ setminu s \m a t hcal {B }_ {p^k }(m (s ))$ * does *  co ntain t hin parti tio n s, n am el y ${\ma thsf{t}_{p^k} [{ m(s)+1}]}$ ,${\ mathsf { h }_{p^k}[ {m(s)+1}]}$ and their c o njugate s.Thisis w hy Lemma\[l em: 9. 9\] is nec essary . $\l oz eng e $ 

\[lem: 9.9\],_$t:=(s_1,\dotsc,s_{g(s)})$ satisfies_conditions (i) and (ii)_of Proposition \[prop:case1\]._In_particular we_have_that $m(t) =_p^{g(s)}-p^{g(s)-f(s)}-1$. Applying Proposition_\[prop:case1\] to the sequence_$t$, we deduce_that_$m(t,s_{g(s)+1})=p\cdot m(t)$ and that $(t,s_{g(s)+1})$ also satisfies both conditions of Proposition \[prop:case1\]. The statement now_follows_by repeated_application_of_Proposition \[prop:case1\] ($k-g(s)$ iterations), giving $m(s)_= p^{k-g(s)}\cdot m(t) = p^k-p^{k-f(s)}-p^{k-g(s)}$.

\[rem:inductive_step\] Proposition \[prop:case1\]_in fact governs the entire inductive step from_$m(s)$_to $m(s,x)$, with_Lemmas \[lem: 001\] and \[lem: 9.9\] providing the base cases (we_may ignore ${\mathbbm{1}}_{P_{p^k}}$, corresponding to $s=(0,\dotsc,0)$,_which was considered_in_[@GL1])._This can be seen_easily using Figure \[fig:flowchart p&gt;=5\].

We remark that_we could not directly apply Propositions \[prop:case1\]_to sequences $s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)})\in[\overline{p}]^k$, since condition (ii) on_multiplicities is not satisfied (see Lemma_\[lem: 001\]). Furthermore, we also_could not_apply the proposition to sequences_of the form_$s=(0,\dotsc,0,s_{f(s)},0,\dotsc,0)$, since_$\Omega(s)\setminus\mathcal{B}_{p^k}(m(s))$ *does* contain_thin partitions, namely ${\mathsf{t}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$, ${\mathsf{h}_{p^k}[{m(s)+1}]}$ and_their conjugates. This_is why Lemma \[lem: 9.9\] is_necessary._$\lozenge$
