On the Impossibility of Certain Ranking Functions
|
|
- Angela Fowler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 On the Impossibility of Certain Ranking Functions Jin-Yi Cai Abstract Suppose all the individuals in a field are linearly ordered. Groups of individuals form teams. Is there a perfect ranking function of each team based on the members of the team? We prove that under a very mild and reasonable set of axioms for the ranking function, no such ranking function exists. AMS Subject Classification: 68R05, 91F10, 06A05, 06A07. Keywords: Ranking function. It is a personal observation that a non-trivial percentage of academics in U. S. universities are quite concerned with the ranking of their respective universities, colleges, departments, and maybe sub-areas within the department. Full professors are concerned with the reputation of their departments and sub-areas within the department, which by extension reflects their own reputation; associate and assistant professors are equally concerned with their respective standing within the field which affects future professional growth prospects. Also frequently applicants for positions at every level are swayed by the ranking of a university and department; even the graduate admission process is heavily influenced by such rankings. Compilations and publications of university rankings, some more meaningful, some less so, such as those by Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, jyc@cs.wisc.edu, Research supported in part by NSF grant CCR and CCR
2 the U.S. News and World Report, are generally taken seriously, even by the leaders of higher education such as Deans and Presidents. Generally, it is doubtful any linear order of excellence makes sense for people even in a narrow sub-area of expertise. But let us suppose that in some circumstances this is possible and is already given. For example, suppose everyone working in area X has been so linearly ordered. These people belong to various universities. Suppose further that this forms a partition so that everyone in this area belongs to a unique university. Then we ask, is there any general principle by which one can come up with a ranking of the universities in area X based on the individual ranking in area X? The famous theorem by Kenneth Arrow [1] (see also [2, 3]) states that there can not exist any social choice function that satisfies every one of a set of very mild and reasonable axioms for social choice. We prove a theorem in the spirit of Kenneth Arrow s theorem in the case of ranking functions. We prove that under a very mild and reasonable set of axioms for the ranking function, no such ranking function exists. Assume we are given an infinite totally ordered set Ω. The ordering relation is denoted by <. Each team consists of a non-empty subset of Ω. Here a team is a set of individuals put together hypothetically; in particular when we discuss two teams they need not be disjoint. Let us assume there is a ranking function r which for any finite collection of distinct teams gives an ordering of the teams, i.e., r produces a permutation of the teams. If A and B are two teams, we write A B if the ranking function r puts A ahead of B. We also write B A if A B. Also we write A B if either A B or A = B. Now we give some seemingly mild and reasonable axioms that a ranking function obviously should satisfy. Axiom 1. (Foundation) The ranking function depends only on the ordering relation < (and not on the elements per se), i.e., if f is a mapping that preserves the ordering relation on X 1... X m, then the permutation of r({x 1,..., X m }) is the same as r({f(x 1 ),..., f(x m )}). Also, if x, y Ω and x < y, then {x} {y}. This Axiom states that the ranking function is native to the underlying ordering of Ω. Axiom 2. (Identical Extension) If A B and x A B, then A {x} B {x}. 2
3 This Axiom states that the ranking for any pair is unaffected by the extension of an identical element. Axiom 3. (Extremal Extension) If x z y for all z A, then A {x} A A {y}. This Axiom states that if we extend at the extremal end, we increase the team ranking if we extend at the top, and we decrease the team ranking if we extend at the bottom. All of the above Axioms are, I believe, totally unassailable. The next Axiom is more delicate. Axiom 4. (Non-interference) In this axiom we wish to say that the relative ranking between two teams should be determined by their own respective members ranking in relation to each other. As long as their team memberships for these two teams do not change, the presence or absence of any other teams should be irrelevant to the ranking of this particular pair, in particular, the induced order on the pair is independent of all other teams. To state it formally, we say that For any {A, B, X 1,..., X m }, the order on {A, B} induced from the permutation of r({a, B, X 1,..., X m }) is the same as r({a, B}). We note that by Axiom 4, the ranking function does define a total order on the non-empty subsets of Ω. We only need to check for transitivity, if A B and B C, then A C. This is quite obvious if we consider {A, B, C}. Assuming is a total order, by transitivity Axiom 3 has the following corollary, (of which Axiom 3 is also a special case). Axiom 3. (Extremal Extension) Suppose A B. If x z and z y for all z A B, then A {x} B and A B {y}. Also, note that since ranking function r is invariant under any order isomorphism, we may rename elements as long as it respects the ordering. For example, {1, 4} {2, 3} iff {2, 5} {3, 4} iff {i 1, i 4 } {i 2, i 3 } for any i 1 < i 2 < i 3 < i 4. Now we will see that two particular ranking functions satisfy Axioms 1 to 4. These ranking functions are however not particularly interesting. Definition The Lexicographic order lex is a total order defined on all non-empty subsets of Ω as follows: Let A and B be two distinct finite subsets of Ω. Enumerate 3
