Denotational semantics: proofs
|
|
- Chrystal Stone
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 APPENDIX A Denotational semantics: proofs We show that every closed term M has a computable functional [[M ] as its denotation. A.1. Unification We show that for any two constructor terms one can decide whether there exists a unifier, and if so, compute a most general one. A solution of this problem has been given by Robinson (1965). In the formulation of the algorithm below we follow Martelli and Montanari (1982). By a constructor term P, Q (term for short) we mean a term built from variables x, y, z and constructors C by application. A substitution is a finite set ϑ = {P 1 /x 1,..., P n /x n } of pairs of variables and terms, such that x i x j for i j, and P i x i for all i. An element P i /x i of ϑ is called a binding (of x i to P i ). By P ϑ we denote the result of simultaneously replacing each variable x i in P by P i, and call P ϑ the instance of P induced by ϑ. We shall use ϑ, η, ζ for substitutions. Let ε be the empty substitution. For given substitutions ϑ = {P 1 /x 1,..., P n /x n } η = {Q 1 /y 1,..., Q m /y m }, the composition ϑη of ϑ and η is the substitution obtained by deleting in the set {P 1 η/x 1,..., P n η/x n, Q 1 /y 1,..., Q m /y m } all bindings P i η/x i such that P i η = x i, and also all bindings Q j /y j such that y j {x 1,..., x n }. A substitution ϑ is idempotent if ϑϑ = ϑ. A substitution ϑ is called more general than η (written η ϑ), if there is a substitution ζ such that η = ϑζ. ϑ and η are equivalent, if ϑ η ϑ. It is easy to see that (P ϑ)η = P (ϑη), and that composition is associative. We now come to the unification problem. By this we mean the question whether for two given terms P, Q there is a substitution ϑ unifying the two terms, i.e., with the property P ϑ = Qϑ. Let E denote finite equation systems, i.e., multisets {P 1 = Q 1,..., P n = Q n } 59
2 60 A. DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS: PROOFS of equations between terms (more precisely pairs of terms). Consider { } as a (contradictory) equation system. A substitution ϑ unifies E, if for every equation P = Q in E we have P ϑ = Qϑ; no ϑ unifies { }. ϑ is a most general unifier (mgu) of E, if ϑ is a unifier of E and η ϑ for every unifier η of E. The following characterization of idempotent mgus will be useful in the proof of the Unification Theorem below. Lemma (Characterization of idempotent mgu s). Let ϑ be a unifier of E. Then ϑ is an idempotent mgu of E iff η = ϑη for all unifiers η of E. Proof. Assume that ϑ is a unifier of E.. Let ϑ be an idempotent mgu of E, and assume that η is a unifier of E. Since ϑ is a mgu of E, we have η = ϑζ for some substitution ζ. Hence η = ϑζ = ϑϑζ = ϑη.. Assume that η = ϑη for all unifiers η of E. Now let η be a unifier of E. Then η ϑ; therefore ϑ is a mgu. Since ϑ is a unifier, by assumption we have ϑ = ϑϑ. Definition (Unification algorithm). E ϑ E is defined by (a) {P = x} E ε {x = P } E, if P is not a variable. (b) {x = x} E ε E. (c) {CP 1... P n = CQ 1... Q n } E ε {P 1 = Q 1,... P n = Q n } E. (d) {CP 1... P n = C Q 1... Q n } E ε { } if C C. (e) {x = P, P 1 (x) = Q 1 (x),..., P n (x) = Q n (x)} {P/x} {P 1 (P ) = Q 1 (P ),... P n (P ) = Q n (P )} if x / FV(P ). (f) {x = P } E ε { }, if x FV(P ) and P x. Proposition. Assume E ϑ E. (a) If η is a unifier of E, then ϑη is a unifier of E. (b) If η is a unifier of E, then η = ϑη and η is a unifier of E. Proof. By cases according to the definition of E ϑ E. Clearly it suffices to treat case (e). Let η be a unifier of E. Then {P/x}η is a unifier of E. Let η be a unifier of E. Then xη = P η, hence η = {P/x}η (since both substitutions coincide on all variables), and moreover Hence η is a unifier of E. Corollary. Assume P i {P/x}η = P i η = Q i η = Q i {P/x}η. E 1 ϑ1 E 2 ϑ2... E n ϑn E n+1. (a) If ϑ is a unifier of E n+1, then ϑ 1... ϑ n ϑ is a unifier of E 1.
3 A.2. IDEALS AS DENOTATIONS OF TERMS 61 (b) If η is a unifier of E 1, then η = ϑ 1... ϑ n η and η is a unifier of E n+1. Proof. The first part clearly follows from the first part of the Proposition. The second part is proved by induction on n. For n = 0 there is nothing to show. In the step we split the assumption into E 1 ϑ1 E 2 and E 2 ϑ2... E n ϑn E n+1. By the second part of the Proposition we have that η = ϑ 1 η is a unifier of E 2. Hence by IH η = ϑ 2 ϑ n η is a unifier of E n+1. Moreover we have η = ϑ 1 η = ϑ 1 ϑ 2... ϑ n η. Unification Theorem. Let E be a finite equation system. Then every sequence E = E 1 ϑ1 E 2 ϑ2... terminates with E n+1 = or E n+1 = { }. In the first case E is unifiable, and ϑ 1... ϑ n is an idempotent mgu of E. In the second case E is not unifiable. Proof. We first show termination using the lexicographic ordering of N 3. To every E = {P 1 = Q 1,..., P n = Q n } assign a triple (n 1, n 2, n 3 ) N 3 by n 1 := number of variables in E, n 2 := number of occurrences of variables and constructors in E, n 3 := number of equations P = x in E such that P is not a variable. In every step E ϑ E the assigned triple decreases w.r.t. the lexicographic ordering of N 3. This can be verified easily by considering the different cases: For (a), n 1, n 2 remain unchanged, and n 3 decreases. For (b), (c), (d) and (f), n 2 decreases, and n 1 does not increase. For (e), n 1 decreases. Hence our given sequence E 1 ϑ1 E 2 ϑ2... terminates with E n ϑn E n+1. Then it is easy to see that either E n+1 = or E n+1 = { }. Case E n+1 =. By the Corollary ϑ 1... ϑ n is a unifier of E, and by the Proposition we have η = ϑ 1... ϑ n η for every unifier η of E. Hence by the characterization of idempotent mgu s ϑ 1... ϑ n is an idempotent mgu of E. Case E n+1 = { }. Then by the proposition E is not unifiable. A.2. Ideals as denotations of terms Recall the definition of the relation ( U, a) [λ M ] in Section 2.3 The height of a derivation of ( U, a) [λ M ] is defined as usual, by adding 1 at each rule. We define its D-height similarly, where only rules (D) count.