4 the elements of A and B in the order of Ω, A = {a 1 < a 2 < < a n } and B = {b 1 < b 2 < < b m }, where n, m 1. Let i be the maximal index, 0 i min{n, m}, such that for all 1 j i, a j = b j. Then, if both n > i and m > i, we define A lex B iff a i+1 < b i+1 ; otherwise, we define A lex B iff n = i. In other words, we line up A and B from the leading element, and cancel the longest common prefix, if any. If both have elements left, then the next leading element determines the order of A and B. If one set is a prefix of the other, say A is a (proper) prefix of B, then A precedes B. Similarly, the Reverse-lexicographic order looks at the ordered sequence of elements of a set from the other end. Definition The Reverse-lexicographic order rlex is a total order defined on all nonempty subsets of Ω as follows: Let A and B be two distinct finite subsets of Ω. Enumerate the elements of A and B in the order of Ω from the last, A = {a n < < a 2 < a 1 } and B = {b m < < b 2 < b 1 }, where n, m 1. Let i be the maximal index, 0 i min{n, m}, such that for all 1 j i, a j = b j. Then, if both n > i and m > i, we define A rlex B iff a i+1 < b i+1 ; otherwise, we define A rlex B iff m = i. Note that in Reverse-lexicographic order if A is a (proper) postfix of B, then B precedes A. It is clear that both the Lexicographic order and the Reverse-lexicographic order satisfy Axioms 1 to 4. However, we feel that the Lexicographic order is overly elitist and thus neither realistic nor suitable for a good ranking function. Similarly the Reverselexicographic order is too conservative placing too much weight on the bottom end of the scale, and thus is similarly not suitable as a good ranking function. Thus we postulate the following Axiom 5. (Non-Extremism) The ranking function is neither the Lexicographic order nor the Reverse-lexicographic order. We will now state and prove the impossibility theorem Theorem 1 There is no ranking function that satisfies Axiom 1 to 5. We will first establish several consequences of the Axioms in 1. to 4., then prove Theorem 1 in Axiom 2 implies its converse. (Law of Cancellation): x[x A B, and A {x} B {x} = A B]. 4
5 Proof: If A B, then A {x} B {x}. 2. (Monotonicity) If A B and x < y, and x A and y B, then A {x} B {y}. More generally, 3. Axiom 2 implies a law of subadditivity. (Law of Subadditivity): For A C = B D =, A B & C D = A C B D. Moreover, if at least one of A B and C D is strict, then we also have strict A C B D. Proof: If A = B and C = D the conclusion is trivial. If A = B and C D, then we just apply Axiom of Identical Extension (Axiom 2.) A = B times to C D. Since the additional elements are all disjoint from both C and D, the application of Axiom 2 is legitimate. The case A B and C = D is symmetric. So we now assume A B and C D, both strictly so. Let = B C, and B = B and C = C. Since A C =, certainly A C =. Also by definition B C =. Thus it is legitimate to form both A C and B C by adding identical elements precisely C times. By Axiom of Identical Extension (Axiom 2), A C B C. Then from C D, since C B = D B =, we may apply Axiom 2 precisely B times, and obtain C B D B. Note that B C = C B = B C, it follows that A C B D, by transitivity of. Finally we add the elements of. We note that both (A C ) = and (B D) =, thus we may apply Axiom 2 precisely times, to obtain A C B D. 4. From Axiom of Non-interference (Axiom 4) the ranking function r induces a total order (which we denoted ), and this order uniquely determines the ranking function r. That is, satisfies the following: for any teams A and B, exactly one of the following three alternatives hold, either A B, or A = B, or B A. Moreover the binary relation is transitive and uniquely induces the ranking function r. 5. Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1. Suppose satisfies Axioms 1 to 5. Let (A, B) be a pair of distinct teams, and we suppose A B yet B lex A. By the Law of Cancellation, we may cancel the longest 5
6 common prefix of A and B. If A B and B lex A, then neither can it be the case that B is a prefix of A, nor can it be the case that A is a prefix of B. For otherwise, if B is a prefix of A, then by Axiom of Extremal Extension (Axiom 3.) we can extend the tail end of B to get A, and we would have B A. On the other hand, by the definition of the Lexicographic order, if A is a prefix of B (so a proper prefix since A B), then A lex B. Hence, after the cancellation of the longest common prefix of A and B neither is empty. We will rename A and B for what remains after this cancellation. Since B lex A, the next leading element in A B belongs to B (but not A). Call it b. Since A B, it can not be the case that there are no other elements of B besides b, for otherwise all elements of A are preceded by b, the unique element of B, but then it follows that B A by the Axiom of Extremal Extension. Thus, there are some elements both of A and of B other than b. Now move all b B other than b to somewhere after all of A, we should still have A B. More precisely, By Monotonicity, if B is obtained from B by exchanging every element of B {b} with an element of Ω which is preceded by every element of A and B, leaving b unchanged, we have B B. Since Ω is infinite, and the ranking order on teams A and B only depends on the underlying order relation and not the exact elements of A B per se (Axiom 1), we may shift the elements of A and B if necessary, and assume there are sufficiently