4 62 A. DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS: PROOFS We begin with some simple consequences of this definition. The following transformations preserve D-height: (12) (13) (14) (15) V U ( U, a) [λ M ] ( V, a) [λ M ], ( U, V, a) [λ,y M ] ( U, a) [λ M ] if y / FV(M), ( U, V, a) [λ,y (My)] ( U, V, a) [λ M ] if y / FV(M), ( U, V, a) [λ, y (M( P ( y )))] ( U, P ( V ), a) [λ, z (M( z ))]. Proof. (12) and (13) are both proved by easy inductions on the respective derivations. (14). Assume ( U, V, a) [λ,y (My)]. By (A) we then have W such that ( U, V, W ) [λ,y y ] (i.e., V W ) and ( U, V, W, a) [λ,y M ]. By (12) from the latter we obtain ( U, V, V, a) [λ,y M ]. Now since y / FV(M), (13) yields ( U, V, a) [λ M ], as required. Conversely, assume ( U, V, a) [λ M ]. Since y / FV(M), (13) yields ( U, V, V, a) [λ M ]. Clearly we have ( U, V, V ) [λ,y y ]. Hence by (A) ( U, V, a) [λ,y (My)], as required. Notice that the D-height did not change in these transformations. (15). By induction on P, with a side induction on M. We distinguish cases on M. The cases x i, C and D are follow immediately from (13). In case M N the following are equivalent by induction hypothesis: ( U, V, a) [λ, y ((MN)( P ( y )))] W (( U, V, W ) [λ, y (N( P ( y )))] ( U, V, W, a) [λ, y (M( P ( y )))]) W (( U, P ( V ), W ) [λ, y (N( z ))] ( U, P ( V ), W, a) [λ, y (M( z ))]) ( U, P ( V ), a) [λ, y ((MN)( z ))]. The final case is where M is z i. Then we have to show ( U, V, a) [λ, y (P ( y ))] P ( V ) a. We distinguish cases on P ( y ). If P ( y ) is y j, then both sides are equivalent to V j a. In case P ( y ) is (C Q)( y ) the following are equivalent, using the induction hypothesis for Q( y ) ( U, V, a) [λ, y ((C Q)( y ))] ( U, V, a) [λ, y (C Q( y ))] ( U, Q( V ), a) [λ, u (C u )] ( U, Q( V ), a) [λ C] by (14) a (a = C a Q( V ) a )
5 A.2. IDEALS AS DENOTATIONS OF TERMS 63 C Q( V ) a. Let denote the equivalence relation on formal neighborhoods generated by entailment, i.e., U V means (U V ) (V U). (16) If U P ( V ), then there are W such that U P ( W ) and W V. Proof. By induction on P. The cases x and are clear, and in case P, Q we can apply the induction hypothesis. It remains to treat the case CP ( ). Since U CP ( V ) there is a b 0 such that C b 0 U. Let U i := { a a (C a U a = a i ) }. For the constructor pattern C consider C U. By definition C U = { C a a i U i if U i, and a i = otherwise }. We first show U CU. Assume C a CU. For each i, if U i, then there is an a i such that C a i U and a ii = a i, and if U i = then a i =. Hence U { C a i U i } {C b 0 } C a. Conversely assume C a U. We define Cb CU by b i = a i if a i, b i = if U i =, and otherwise (i.e., if a i = and U i ) take an arbitrary b i U i. Clearly {Cb } C a. By definition U P ( V ). Hence by induction hypothesis there are W such that U P ( W ) and W V. Therefore U CU CP ( W ). Lemma (Unification). If P 1 ( V 1 ) P n ( V n ), then P 1,..., P n are unifiable with a most general unifier ϑ and there exists W such that ( P 1 ϑ)( W ) = = ( P n ϑ)( W ) P 1 ( V 1 ) P n ( V n ). Proof. Assume P 1 ( V 1 ) P n ( V n ). Then P 1 ( V 1 ),..., P n ( V n ) are componentwise consistent and hence P 1,..., P n are unifiable with a most general unifier ϑ. We now proceed by induction on P 1,..., P n. If they are either all empty or all variables the claim is trivial. In the case ( P 1, P 1 ),..., ( P n, P n ) it follows from the linearity condition on variables that a most general unifier of ( P 1, P 1 ),..., ( P n, P n ) is the union of most general unifiers of P 1,..., P n and of P 1,..., P n. Hence the induction hypothesis applies. In the case CP 1,..., CP n the assumption CP 1 ( V 1 ) CP n ( V n ) implies P 1 ( V 1 ) P n ( V n ) and hence again the induction hypothesis applies. The remaining case is when some are variables and the other ones of the form CP i, say x, CP 2,..., CP n. By assumption V 1 C P 2 ( V 2 ) C P n ( V n ).