many distinct elements in Ω after all A and B, to which place we can move B {b}. Then after a shift again (by order invariance), we may finally arrive at a pair A 1 and B 1, where we may name A 1 = {1,..., k}, and B 1 = {0, k + 1,..., k + l}, (1) where k and l are some integers 1. A 1 B 1 yet B 1 lex A 1. Next, since the order is not equal to Reverse-lexicographic order, there are pair of distinct teams C and D, where C D yet D rlex C. By a similar argument as given above for the Lexicographic order, we can produce a pair of distinct teams C 1 and D 1, with the property C 1 D 1 yet D 1 rlex C 1, and furthermore we may assume they take the following normal form D 1 = {M s,..., M 1}, and C 1 = {M (s + t),..., M (s + 1), M}, (2) where s and t are some integers 1, and M is some large integer such that M (s + t) k + l. Clearly for the pair A 1 B 1 we may extend B 1 at the tail extreme by any number of elements from Ω, and still maintain A 1 B 1 yet B 1 lex A 1. Thus, for the values 6
7 k and l in Eqn (1) we may replace an arbitrarily large l l for l for the same k. Similarly for the pair C 1 and D 1, we may extend C 1 at the leading extreme by any number of elements from Ω, and still maintain C 1 D 1 yet D 1 rlex C 1. More precisely, for the values s and t in Eqn (2) we may replace an arbitrarily large t t for t for the same s. After any chosen replacement of l by l, and t by t, we may further replace M to a larger M by a shift if necessary, so that still we may assume M (s + t ) > k + l. Now we choose l = k 2 + ts + a, and t = s 2 + kl + a, where a is an arbitrary positive integer so that we may assume l l and t t. After that we assume a suitable M is chosen so that M (s + t ) > k + l. Finally consider the following two teams X and Y. and X = {1,..., k, M (s + t ),..., M (s + 1), M}, Y = {0, k + 1,..., k + l, M s,..., M 1}. Thus, X is the (disjoint) union of A 1 and C 1, with appropriate replacement of t by t in C 1, and similarly Y is the (disjoint) union of B 1 and D 1, with appropriate replacement of l by l in B 1. Since A 1 B 1 and C 1 D 1, we have X Y, by Law of Subadditivity. However, we will decompose X and Y in a different manner to show that Y X also follows from the Axioms. Consider the following k pairs of teams and E i = {i, M (s + t ) + (i 1)l,..., M (s + t ) + (i 1)l + l 1} = {i, M (s + t ) + (i 1)l,..., M (s + t ) + il 1}, F i = {k + (i 1)k + 1,..., k + (i 1)k + k} = {ik + 1,..., (i + 1)k}, for 1 i k. Note that all E i, F i are pair-wise disjoint, and collectively k i=1 F i = {k+1,..., k+ k 2 } is part of Y, and k i=1 E i = {1,..., k, M (s + t ),..., M (s + t ) + kl 1} is part of X. The last element in k i=1 E i is (M s) s 2 a 1 by the definition of t. Each pair (F i, E i ) is order isomorphic to the pair (A 1, B 1 ), and it follows that F i E i for all 1 i k. 7
8 and Similarly we define the following s pairs of teams G i = {(M s) s 2 a + (i 1)s,..., (M s) s 2 a + (i 1)s + (s 1)}, H i = {k + k 2 + (i 1)t + 1,..., k + k 2 + it, M s + (i 1)}, for 1 i s. Note that all G i, H i are also pair-wise disjoint (and pair-wise disjoint from all E i, F i ), and collectively s i=1 H i = {k + k 2 + 1,..., k + k 2 + st, M s,..., M 1} is part of Y, and s i=1 G i = {M s s 2 a,..., M s a 1} is part of X. Together and k s F i H i = {k + 1,..., k + k 2 + st, M s,..., M 1}, i=1 i=1 k s E i G i = {1,..., k, M (s + t ), M s a 1}. i=1 i=1 As before, each pair (H i, G i ) is order isomorphic to the pair (C 1, D 1 ), and it follows that H i G i for all 1 i s. Observe that what is left in X after taking out k i=1 E i s i=1 G i is [ k ] X s = X E i G i = {M s a,..., M s 1, M} i=1 i=1 and correspondingly what is left of Y after taking out k i=1 F i s i=1 H i is [ k ] Y s = Y F i H i = {0, k + l a + 1,..., k + l }. i=1 i=1 We can easily pair up {0} with {M}, and pair up the respective stretches of a consecutive individuals, and conclude that Y X, by Axiom 1 and Law of Subadditivity. It follows, by the decomposition of X = X k i=1 E i s i=1 G i and Y = Y ki=1 F i s i=1 H i that Y X, 8
9 by Law of Subadditivity. This contradiction shows that there can not be any ranking function which satisfies Axioms 1 to 5. The theorem is proved. 6. This theorem remains valid even if we allow the ranking function r to assign equal ranking for distinct subsets. In fact, to differ from the Lexicographic order which is a strict total order, it must differ on a pair of distinct subsets (A, B). Then without loss of generality we may assume B lex A, and yet A B. Then we can construct (A 1, B 1 ) just as before, with A 1 B 1 yet B 1 lex A 1. Similarly we can construct distinct teams C 1 and D 1, with the property C 1 D 1 yet D 1 rlex C 1. Finally X and Y are constructed in the same way and X Y. But in the decomposition of X = X k i=1 E i s i=1 G i and Y = Y k i=1 F i si=1 H i, Y X is strict, and the others pairs are at least F i E i and H i G i, and so, strictly Y X by Law of Subadditivity. Theorem 2 There is no ranking function that satisfies Axiom 1 to 5, even if it is allowed to assign equal rank on distinct subsets. 7. If the underlying order < on Ω is allowed to assign equal rank on distinct elements, and, assume such an equal rank is indeed assigned on a pair of distinct elements, then it is even easier to show that there can be no consistent ranking function for all subsets that satisfies Axiom 1 to 4. This is so even for any appropriately defined Lexicographic order or Reverse-lexicographic order. To see that, we consider any ranking function r for all multisets. We represent two individuals with equal rank as a multiple element (with multiplicity two) in the subset. Then consider how it is possible to assign the ranking between {x} and the multiset having x with multiplicity two, which we denote by {x, x}. Here we even allow r to assign equal rank on distinct multisets. Suppose {x} {x, x}. Take any y such that x y, and consider {x, y} and {x, x, y}. By Axiom of Identical Extension, But by Law of Cancellation, we get {x, y} {x, x, y}. {y} {x, y}. 9