6 64 A. DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS: PROOFS By induction hypothesis we obtain the required W such that ( P 2 ϑ)( W ) = = ( P n ϑ)( W ) P 2 ( V 2 ) P n ( V n ). We need a final preparation before we can tackle consistency of [λ M ]. The information systems C ρ enjoy the pleasant property of coherence, which amounts to the possibility to locate inconsistencies in two-element sets of data objects. Generally, an information system A = (A, Con, ) is coherent if it satisfies: U A is consistent if and only if all of its two-element subsets are. Lemma. Let A and B be information systems. If B is coherent, then so is A B. Proof. Let A = (A, Con A, A ) and B = (B, Con B, B ) be information systems, and consider {(U 1, b 1 ),..., (U n, b n )} Con A B. Assume 1 i<j n ({(U i, b i ), (U j, b j )} Con). We have to show {(U 1, b 1 ),..., (U n, b n )} Con. Let I {1,..., n} and i I U i Con A. We must show { b i i I } Con B. Now since B is coherent by assumption, it suffices to show that {b i, b j } Con B for all i, j I. So let i, j I. By assumption we have U i U j Con A, and hence {b i, b j } Con B. By a similar argument we can prove Lemma (Coherence). The information systems C ρ are all coherent. Proof. By induction of the height U of consistent finite sets of tokens in C ρ, as defined in parts (c) and (d) of the definition in Lemma (Consistency). [λ M ] is consistent. Proof. Let ( U i, a i ) [λ M ] for i = 1, 2. By coherence it suffices to prove that ( U 1, a 1 ) and ( U 2, a 2 ) are consistent. We shall prove this by induction on the maximum of the D-heights and a side induction on the maximum of the heights. Case (V). Let ( U 1, a 1 ), ( U 2, a 2 ) [λ x i ], and assume that U 1 and U 2 are componentwise consistent. Then U 1i a 1 and U 2i a 2. Since U 1i U 2i is consistent, a 1 and a 2 must be consistent as well. Case (C). For i = 1, 2 we have V i a i ( U i, V i, C a i ) [λ C]. Assume U 1, V 1 and U 2, V 2 are componentwise consistent. The consistency of C a 1 and C a 2 follows from V i a i and the consistency of V 1 and V 2.
7 A.2. IDEALS AS DENOTATIONS OF TERMS 65 Case (A). For i = 1, 2 we have ( U i, V i, a i ) [λ M ] ( U i, V i ) [λ N ] ( U. i, a i ) [λ (MN)] Assume U 1 and U 2 are componentwise consistent. By the side induction hypothesis for the right premises V 1 V 2 is consistent. Hence by the side induction hypothesis for the left hand sides a 1 and a 2 are consistent. Case (D). For i = 1, 2 we have ( U i, V i, a i ) [λ, yi M i ( y i )] Wi P i ( V i ) ( U i, W (D) i, a i ) [λ D ] for computation rules DP i ( y i ) = M i ( y i ). Assume U 1, W 1 and U 2, W 2 are componentwise consistent; we must show that a 1 and a 2 are consistent. Since W 1 W 2 P i ( V i ) for i = 1, 2, by (16) there are V 1, V 2 such that V i V i and W 1 W 2 P i ( V i ). Then by the unification lemma there are W such that ( P 1 ϑ)( W ) = ( P 2 ϑ)( W ) P i ( V i ) P i ( V i ) for i = 1, 2, where ϑ is the most general unifier of P 1 and P 2. But then also and hence by (12) we have with lesser D-height. Now (15) gives ( y i ϑ)( W ) V i, ( U i, ( y i ϑ)( W ), a i ) [λ, yi M i ( y i )] ( U i, W, a i ) [λ, z M i ( y i )ϑ] without increasing the D-height. Notice that M 1 ( y i )ϑ = M 2 ( y i )ϑ by our condition on computation rules. Hence the induction hypothesis applied to ( U 1, W, a 1 ), ( U 2, W, a 2 ) [λ, z M 1 ( y 1 )ϑ] implies the consistency of a 1 and a 2, as required. Lemma (Deductive closure). [λ M ] is deductively closed, i.e., if W [λ M ] and W ( V, b), then ( V, b) [λ M ]. Proof. By induction on the maximum of the D-heights and a side induction on the maximum of the heights of W [λ M ]. We distinguish cases on the last rule of these derivations (which is determined by M). Case (V). For all ( U, a) W we have U i a ( U, a) [λ x i ].
8 66 A. DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS: PROOFS We must show V i b. By assumption W ( V, b), hence W V b. It suffices to prove V i W V. Let c W V ; we show V i c. There are U such that V U and ( U, c) W. But then by the above U i c, hence V i U i c. Case (A). Let W = {( U 1, a 1 ),..., ( U n, a n )}. For each ( U i, a i ) W there is U i such that ( U i, U i, a i ) [λ M ] ( U i, U i ) [λ N ] ( U. i, a i ) [λ (MN)] Define U := { U i V U i }. We first show that U is consistent. Let a, b U. There are i, j such that a U i, b U j and V U i, U j. Then U i and U j are consistent; hence by the consistency of [[λ N ] proved above a and b are consistent as well. Next we show ( V, U) [λ N ]. Let a U; we show ( V, a) [λ N ]. Fix i such that a U i and V U i, and let W i := { ( U i, b) b U i } [λ N ]. Since by the side induction hypothesis [[λ N ] is deductively closed it suffices to prove W i ( V, a), i.e., { b b U i V U i } a. But the latter set equals U i, and a U i. Finally we show ( V, U, b) [λ M ]. Let W := {( U 1, U 1, a 1 ),..., ( U n, U n, a n )} [λ M ]. By side induction hypothesis it suffices to prove that W ( V, U, b), i.e., { a i V U i U U i } b. But by definition of U the latter set equals { a i V U i }, which in turn entails b because by assumption W ( V, b). Now we can use (A) to infer ( V, b) [λ M ], as required. Case (C). Assume W [λ C ]. Then W consists of ( U, U, C a ) such that U a. Assume further W ( V, V, b). Then { C a U, U (( U, U, C a ) W V U V U ) } b. By definition of entailment b has the form C b such that W i := { a U, U, a (a = a i ( U, U, C a ) W V U V U ) } b i. We must show ( V, V, Cb ) [λ C], i.e., V b. It suffices to show V i W i, for every i. Let a W i. Then there are U, U, a such that a = a i, ( U, U, C a ) W and V U. Hence V i U i a i = a. Case (D). Let W = {( U 1, U 1, a 1),..., ( U n, U n, a n )}. For every i there is an U i such that ( Ui, U i, a i) [λ, yi M i ( y i )] U i P i ( U i ) ( U i, U i, a i) [λ D ]
9 A.3. PRESERVATION OF VALUES 67 for D P i ( y i ) = M i ( y i ) a computation rule. Assume W ( V, V, b). We must prove ( V, V, b) [λ D ]. Let I := { i 1 i n V U i V U i }. Then { a i i I } b, hence I. For i I we have V U i P i ( U i ), hence by (16) there are V i such that V P i ( V i ) and V i U i. In particular for i, j I V P i ( V i ) P j ( V j ). To simplify notation assume I = {1,..., m}. Hence by the unification lemma P 1,..., P m are unifiable with a most general unifier ϑ and there exists W such that ( P 1 ϑ)( W ) = = ( P m ϑ)( W ) P 1 ( V 1) P m ( V m). Let i, j I. Then by the conditions on computation rules M i ϑ = M j ϑ. Also ( y i ϑ)( W ) V i U i. Therefore by (12) and hence by (15) ( V, ( y i ϑ)( W ), a i ) [λ, yi M i ( y i )] ( V, W, a i ) [λ, yi M i ( y i ϑ)]. But M i ( y i ϑ) = M i ϑ = M 1 ϑ = M 1 ( y 1 ϑ) and hence for all i I ( V, W, a i ) [λ, yi M 1 ( y 1 ϑ)]. Therefore X := { ( V, W, a i ) i I } [λ, yi M 1 ( y 1 ϑ)]. Since { a i i I } b, we have X ( V, W, b) and hence the induction hypothesis implies ( V, W, b) [λ, yi M 1 ( y 1 ϑ)]. Using (15) again we obtain ( V, ( y i ϑ)( W ), b) [λ, yi M 1 ( y 1 )]. Since V P 1 ( V 1 ) P 1 (( y 1 ϑ)( W )) we obtain ( V, V, b) [λ D ], by (D). Corollary. [λ M ] is an ideal. A.3. Preservation of values We now prove that our definition above of the denotation of a term is reasonable in the sense that it is not changed by an application of the standard (β- and η-) conversions or a computation rule. For the β-conversion part of this proof it is helpful to first introduce a more standard notation, which involves variable environments. Definition. Assume that all free variables in M are among. [M ] := { b ( U, b) [λ M ] } and [[M ] u, V, y := U, U u [M ] V, y. Let
10 68 A. DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS: PROOFS From (13) we obtain [[M ] U,V,y = [M ] U if y / FV(M), and similarly for ideals u, v instead of U, V. We have a useful monotonicity property, which follows from the deductive closure of [[λ M ]. Lemma. (a) If V U, a b and a [M ] U, then b [M ] V. (b) If v u, a b and a [M ] u, then b [M ] v. Proof. (a) V U, a b and ( U, a) [λ M ] together imply ( V, b) [λ M ], by the deductive closure of [λ M ]. (b) follows from (a). Lemma. (a) [x i ] = U i and [x i ] u = u i. (b) [λ y M ] U U,V = { (V, b) b [M ],y } and [λ y M ] u = { (V, b) b [M ] u,v,y }. (c) [MN ] = [M ] [N ] and [MN ] u = [M ] u [N ] u. Proof. (b) It suffices to prove the first part. But (V, b) [λ y M ] and U,V b [M ],y are both equivalent to ( U, V, b) [λ,y M ]. (c) For the first part we argue as follows. c [M ] U [N ] U V [[N]] U ((V, c) [M ] U ) V (( U, V ) [λ N ] ( U, V, c) [λ M ]) ( U, c) [λ (MN)] c [MN ] U. The second part is an easy consequence: by (A) c [M ] u [N ] u V [[N]] u ((V, c) [M ] u ) V [[N]] u U u ((V, c) [M ] U ) U1 u U U V [[N]] 1 U u ((V, c) [M ] ) ( ) U u V [[N]] U ((V, c) [M ] U ) U u (c [M ] U [N ] U ) U u (c [MN ] U ) c [MN ] u. by the first part Here is the proof of the equivalence marked ( ). The upward direction is obvious. For the downward direction we use monotonicity. Assume U 1 u, U V [N ] 1, U u and (V, c) [M ]. Let U 2 := U 1 U u. Then by U monotonicity V [N ] 2 and (V, c) [M ] U 2.
11 A.3. PRESERVATION OF VALUES 69 Corollary. [λ y M ] u v = [M ] u,v,y. Proof. b [λ y M ] u v V v((v, b) [λ y M ] u ) V v (b [M ] u,v,y ) b [M ] u,v,y. by the lemma, part (b) Lemma (Substitution). [M(z)] u,[[n]] u,z = [M(N)] u. Proof. By induction on M, and cases on the form of M. Case λ y M. For readability we leave out and u. [λ y M(z)] [[N]] z The other cases are easy. = { (V, b) b [M(z)] [[N]],V z,y } = { (V, b) b [M(N)] V y } by induction hypothesis = [λ y M(N)] by the last lemma, part (b) = [(λ y M)(N)]. Lemma (Preservation of values, β). [(λ y M(y))N ] u = [M(N)] u. Proof. Again we leave out, u. By the last two lemmata and the corollary, [(λ y M(y))N ] = [λ y M(y)][[N ] = [M(y)] [[N]] y = [M(N)]. Lemma (Preservation of values, η). [λ y (My)] u = [M ] u Proof. (V, b) [λ y (My)] u U u (( U, V, b) [λ,y (My)]) U u (( U, V, b) [λ M ]) by (14) (V, b) [M ] u. if y / FV(M).