10 However Axiom of Extremal Extension implies that {x, y} {y}. A similar contradiction ensues if we assume {x, x} {x}. This time we take a z x and consider {z, x} and {z, x, x}. Theorem 3 There is no ranking function that satisfies Axiom 1 to 4, even if it is allowed to assign equal rank on distinct sub(multi)sets. Remark: Of course academic Deans and Presidents will continue to pay close attention to their school rankings, no matter what we prove, and no matter how imperfect such rankings are. Much is the same as voting schemes, Arrow s Theorem not withstanding, imperfect schemes will continue to be used, not to mention Florida. However, one can still discuss one scheme being better than another. It would be interesting to investigate some extended notions of ranking functions, perhaps some probabilistic ones. Regarding the technical reason for the impossibility of Theorem 1, I think the real spoiler is the Axiom of Non-interference, together with the requirement that the order on subsets is invariant under order isomorphism for the underlying order of Ω. In Arrow s Theorem, a similar Axiom, called Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives is considered mostly responsible for that. References [1] K. Arrow. Social Choice and Individual Values. John Wiley and Sons (revised edition, 1963). [2] M. Balinski and H. Young. Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote Yale University Press, [3] W. Riker, and P. Ordeshook. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Prentice-Hall,
a + b = b + a and a b = b a. (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) and (a b) c = a (b c). a (b + c) = a b + a c and (a + b) c = a c + b c.
Properties of the Integers The set of all integers is the set and the subset of Z given by Z = {, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, }, N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, }, is the set of nonnegative integers (also called
More informationProperties of the Integers
Properties of the Integers The set of all integers is the set and the subset of Z given by Z = {, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, }, N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, }, is the set of nonnegative integers (also called
More informationGeneralized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs
Europ. J. Combinatorics (2002) 23, 257 274 doi:10.1006/eujc.2002.0574 Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Generalized Pigeonhole Properties of Graphs and Oriented Graphs ANTHONY BONATO, PETER
More informationCoalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternatives.
Coalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternatives. H. Reiju Mihara reiju@ec.kagawa-u.ac.jp Economics, Kagawa University, Takamatsu, 760-8523, Japan April, 1999 [Social
More informationArrow s Paradox. Prerna Nadathur. January 1, 2010
Arrow s Paradox Prerna Nadathur January 1, 2010 Abstract In this paper, we examine the problem of a ranked voting system and introduce Kenneth Arrow s impossibility theorem (1951). We provide a proof sketch
More informationLebesgue Measure on R n
CHAPTER 2 Lebesgue Measure on R n Our goal is to construct a notion of the volume, or Lebesgue measure, of rather general subsets of R n that reduces to the usual volume of elementary geometrical sets
More informationArrow s General (Im)Possibility Theorem
Division of the Humanities and ocial ciences Arrow s General (Im)Possibility Theorem KC Border Winter 2002 Let X be a nonempty set of social alternatives and let P denote the set of preference relations
More informationTHE DIRECT SUM, UNION AND INTERSECTION OF POSET MATROIDS
SOOCHOW JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Volume 28, No. 4, pp. 347-355, October 2002 THE DIRECT SUM, UNION AND INTERSECTION OF POSET MATROIDS BY HUA MAO 1,2 AND SANYANG LIU 2 Abstract. This paper first shows how
More information2. Prime and Maximal Ideals
18 Andreas Gathmann 2. Prime and Maximal Ideals There are two special kinds of ideals that are of particular importance, both algebraically and geometrically: the so-called prime and maximal ideals. Let
More informationIntroductory Analysis I Fall 2014 Homework #5 Solutions
Introductory Analysis I Fall 2014 Homework #5 Solutions 6. Let M be a metric space, let C D M. Now we can think of C as a subset of the metric space M or as a subspace of the metric space D (D being a
More informationOn a Conjecture of Thomassen
On a Conjecture of Thomassen Michelle Delcourt Department of Mathematics University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois 61801, U.S.A. delcour2@illinois.edu Asaf Ferber Department of Mathematics Yale University,
More informationTHE CANTOR GAME: WINNING STRATEGIES AND DETERMINACY. by arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 29 Jan 2017 MAGNUS D. LADUE
THE CANTOR GAME: WINNING STRATEGIES AND DETERMINACY by arxiv:170109087v1 [mathca] 9 Jan 017 MAGNUS D LADUE 0 Abstract In [1] Grossman Turett define the Cantor game In [] Matt Baker proves several results
More informationEconomics 204 Fall 2011 Problem Set 1 Suggested Solutions
Economics 204 Fall 2011 Problem Set 1 Suggested Solutions 1. Suppose k is a positive integer. Use induction to prove the following two statements. (a) For all n N 0, the inequality (k 2 + n)! k 2n holds.