The non-logical symbols determine a specific F OL language and consists of the following sets. Σ = {Σ n } n<ω
1 Preliminaries In this chapter we first give a summary of the basic notations, terminology and results which will be used in this thesis. The treatment here is reduced to a list of definitions. For the
More informationMath 730 Homework 6. Austin Mohr. October 14, 2009
Math 730 Homework 6 Austin Mohr October 14, 2009 1 Problem 3A2 Proposition 1.1. If A X, then the family τ of all subsets of X which contain A, together with the empty set φ, is a topology on X. Proof.
More informationOn the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs
On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs Nikolai V. Krupski Department of Math. Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899,
More information3 Propositional Logic
3 Propositional Logic 3.1 Syntax 3.2 Semantics 3.3 Equivalence and Normal Forms 3.4 Proof Procedures 3.5 Properties Propositional Logic (25th October 2007) 1 3.1 Syntax Definition 3.0 An alphabet Σ consists
More informationMinimal logic for computable functionals
Minimal logic for computable functionals Helmut Schwichtenberg Mathematisches Institut der Universität München Contents 1. Partial continuous functionals 2. Total and structure-total functionals 3. Terms;
More informationINF3170 / INF4171 Notes on Resolution
INF3170 / INF4171 Notes on Resolution Andreas Nakkerud Autumn 2015 1 Introduction This is a short description of the Resolution calculus for propositional logic, and for first order logic. We will only
More informationCHAPTER 2. Computability
CHAPTER 2 Computability At this point we leave the general setting of logic and aim to get closer to mathematics. We introduce free algebras (for example, the natural numbers) as basic data structures
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationPropositional Logic Language
Propositional Logic Language A logic consists of: an alphabet A, a language L, i.e., a set of formulas, and a binary relation = between a set of formulas and a formula. An alphabet A consists of a finite
More informationOMEGA-CATEGORIES AND CHAIN COMPLEXES. 1. Introduction. Homology, Homotopy and Applications, vol.6(1), 2004, pp RICHARD STEINER
Homology, Homotopy and Applications, vol.6(1), 2004, pp.175 200 OMEGA-CATEGORIES AND CHAIN COMPLEXES RICHARD STEINER (communicated by Ronald Brown) Abstract There are several ways to construct omega-categories
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationHypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models
Hypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models Agata Ciabattoni Mauro Ferrari Abstract In this paper we define cut-free hypersequent calculi for some intermediate logics semantically
More informationSoundness Theorem for System AS1
10 The Soundness Theorem for System AS1 1. Introduction...2 2. Soundness, Completeness, and Mutual Consistency...2 3. The Weak Soundness Theorem...4 4. The Strong Soundness Theorem...6 5. Appendix: Supporting
More informationResolution for Predicate Logic
Logic and Proof Hilary 2016 James Worrell Resolution for Predicate Logic A serious drawback of the ground resolution procedure is that it requires looking ahead to predict which ground instances of clauses
More informationLazy Strong Normalization
Lazy Strong Normalization Luca Paolini 1,2 Dipartimento di Informatica Università di Torino (ITALIA) Elaine Pimentel 1,2 Departamento de Matemática Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BRASIL) Dipartimento
More informationA Weak Post s Theorem and the Deduction Theorem Retold
Chapter I A Weak Post s Theorem and the Deduction Theorem Retold This note retells (1) A weak form of Post s theorem: If Γ is finite and Γ = taut A, then Γ A and derives as a corollary the Deduction Theorem:
More informationBisimulation for conditional modalities
Bisimulation for conditional modalities Alexandru Baltag and Giovanni Ciná Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam March 21, 2016 Abstract We give a general definition of
More information1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More informationHORSes: format, termination and confluence
HORSes: format, termination and confluence Jean-Pierre Jouannaud INRIA-LIAMA and singhua Software Chair Joint on-going work with Jianqi Li School of Software, singhua University Project CoqLF NList Cross-discipline
More informationEntailment with Conditional Equality Constraints (Extended Version)
Entailment with Conditional Equality Constraints (Extended Version) Zhendong Su Alexander Aiken Report No. UCB/CSD-00-1113 October 2000 Computer Science Division (EECS) University of California Berkeley,
More informationHarvard CS 121 and CSCI E-207 Lecture 6: Regular Languages and Countability
Harvard CS 121 and CSCI E-207 Lecture 6: Regular Languages and Countability Salil Vadhan September 20, 2012 Reading: Sipser, 1.3 and The Diagonalization Method, pages 174 178 (from just before Definition
More informationChapter 2. Unification. Foundations of Logic Programming
Chapter 2 1 Outline Understanding the need for unification Defining alphabets, terms, and substitutions Introducing the Martelli-Montanari Algorithm for unification Proving correctness of the algorithm
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 informationBoolean Algebra and Propositional Logic
Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic Takahiro Kato September 10, 2015 ABSTRACT. This article provides yet another characterization of Boolean algebras and, using this characterization, establishes a
More informationBoolean Algebra and Propositional Logic
Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic Takahiro Kato June 23, 2015 This article provides yet another characterization of Boolean algebras and, using this characterization, establishes a more direct connection
More informationArgumentative Characterisations of Non-monotonic Inference in Preferred Subtheories: Stable Equals Preferred
Argumentative Characterisations of Non-monotonic Inference in Preferred Subtheories: Stable Equals Preferred Sanjay Modgil November 17, 2017 Abstract A number of argumentation formalisms provide dialectical
More informationKRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH 1. INTRODUCTION
KRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH RICHARD G HECK, JR 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this note is to give a simple, easily accessible proof of the existence of the minimal fixed point, and of various maximal fixed
More informationChapter 4. Measure Theory. 1. Measure Spaces
Chapter 4. Measure Theory 1. Measure Spaces Let X be a nonempty set. A collection S of subsets of X is said to be an algebra on X if S has the following properties: 1. X S; 2. if A S, then A c S; 3. if
More informationChapter 1: Systems of Linear Equations
Chapter : Systems of Linear Equations February, 9 Systems of linear equations Linear systems Lecture A linear equation in variables x, x,, x n is an equation of the form a x + a x + + a n x n = b, where
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More informationMonadic Refinements for Relational Cost Analysis (Appendix)