More informationTree sets. Reinhard Diestel
1 Tree sets Reinhard Diestel Abstract We study an abstract notion of tree structure which generalizes treedecompositions of graphs and matroids. Unlike tree-decompositions, which are too closely linked
More informationDefinitions. Notations. Injective, Surjective and Bijective. Divides. Cartesian Product. Relations. Equivalence Relations
Page 1 Definitions Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:23 AM Notations " " means "equals, by definition" the set of all real numbers the set of integers Denote a function from a set to a set by Denote the image of
More informationCountability. 1 Motivation. 2 Counting
Countability 1 Motivation In topology as well as other areas of mathematics, we deal with a lot of infinite sets. However, as we will gradually discover, some infinite sets are bigger than others. Countably
More informationMassachusetts Institute of Technology 6.042J/18.062J, Fall 02: Mathematics for Computer Science Professor Albert Meyer and Dr.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6.042J/18.062J, Fall 02: Mathematics for Computer Science Professor Albert Meyer and Dr. Radhika Nagpal Quiz 1 Appendix Appendix Contents 1 Induction 2 2 Relations
More information2.2 Some Consequences of the Completeness Axiom
60 CHAPTER 2. IMPORTANT PROPERTIES OF R 2.2 Some Consequences of the Completeness Axiom In this section, we use the fact that R is complete to establish some important results. First, we will prove that
More informationJónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras
Jónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras Keith A. Kearnes and Greg Oman Abstract. We show that if P is an infinite poset whose proper order ideals have cardinality strictly less than P, and κ is a cardinal
More informationMaximal perpendicularity in certain Abelian groups
Acta Univ. Sapientiae, Mathematica, 9, 1 (2017) 235 247 DOI: 10.1515/ausm-2017-0016 Maximal perpendicularity in certain Abelian groups Mika Mattila Department of Mathematics, Tampere University of Technology,
More informationRelations. Relations. Definition. Let A and B be sets.
Relations Relations. Definition. Let A and B be sets. A relation R from A to B is a subset R A B. If a A and b B, we write a R b if (a, b) R, and a /R b if (a, b) / R. A relation from A to A is called
More informationProofs. Chapter 2 P P Q Q
Chapter Proofs In this chapter we develop three methods for proving a statement. To start let s suppose the statement is of the form P Q or if P, then Q. Direct: This method typically starts with P. Then,
More informationEstimates for probabilities of independent events and infinite series
Estimates for probabilities of independent events and infinite series Jürgen Grahl and Shahar evo September 9, 06 arxiv:609.0894v [math.pr] 8 Sep 06 Abstract This paper deals with finite or infinite sequences
More informationAutomorphism groups of wreath product digraphs
Automorphism groups of wreath product digraphs Edward Dobson Department of Mathematics and Statistics Mississippi State University PO Drawer MA Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA dobson@math.msstate.edu Joy
More informationSocial Choice Theory. Felix Munoz-Garcia School of Economic Sciences Washington State University. EconS Advanced Microeconomics II
Social Choice Theory Felix Munoz-Garcia School of Economic Sciences Washington State University EconS 503 - Advanced Microeconomics II Social choice theory MWG, Chapter 21. JR, Chapter 6.2-6.5. Additional
More information{x : P (x)} P (x) = x is a cat
1. Sets, relations and functions. 1.1. Set theory. We assume the reader is familiar with elementary set theory as it is used in mathematics today. Nonetheless, we shall now give a careful treatment of
More informationAnalysis I. Classroom Notes. H.-D. Alber
Analysis I Classroom Notes H-D Alber Contents 1 Fundamental notions 1 11 Sets 1 12 Product sets, relations 5 13 Composition of statements 7 14 Quantifiers, negation of statements 9 2 Real numbers 11 21
More information0.2 Vector spaces. J.A.Beachy 1
J.A.Beachy 1 0.2 Vector spaces I m going to begin this section at a rather basic level, giving the definitions of a field and of a vector space in much that same detail as you would have met them in a
More informationIn this initial chapter, you will be introduced to, or more than likely be reminded of, a
1 Sets In this initial chapter, you will be introduced to, or more than likely be reminded of, a fundamental idea that occurs throughout mathematics: sets. Indeed, a set is an object from which every mathematical
More informationHW 4 SOLUTIONS. , x + x x 1 ) 2
HW 4 SOLUTIONS The Way of Analysis p. 98: 1.) Suppose that A is open. Show that A minus a finite set is still open. This follows by induction as long as A minus one point x is still open. To see that A
More informationRough Sets. V.W. Marek. General introduction and one theorem. Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky. October 2013.
General introduction and one theorem V.W. Marek Department of Computer Science University of Kentucky October 2013 What it is about? is a popular formalism for talking about approximations Esp. studied
More informationModule 1. Probability
Module 1 Probability 1. Introduction In our daily life we come across many processes whose nature cannot be predicted in advance. Such processes are referred to as random processes. The only way to derive
More informationcse303 ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION Professor Anita Wasilewska
cse303 ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION Professor Anita Wasilewska LECTURE 1 Course Web Page www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/ cse303 The webpage contains: lectures notes slides; very detailed solutions to
More informationIsomorphisms between pattern classes
Journal of Combinatorics olume 0, Number 0, 1 8, 0000 Isomorphisms between pattern classes M. H. Albert, M. D. Atkinson and Anders Claesson Isomorphisms φ : A B between pattern classes are considered.
More informationTalking Freedom of Choice Seriously
Talking Freedom of Choice Seriously Susumu Cato January 17, 2006 Abstract In actual life, we face the opportunity of many choices, from that opportunity set, we have to choose from different alternatives.
More informationAN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2. Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2
45 Kragujevac J. Math. 33 (2010) 45 62. AN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2 Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2 1 University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Science,
More informationRationality and solutions to nonconvex bargaining problems: rationalizability and Nash solutions 1
Rationality and solutions to nonconvex bargaining problems: rationalizability and Nash solutions 1 Yongsheng Xu Department of Economics Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Georgia State University, Atlanta,
More informationNumerical representations of binary relations with thresholds: A brief survey 1
Numerical representations of binary relations with thresholds: A brief survey 1 Fuad Aleskerov Denis Bouyssou Bernard Monjardet 11 July 2006, Revised 8 January 2007 Typos corrected 1 March 2008 Additional
More informationPreference, Choice and Utility
Preference, Choice and Utility Eric Pacuit January 2, 205 Relations Suppose that X is a non-empty set. The set X X is the cross-product of X with itself. That is, it is the set of all pairs of elements
More information5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting
5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting Let N denote the positive integers, N 0 := N {0} be the non-negative integers and Z = N 0 ( N) the positive and negative integers including 0, Q the rational numbers,
More informationA LITTLE REAL ANALYSIS AND TOPOLOGY
A LITTLE REAL ANALYSIS AND TOPOLOGY 1. NOTATION Before we begin some notational definitions are useful. (1) Z = {, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, }is the set of integers. (2) Q = { a b : aεz, bεz {0}} is the set
More informationABSTRACT. Department of Mathematics. interesting results. A graph on n vertices is represented by a polynomial in n
ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: GRÖBNER BASES WITH APPLICATIONS IN GRAPH THEORY Degree candidate: Angela M. Hennessy Degree and year: Master of Arts, 2006 Thesis directed by: Professor Lawrence C. Washington
More informationOn Transfinite Cardinal Numbers
IOSR Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM) e-issn: 2278-5728, p-issn: 2319-765X. Volume 14, Issue 4 Ver. IV (Jul - Aug 2018), PP 17-21 www.iosrjournals.org On Transfinite Cardinal Numbers J N Salunke* and B
More informationWeak Choice Principles and Forcing Axioms
Weak Choice Principles and Forcing Axioms Elizabeth Lauri 1 Introduction Faculty Mentor: David Fernandez Breton Forcing is a technique that was discovered by Cohen in the mid 20th century, and it is particularly
More informationThe Axiomatic Method in Social Choice Theory:
The Axiomatic Method in Social Choice Theory: Preference Aggregation, Judgment Aggregation, Graph Aggregation Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss
More informationClaw-free Graphs. III. Sparse decomposition
Claw-free Graphs. III. Sparse decomposition Maria Chudnovsky 1 and Paul Seymour Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544 October 14, 003; revised May 8, 004 1 This research was conducted while the author
More informationRough Sets, Rough Relations and Rough Functions. Zdzislaw Pawlak. Warsaw University of Technology. ul. Nowowiejska 15/19, Warsaw, Poland.
Rough Sets, Rough Relations and Rough Functions Zdzislaw Pawlak Institute of Computer Science Warsaw University of Technology ul. Nowowiejska 15/19, 00 665 Warsaw, Poland and Institute of Theoretical and
More informationSpanning and Independence Properties of Finite Frames
Chapter 1 Spanning and Independence Properties of Finite Frames Peter G. Casazza and Darrin Speegle Abstract The fundamental notion of frame theory is redundancy. It is this property which makes frames
More informationParallel Learning of Automatic Classes of Languages
Parallel Learning of Automatic Classes of Languages Sanjay Jain a,1, Efim Kinber b a School of Computing, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117417. b Department of Computer Science, Sacred Heart
More informationTheory of Computing Tamás Herendi
Theory of Computing Tamás Herendi Theory of Computing Tamás Herendi Publication date 2014 Table of Contents 1 Preface 1 2 Formal languages 2 3 Order of growth rate 9 4 Turing machines 16 1 The definition
More informationAn Introduction to Combinatorics
Chapter 1 An Introduction to Combinatorics What Is Combinatorics? Combinatorics is the study of how to count things Have you ever counted the number of games teams would play if each team played every
More informationTHE STRUCTURE OF 3-CONNECTED MATROIDS OF PATH WIDTH THREE
THE STRUCTURE OF 3-CONNECTED MATROIDS OF PATH WIDTH THREE RHIANNON HALL, JAMES OXLEY, AND CHARLES SEMPLE Abstract. A 3-connected matroid M is sequential or has path width 3 if its ground set E(M) has a
More informationA Criterion for the Stochasticity of Matrices with Specified Order Relations
Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste Vol. XL, 55 64 (2009) A Criterion for the Stochasticity of Matrices with Specified Order Relations Luca Bortolussi and Andrea Sgarro Abstract. We tackle the following problem:
More informationCoalitional Structure of the Muller-Satterthwaite Theorem
Coalitional Structure of the Muller-Satterthwaite Theorem Pingzhong Tang and Tuomas Sandholm Computer Science Department Carnegie Mellon University {kenshin,sandholm}@cscmuedu Abstract The Muller-Satterthwaite
More informationarxiv: v1 [cs.dc] 3 Oct 2011
A Taxonomy of aemons in Self-Stabilization Swan ubois Sébastien Tixeuil arxiv:1110.0334v1 cs.c] 3 Oct 2011 Abstract We survey existing scheduling hypotheses made in the literature in self-stabilization,
More informationMonotonic models and cycles
Int J Game Theory DOI 10.1007/s00182-013-0385-7 Monotonic models and cycles José Alvaro Rodrigues-Neto Accepted: 16 May 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 Abstract A partitional model of knowledge
More informationAhlswede Khachatrian Theorems: Weighted, Infinite, and Hamming
Ahlswede Khachatrian Theorems: Weighted, Infinite, and Hamming Yuval Filmus April 4, 2017 Abstract The seminal complete intersection theorem of Ahlswede and Khachatrian gives the maximum cardinality of
More informationA Note On Comparative Probability
A Note On Comparative Probability Nick Haverkamp and Moritz Schulz Penultimate draft. Please quote from the published version (Erkenntnis 2012). Abstract A possible event always seems to be more probable
More informationPROBABILITY THEORY 1. Basics
PROILITY THEORY. asics Probability theory deals with the study of random phenomena, which under repeated experiments yield different outcomes that have certain underlying patterns about them. The notion
More informationAxiomatic set theory. Chapter Why axiomatic set theory?