Monadic Refinements for Relational Cost Analysis (Appendix) Ivan Radiček Gilles Barthe Marco Gaboardi Deepak Garg Florian Zuleger Structure of the Appendix In the appendix we give material that was omitted
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - IV
Propositional and Predicate Logic - IV Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK ZS 2015/2016 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - IV ZS 2015/2016 1 / 19 Tableau method (from the previous lecture)
More informationModal Dependence Logic
Modal Dependence Logic Jouko Väänänen Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands J.A.Vaananen@uva.nl Abstract We
More informationUnification in Description Logic EL without top constructor
Fakultät Informatik EMCL Master Thesis Unification in Description Logic EL without top constructor by Nguyen Thanh Binh born on March 25 th 1984, Cao Bang, Vietnam S upervisor : Prof.Dr.-Ing. Franz Baader
More informationComputability Crib Sheet
Computer Science and Engineering, UCSD Winter 10 CSE 200: Computability and Complexity Instructor: Mihir Bellare Computability Crib Sheet January 3, 2010 Computability Crib Sheet This is a quick reference
More informationOn Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions
arxiv:cs/0407031v1 [cs.lo] 12 Jul 2004 On Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions Pavel Naumov Computer Science Pennsylvania State University Middletown, PA 17057 naumov@psu.edu June 14, 2018 Abstract
More informationCS411 Notes 3 Induction and Recursion
CS411 Notes 3 Induction and Recursion A. Demers 5 Feb 2001 These notes present inductive techniques for defining sets and subsets, for defining functions over sets, and for proving that a property holds
More informationCographs; chordal graphs and tree decompositions
Cographs; chordal graphs and tree decompositions Zdeněk Dvořák September 14, 2015 Let us now proceed with some more interesting graph classes closed on induced subgraphs. 1 Cographs The class of cographs
More informationLogic Michælmas 2003
Logic Michælmas 2003 ii Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Propositional logic 3 3 Syntactic implication 5 3.0.1 Two consequences of completeness.............. 7 4 Posets and Zorn s lemma 9 5 Predicate logic
More informationCHAPTER 8: EXPLORING R
CHAPTER 8: EXPLORING R LECTURE NOTES FOR MATH 378 (CSUSM, SPRING 2009). WAYNE AITKEN In the previous chapter we discussed the need for a complete ordered field. The field Q is not complete, so we constructed
More information1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More informationObservation 4.1 G has a proper separation of order 0 if and only if G is disconnected.
4 Connectivity 2-connectivity Separation: A separation of G of order k is a pair of subgraphs (H, K) with H K = G and E(H K) = and V (H) V (K) = k. Such a separation is proper if V (H) \ V (K) and V (K)
More informationLaplace s Equation. Chapter Mean Value Formulas
Chapter 1 Laplace s Equation Let be an open set in R n. A function u C 2 () is called harmonic in if it satisfies Laplace s equation n (1.1) u := D ii u = 0 in. i=1 A function u C 2 () is called subharmonic
More informationW if p = 0; ; W ) if p 1. p times
Alternating and symmetric multilinear functions. Suppose and W are normed vector spaces. For each integer p we set {0} if p < 0; W if p = 0; ( ; W = L( }... {{... } ; W if p 1. p times We say µ p ( ; W
More informationEilenberg-Steenrod properties. (Hatcher, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1; Conlon, 2.6, 8.1, )
II.3 : Eilenberg-Steenrod properties (Hatcher, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1; Conlon, 2.6, 8.1, 8.3 8.5 Definition. Let U be an open subset of R n for some n. The de Rham cohomology groups (U are the cohomology groups
More informationTranslative Sets and Functions and their Applications to Risk Measure Theory and Nonlinear Separation
Translative Sets and Functions and their Applications to Risk Measure Theory and Nonlinear Separation Andreas H. Hamel Abstract Recently defined concepts such as nonlinear separation functionals due to
More informationExistential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations
Existential Second-Order Logic and Modal Logic with Quantified Accessibility Relations preprint Lauri Hella University of Tampere Antti Kuusisto University of Bremen Abstract This article investigates
More informationModal Logic: Exercises
Modal Logic: Exercises KRDB FUB stream course www.inf.unibz.it/ gennari/index.php?page=nl Lecturer: R. Gennari gennari@inf.unibz.it June 6, 2010 Ex. 36 Prove the following claim. Claim 1. Uniform substitution
More informationConvexity in R N Supplemental Notes 1
John Nachbar Washington University November 1, 2014 Convexity in R N Supplemental Notes 1 1 Introduction. These notes provide exact characterizations of support and separation in R N. The statement of
More informationProvably Total Functions of Arithmetic with Basic Terms
Provably Total Functions of Arithmetic with Basic Terms Evgeny Makarov INRIA Orsay, France emakarov@gmail.com A new characterization of provably recursive functions of first-order arithmetic is described.
More informationProseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 Proving the Soundness and Completeness of Propositional Logic: Some Highlights 1
Proving the Soundness and Completeness of Propositional Logic: Some Highlights 1 (1) A Summary of What We ve Done So Far for PL a. We ve given a purely syntactic characterization of valid inference in
More informationNormal Forms of Propositional Logic
Normal Forms of Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 12, 2017 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Normal Forms of Propositional Logic September
More informationRelational Reasoning in Natural Language
1/67 Relational Reasoning in Natural Language Larry Moss ESSLLI 10 Course on Logics for Natural Language Inference August, 2010 Adding transitive verbs the work on R, R, and other systems is joint with
More informationA Goal-Oriented Algorithm for Unification in EL w.r.t. Cycle-Restricted TBoxes
A Goal-Oriented Algorithm for Unification in EL w.r.t. Cycle-Restricted TBoxes Franz Baader, Stefan Borgwardt, and Barbara Morawska {baader,stefborg,morawska}@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de Theoretical Computer
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 informationDetermining Unify-Stable Presentations (long version)
Determining Unify-Stable Presentations (long version) Thierry Boy de la Tour 1 and Mnacho Echenim 2 1 CNRS - Laboratoire d Informatique de Grenoble, France Thierry.Boy-de-la-Tour@imag.fr 2 Dipartimento
More informationForcing-based cut-elimination for Gentzen-style intuitionistic sequent calculus
Forcing-based cut-elimination for Gentzen-style intuitionistic sequent calculus Hugo Herbelin 1 and Gyesik Lee 2 1 INRIA & PPS, Paris Université 7 Paris, France Hugo.Herbelin@inria.fr 2 ROSAEC center,
More informationGeneral methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1
General methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1 Björn Lellmann and Revantha Ramanayake TU Wien Tutorial co-located with TABLEAUX 2017, FroCoS 2017 and ITP 2017 September 24, 2017. Brasilia.