Chapter 1 Axiomatic set theory 1.1 Why axiomatic set theory? Essentially all mathematical theories deal with sets in one way or another. In most cases, however, the use of set theory is limited to its
More informationMathematics-I Prof. S.K. Ray Department of Mathematics and Statistics Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Lecture 1 Real Numbers
Mathematics-I Prof. S.K. Ray Department of Mathematics and Statistics Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur Lecture 1 Real Numbers In these lectures, we are going to study a branch of mathematics called
More informationClass Notes on Poset Theory Johan G. Belinfante Revised 1995 May 21
Class Notes on Poset Theory Johan G Belinfante Revised 1995 May 21 Introduction These notes were originally prepared in July 1972 as a handout for a class in modern algebra taught at the Carnegie-Mellon
More informationPlanar and Affine Spaces
Planar and Affine Spaces Pýnar Anapa İbrahim Günaltılı Hendrik Van Maldeghem Abstract In this note, we characterize finite 3-dimensional affine spaces as the only linear spaces endowed with set Ω of proper
More informationLebesgue Measure on R n
8 CHAPTER 2 Lebesgue Measure on R n Our goal is to construct a notion of the volume, or Lebesgue measure, of rather general subsets of R n that reduces to the usual volume of elementary geometrical sets
More informationSection Summary. Relations and Functions Properties of Relations. Combining Relations
Chapter 9 Chapter Summary Relations and Their Properties n-ary Relations and Their Applications (not currently included in overheads) Representing Relations Closures of Relations (not currently included
More information13 Social choice B = 2 X X. is the collection of all binary relations on X. R = { X X : is complete and transitive}
13 Social choice So far, all of our models involved a single decision maker. An important, perhaps the important, question for economics is whether the desires and wants of various agents can be rationally
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.co] 14 Apr 2011
Complete Characterization of Functions Satisfying the Conditions of Arrow s Theorem Elchanan Mossel and Omer Tamuz arxiv:0910.2465v2 [math.co] 14 Apr 2011 April 15, 2011 Abstract Arrow s theorem implies
More informationCSC Discrete Math I, Spring Relations
CSC 125 - Discrete Math I, Spring 2017 Relations Binary Relations Definition: A binary relation R from a set A to a set B is a subset of A B Note that a relation is more general than a function Example:
More informationGENERALIZED PIGEONHOLE PROPERTIES OF GRAPHS AND ORIENTED GRAPHS
GENERALIZED PIGEONHOLE PROPERTIES OF GRAPHS AND ORIENTED GRAPHS ANTHONY BONATO, PETER CAMERON, DEJAN DELIĆ, AND STÉPHAN THOMASSÉ ABSTRACT. A relational structure A satisfies the n k property if whenever
More informationA MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ
A MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ NICOLAS FORD Abstract. The goal of this paper is to present a proof of the Nullstellensatz using tools from a branch of logic called model theory. In
More informationMeasure and integration
Chapter 5 Measure and integration In calculus you have learned how to calculate the size of different kinds of sets: the length of a curve, the area of a region or a surface, the volume or mass of a solid.
More information= ϕ r cos θ. 0 cos ξ sin ξ and sin ξ cos ξ. sin ξ 0 cos ξ
8. The Banach-Tarski paradox May, 2012 The Banach-Tarski paradox is that a unit ball in Euclidean -space can be decomposed into finitely many parts which can then be reassembled to form two unit balls
More informationRIEMANN SURFACES. max(0, deg x f)x.
RIEMANN SURFACES 10. Weeks 11 12: Riemann-Roch theorem and applications 10.1. Divisors. The notion of a divisor looks very simple. Let X be a compact Riemann surface. A divisor is an expression a x x x
More informationHerbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness
CSC 438F/2404F Notes (S. Cook and T. Pitassi) Fall, 2014 Herbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness The Herbrand Theorem We now consider a complete method for proving the unsatisfiability of sets of first-order
More informationMonotonic ɛ-equilibria in strongly symmetric games
Monotonic ɛ-equilibria in strongly symmetric games Shiran Rachmilevitch April 22, 2016 Abstract ɛ-equilibrium allows for worse actions to be played with higher probability than better actions. I introduce
More information2. AXIOMATIC PROBABILITY
IA Probability Lent Term 2. AXIOMATIC PROBABILITY 2. The axioms The formulation for classical probability in which all outcomes or points in the sample space are equally likely is too restrictive to develop
More informationCharacterization of Semantics for Argument Systems
Characterization of Semantics for Argument Systems Philippe Besnard and Sylvie Doutre IRIT Université Paul Sabatier 118, route de Narbonne 31062 Toulouse Cedex 4 France besnard, doutre}@irit.fr Abstract
More informationDefinition: Let S and T be sets. A binary relation on SxT is any subset of SxT. A binary relation on S is any subset of SxS.