More information3 COUNTABILITY AND CONNECTEDNESS AXIOMS
3 COUNTABILITY AND CONNECTEDNESS AXIOMS Definition 3.1 Let X be a topological space. A subset D of X is dense in X iff D = X. X is separable iff it contains a countable dense subset. X satisfies the first
More informationwhere Σ is a finite discrete Gal(K sep /K)-set unramified along U and F s is a finite Gal(k(s) sep /k(s))-subset
Classification of quasi-finite étale separated schemes As we saw in lecture, Zariski s Main Theorem provides a very visual picture of quasi-finite étale separated schemes X over a henselian local ring
More informationMath 541 Fall 2008 Connectivity Transition from Math 453/503 to Math 541 Ross E. Staffeldt-August 2008
Math 541 Fall 2008 Connectivity Transition from Math 453/503 to Math 541 Ross E. Staffeldt-August 2008 Closed sets We have been operating at a fundamental level at which a topological space is a set together
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 information7 RC Simulates RA. Lemma: For every RA expression E(A 1... A k ) there exists a DRC formula F with F V (F ) = {A 1,..., A k } and
7 RC Simulates RA. We now show that DRC (and hence TRC) is at least as expressive as RA. That is, given an RA expression E that mentions at most C, there is an equivalent DRC expression E that mentions
More informationThe Complexity of Entailment Problems over Conditional Equality Constraints
The Complexity of Entailment Problems over Conditional Equality Constraints Zhendong Su Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8562 +1 530 7545376 (phone) +1 530 7524767
More informationConsequence Relations and Natural Deduction
Consequence Relations and Natural Deduction Joshua D. Guttman Worcester Polytechnic Institute September 9, 2010 Contents 1 Consequence Relations 1 2 A Derivation System for Natural Deduction 3 3 Derivations
More informationA Discrete Duality Between Nonmonotonic Consequence Relations and Convex Geometries
A Discrete Duality Between Nonmonotonic Consequence Relations and Convex Geometries Johannes Marti and Riccardo Pinosio Draft from April 5, 2018 Abstract In this paper we present a duality between nonmonotonic
More informationA Generic Approach to Coalition Formation
A Generic Approach to Coalition Formation Krzysztof R. Apt and Andreas Witzel Abstract We propose an abstract approach to coalition formation by focusing on partial preference relations between partitions
More informationc i r i i=1 r 1 = [1, 2] r 2 = [0, 1] r 3 = [3, 4].
Lecture Notes: Rank of a Matrix Yufei Tao Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chinese University of Hong Kong taoyf@cse.cuhk.edu.hk 1 Linear Independence Definition 1. Let r 1, r 2,..., r m
More informationCourse 212: Academic Year Section 1: Metric Spaces
Course 212: Academic Year 1991-2 Section 1: Metric Spaces D. R. Wilkins Contents 1 Metric Spaces 3 1.1 Distance Functions and Metric Spaces............. 3 1.2 Convergence and Continuity in Metric Spaces.........
More informationThe density of rational points on non-singular hypersurfaces, I
The density of rational points on non-singular hypersurfaces, I T.D. Browning 1 and D.R. Heath-Brown 2 1 School of Mathematics, Bristol University, Bristol BS8 1TW 2 Mathematical Institute,24 29 St. Giles,Oxford
More informationA NICE PROOF OF FARKAS LEMMA
A NICE PROOF OF FARKAS LEMMA DANIEL VICTOR TAUSK Abstract. The goal of this short note is to present a nice proof of Farkas Lemma which states that if C is the convex cone spanned by a finite set and if
More informationGeneral Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations
General Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations OFER ARIELI AND ARNON AVRON, Department of Computer Science, School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,
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 informationSolution. 1 Solution of Homework 7. Sangchul Lee. March 22, Problem 1.1
Solution Sangchul Lee March, 018 1 Solution of Homework 7 Problem 1.1 For a given k N, Consider two sequences (a n ) and (b n,k ) in R. Suppose that a n b n,k for all n,k N Show that limsup a n B k :=
More informationSafety Analysis versus Type Inference
Information and Computation, 118(1):128 141, 1995. Safety Analysis versus Type Inference Jens Palsberg palsberg@daimi.aau.dk Michael I. Schwartzbach mis@daimi.aau.dk Computer Science Department, Aarhus
More informationModels of Computation,
Models of Computation, 2010 1 Induction We use a lot of inductive techniques in this course, both to give definitions and to prove facts about our semantics So, it s worth taking a little while to set
More informationAn Abstract Decision Procedure for a Theory of Inductive Data Types
An Abstract Decision Procedure for a Theory of Inductive Data Types lark Barrett Igor Shikanian Department of omputer Science ourant Institute of Mathematical Sciences New York University esare Tinelli
More informationLECTURE 3 Functional spaces on manifolds
LECTURE 3 Functional spaces on manifolds The aim of this section is to introduce Sobolev spaces on manifolds (or on vector bundles over manifolds). These will be the Banach spaces of sections we were after
More informationChapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems. September 19, 2008
Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems September 19, 2008 Outline 1 3.1 Deductive (Proof) System 2 3.2 Gentzen System G 3 3.3 Hilbert System H 4 3.4 Soundness and Completeness; Consistency
More informationSUBLATTICES OF LATTICES OF ORDER-CONVEX SETS, III. THE CASE OF TOTALLY ORDERED SETS
SUBLATTICES OF LATTICES OF ORDER-CONVEX SETS, III. THE CASE OF TOTALLY ORDERED SETS MARINA SEMENOVA AND FRIEDRICH WEHRUNG Abstract. For a partially ordered set P, let Co(P) denote the lattice of all order-convex
More informationM17 MAT25-21 HOMEWORK 6
M17 MAT25-21 HOMEWORK 6 DUE 10:00AM WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 13TH 1. To Hand In Double Series. The exercises in this section will guide you to complete the proof of the following theorem: Theorem 1: Absolute
More informationLogic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables
Logic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables Raffaella Bernardi bernardi@inf.unibz.it P.zza Domenicani 3, Room 2.28 Faculty of Computer Science, Free University of Bolzano-Bozen http://www.inf.unibz.it/~bernardi/courses/logic06
More informationClosure operators on sets and algebraic lattices
Closure operators on sets and algebraic lattices Sergiu Rudeanu University of Bucharest Romania Closure operators are abundant in mathematics; here are a few examples. Given an algebraic structure, such
More informationClausal Presentation of Theories in Deduction Modulo
Gao JH. Clausal presentation of theories in deduction modulo. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECHNOL- OGY 28(6): 1085 1096 Nov. 2013. DOI 10.1007/s11390-013-1399-0 Clausal Presentation of Theories in
More informationITERATING ALONG A PRIKRY SEQUENCE
ITERATING ALONG A PRIKRY SEQUENCE SPENCER UNGER Abstract. In this paper we introduce a new method which combines Prikry forcing with an iteration between the Prikry points. Using our method we prove from
More informationOverview. I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof.
Overview I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof. Propositional formulas Grammar: ::= p j (:) j ( ^ )
More informationHartogs Theorem: separate analyticity implies joint Paul Garrett garrett/
(February 9, 25) Hartogs Theorem: separate analyticity implies joint Paul Garrett garrett@math.umn.edu http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/ (The present proof of this old result roughly follows the proof
More informationA Linear Round Lower Bound for Lovasz-Schrijver SDP Relaxations of Vertex Cover
A Linear Round Lower Bound for Lovasz-Schrijver SDP Relaxations of Vertex Cover Grant Schoenebeck Luca Trevisan Madhur Tulsiani Abstract We study semidefinite programming relaxations of Vertex Cover arising
More informationCanonical Calculi: Invertibility, Axiom expansion and (Non)-determinism
Canonical Calculi: Invertibility, Axiom expansion and (Non)-determinism A. Avron 1, A. Ciabattoni 2, and A. Zamansky 1 1 Tel-Aviv University 2 Vienna University of Technology Abstract. We apply the semantic
More informationPart II Logic and Set Theory
Part II Logic and Set Theory Theorems Based on lectures by I. B. Leader Notes taken by Dexter Chua Lent 2015 These notes are not endorsed by the lecturers, and I have modified them (often significantly)
More informationNICTA Advanced Course. Theorem Proving Principles, Techniques, Applications
NICTA Advanced Course Theorem Proving Principles, Techniques, Applications λ 1 CONTENT Intro & motivation, getting started with Isabelle Foundations & Principles Lambda Calculus Higher Order Logic, natural
More informationOn closures of lexicographic star-free languages. E. Ochmański and K. Stawikowska
On closures of lexicographic star-free languages E. Ochmański and K. Stawikowska Preprint No 7/2005 Version 1, posted on April 19, 2005 On closures of lexicographic star-free languages Edward Ochma ski
More informationSupplementary Notes on Inductive Definitions
Supplementary Notes on Inductive Definitions 15-312: Foundations of Programming Languages Frank Pfenning Lecture 2 August 29, 2002 These supplementary notes review the notion of an inductive definition
More informationTopological properties
CHAPTER 4 Topological properties 1. Connectedness Definitions and examples Basic properties Connected components Connected versus path connected, again 2. Compactness Definition and first examples Topological
More informationInterpolation in Logics with Constructors
Interpolation in Logics with Constructors Daniel Găină Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology School of Information Science Abstract We present a generic method for establishing the interpolation
More informationVISCOSITY SOLUTIONS. We follow Han and Lin, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations, 5.
VISCOSITY SOLUTIONS PETER HINTZ We follow Han and Lin, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations, 5. 1. Motivation Throughout, we will assume that Ω R n is a bounded and connected domain and that a ij C(Ω)
More informationarxiv: v4 [math.lo] 6 Apr 2018
Complexity of the interpretability logic IL arxiv:1710.05599v4 [math.lo] 6 Apr 2018 Luka Mikec luka.mikec@math.hr Fedor Pakhomov pakhfn@mi.ras.ru Monday 2 nd April, 2018 Abstract Mladen Vuković vukovic@math.hr
More informationIntroduction to lambda calculus Part 6
Introduction to lambda calculus Part 6 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho 2017-02-16 1 Untyped lambda calculus 2 Typed lambda calculi 2.1 Dynamically typed lambda calculus with integers 2.2 A model of Lisp 2.3 Simply
More informationFrom Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics
From Frame Properties to Hypersequent Rules in Modal Logics Ori Lahav School of Computer Science Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, Israel Email: orilahav@post.tau.ac.il Abstract We provide a general method
More informationFUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES: COMPACT SETS AND FINITE-DIMENSIONAL SPACES. 1. Compact Sets
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES: COMPACT SETS AND FINITE-DIMENSIONAL SPACES CHRISTOPHER HEIL 1. Compact Sets Definition 1.1 (Compact and Totally Bounded Sets). Let X be a metric space, and let E X be
More information