4 Functions Before studying functions we will first quickly define a more general idea, namely the notion of a relation. A function turns out to be a special type of relation. Definition: Let S and T be
More informationContents. Index... 15
Contents Filter Bases and Nets................................................................................ 5 Filter Bases and Ultrafilters: A Brief Overview.........................................................
More informationExistence Theorems of Continuous Social Aggregation for Infinite Discrete Alternatives
GRIPS Discussion Paper 17-09 Existence Theorems of Continuous Social Aggregation for Infinite Discrete Alternatives Stacey H. Chen Wu-Hsiung Huang September 2017 National Graduate Institute for Policy
More informationStrategy-Proofness on the Condorcet Domain
College of William and Mary W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 5-2008 Strategy-Proofness on the Condorcet Domain Lauren Nicole Merrill College of William
More informationParity Versions of 2-Connectedness
Parity Versions of 2-Connectedness C. Little Institute of Fundamental Sciences Massey University Palmerston North, New Zealand c.little@massey.ac.nz A. Vince Department of Mathematics University of Florida
More information8. Prime Factorization and Primary Decompositions
70 Andreas Gathmann 8. Prime Factorization and Primary Decompositions 13 When it comes to actual computations, Euclidean domains (or more generally principal ideal domains) are probably the nicest rings
More informationAutomata on linear orderings
Automata on linear orderings Véronique Bruyère Institut d Informatique Université de Mons-Hainaut Olivier Carton LIAFA Université Paris 7 September 25, 2006 Abstract We consider words indexed by linear
More informationCS632 Notes on Relational Query Languages I
CS632 Notes on Relational Query Languages I A. Demers 6 Feb 2003 1 Introduction Here we define relations, and introduce our notational conventions, which are taken almost directly from [AD93]. We begin
More informationThe integers. Chapter 3
Chapter 3 The integers Recall that an abelian group is a set A with a special element 0, and operation + such that x +0=x x + y = y + x x +y + z) =x + y)+z every element x has an inverse x + y =0 We also
More informationConnectedness. Proposition 2.2. The following are equivalent for a topological space (X, T ).
Connectedness 1 Motivation Connectedness is the sort of topological property that students love. Its definition is intuitive and easy to understand, and it is a powerful tool in proofs of well-known results.
More informationAxioms of separation
Axioms of separation These notes discuss the same topic as Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and also 7, 10 of Munkres book. Some notions (hereditarily normal, perfectly normal, collectionwise normal, monotonically
More informationIndependent Transversals in r-partite Graphs
Independent Transversals in r-partite Graphs Raphael Yuster Department of Mathematics Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Abstract Let G(r, n) denote
More informationABOUT THE CLASS AND NOTES ON SET THEORY
ABOUT THE CLASS AND NOTES ON SET THEORY About the Class Evaluation. Final grade will be based 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%, on homework, midterm 1, midterm 2, final exam. Exam dates. Midterm 1: Oct 4. Midterm 2:
More informationThe matrix approach for abstract argumentation frameworks
The matrix approach for abstract argumentation frameworks Claudette CAYROL, Yuming XU IRIT Report RR- -2015-01- -FR February 2015 Abstract The matrices and the operation of dual interchange are introduced
More informationExtension of continuous functions in digital spaces with the Khalimsky topology
Extension of continuous functions in digital spaces with the Khalimsky topology Erik Melin Uppsala University, Department of Mathematics Box 480, SE-751 06 Uppsala, Sweden melin@math.uu.se http://www.math.uu.se/~melin
More informationNumber Axioms. P. Danziger. A Group is a set S together with a binary operation (*) on S, denoted a b such that for all a, b. a b S.
Appendix A Number Axioms P. Danziger 1 Number Axioms 1.1 Groups Definition 1 A Group is a set S together with a binary operation (*) on S, denoted a b such that for all a, b and c S 0. (Closure) 1. (Associativity)
More informationMetainduction in Operational Set Theory
Metainduction in Operational Set Theory Luis E. Sanchis Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Syracuse University Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 Sanchis@top.cis.syr.edu http://www.cis.syr.edu/
More informationSupplement. Algebraic Closure of a Field
Supplement: Algebraic Closure of a Field 1 Supplement. Algebraic Closure of a Field Note. In this supplement, we give some background material which is used in the proof of Fraleigh s Theorem 31.17/31.22
More informationSurvey of Voting Procedures and Paradoxes
Survey of Voting Procedures and Paradoxes Stanford University ai.stanford.edu/ epacuit/lmh Fall, 2008 :, 1 The Voting Problem Given a (finite) set X of candidates and a (finite) set A of voters each of
More informationTHE FUNDAMENTAL GROUP AND BROUWER S FIXED POINT THEOREM AMANDA BOWER
THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUP AND BROUWER S FIXED POINT THEOREM AMANDA BOWER Abstract. The fundamental group is an invariant of topological spaces that measures the contractibility of loops. This project studies
More informationGreat Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility*
Great Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility* Francis C. Chu and Joseph Y. Halpern Department of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. Email:
More informationGraph coloring, perfect graphs
Lecture 5 (05.04.2013) Graph coloring, perfect graphs Scribe: Tomasz Kociumaka Lecturer: Marcin Pilipczuk 1 Introduction to graph coloring Definition 1. Let G be a simple undirected graph and k a positive
More information