DOCSLIB.ORG

Encodings and Arithmetic Operations in P Systems⋆

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Encodings and Arithmetic Operations in P Systems⋆ Encodings and Arithmetic Operations in P Systems? Artiom Alhazov1, Cosmin Bonchi»s2, Gabriel Ciobanu2;3, and Cornel Izba»sa2 1 Research Group on Mathematical Linguistics, Rovira i Virgili University and Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, [email protected] 2 Research Institute \e-Austria" Timi»soara,Romania [email protected], [email protected],[email protected] 3 Romanian Academy, Institute of Computer Science Blvd. Carol I nr.8, 700505 Ia»si,Romania [email protected] Summary. Following [2], we present in this paper various number encodings and opera- tions over multisets. We obtain the most compact encoding and several other interesting encodings and study their properties using elements of combinatorics over multisets. We also construct P systems that implement their associated operations. We quantify the ef- fect of adding order to a multiset thus obtaining a string, as going from encoding lengths p of the number n in base b and time complexities of operations of the order b n to lengths and complexities of order logbn: 1 Introduction Membrane systems represent a new abstract model inspired by cell compartments and molecular membranes. Essentially, such a system is composed of various com- partments, each compartment with a di®erent task, and all of them working si- multaneously to accomplish a more general task of the whole system. A detailed description of the membrane systems (also called P systems) can be found in [9]. A membrane system consists of a hierarchy of membranes that do not intersect, with a distinguishable membrane, called the skin membrane, surrounding them all. The membranes produce a delimitation between regions. For each membrane there is a unique associated region. Regions contain multisets of objects, evolution rules and possibly other membranes. Only rules in a region delimited by a membrane act on the objects in that region. The multisets of objects from a region correspond to the \chemicals swimming in the solution in the cell compartment", while the rules correspond to the \chemical reactions possible in the same compartment". Graphically, a membrane structure is represented by a Venn diagram in which two ? Work partially supported by the CEEX grant 47/2005 2 A. Alhazov, C. Bonchi»s,G. Ciobanu, C. Izba»sa sets can be either disjoint, or one is a subset of the other. We refer mainly to the so-called transition membrane systems. Other variants and classes are introduced [9]. The membrane systems represent a new abstract machine. For each abstract machine, the theory of programming introduces and studies various paradigms of computation. For instance, Turing machines and register machines are mainly re- lated to imperative programming, and ¸-calculus is related to functional program- ming. Looking at the membrane systems from the point of view of programming theory, we intend to provide useful results for future de¯nitions and implementa- tions of P system-based programming languages, that is, programming languages that generate P systems as an executable form. The authors of such languages will certainly have to face the problem of number encoding using multisets, since the multiset is the support structure of P systems. The idea to encode numbers using multisets and to de¯ne arithmetical operations in membrane computing is presented in [2]. Here we present more details, emphasizing other interesting as- pects related to the number encoding using multisets and P systems. We outline various approaches of the most compact encodings using one membrane, also com- paring it to the most compact encoding using strings. This comparison is meant to o®er some hints about information encoding in general, speci¯cally how do we most compactly encode information over structures that have underlying or- der (strings), or just multiplicity (multisets), or neither (sets), that is how do we encode information using strings, multisets or sets. Prior work related to number encodings using multisets was done in [1], where the encoding is done by allocating a membrane for each digit, thus \stringising" the multiset, constructing a string-like structure over it. Then this string-like struc- ture is used to encode numbers in the classical manner. Our approach does not attempt to superimpose this string structure over the multiset, but tries to use only the already present quality of multiset elements, multiplicity, to encode num- bers and, by extension, information. Thus, this approach is a more native one and might be easier to use in related biochemical experiments. Another advan- tage is that using this approach it is possible to represent numbers with arbitrary number of digits, without membrane creation, division or dissolution. One dis- advantage is that the arithmetic operations have slightly higher complexity. We have designed and implemented sequential and parallel software simulators [5, 6]; a web-based implementation is presented in [3]. We have implemented the arithmetic operations, and each example is tested with our web-based simulator available at http://psystems.ieat.ro/. 2 Combinatorics Over Multisets (Review) To develop encoding and decoding algorithms for the above encodings we start with a short review of combinatorics over multisets based on [4]. Let M be a multiset. Encodings and Arithmetic Operations in P Systems 3 2.1 Permutations over multisets De¯nition: An r ¡ permutation of M is an ordered arrangement of r objects of M. If jMj = n then an n ¡ permutation of M is called a permutation of M. Theorem 1. Let M be a multiset of k di®erent types where each type has in¯nitely many elements. Then the number of r ¡ permutations of M equals kr. 2.2 Combinations over multisets De¯nition: An r ¡ combination of M is an unordered collection of r objects from M. Thus an r ¡ combination of M is itself an r ¡ submultiset of M. For a multiset M = f1a1; 1a2; :::; 1ang, an r ¡ combination of M is also called an r ¡ combination with repetition allowed of the n-set S = fa1; a2; :::; ang. The ¿numberÀ of r ¡ combinations with repetition allowed of an n-set is denoted by n : r Theorem 2. Let M = f1a1; 1a2; :::; 1ang be a multiset of n types. Then the number of r ¡ combinations of M is given by ¿ À µ ¶ µ ¶ n n + r ¡ 1 n + r ¡ 1 = = r r n ¡ 1 3 Number Encodings Over Multisets We consider several encodings with useful features such as the most compact en- coding (MCE), Gray-style most compact encoding (GSMCE), square root en- coding (SqRE), and Gray-style square root encoding (GSqRE). Gray-style most compact encoding (GSMCE) Gray-style encodings are based on the fact that a minimal change is performed on the encoded number to obtain its successor or predecessor. The change means either converting an existing symbol or adding a new symbol (with the remark that after this step cannot be performed an other addition step). 3.1 Most compact encoding using one membrane (MCE) The natural encoding is easy to understand and work with, but it has the dis- advantage that for very large numbers the P system membranes will contain a very large number of objects, which is undesirable for practical reasons. First we analyze the most compact encoding using two object types (binary case) and then briefly the ternary case. 4 A. Alhazov, C. Bonchi»s,G. Ciobanu, C. Izba»sa MCE1 Decimal Natural MCE2 MCE3 GSMCE2 SqRE2 GSqRE2 encoding 0 ¸ = a0 ¸=0010 ¸=001020 ¸=0010 ¸=0010 ¸=0010 1 a1 0=0110 0=011020 0=0110 00=0210 00=0210 2 a2 1=0011 1=001120 1=0011 01=0111 01=0111 3 a3 00=0210 2=001021 11=0012 11=0012 11=0012 4 a4 01=0111 00=021020 10=0111 0000=0410 1111=0014 5 a5 11=0012 01=011120 00=0210 0001=0311 1110=0113 6 a6 000=0310 02=011021 000=0310 0011=0212 1100=0212 7 a7 001=0211 11=001220 001=0211 0111=0113 1000=0113 8 a8 011=0112 12=001121 011=0112 1111=0014 0000=0410 9 a9 111=0013 22=001022 111=0013 000000=0610 000000=0610 10 a10 0000=0410 000=031020 1111=0014 000001=0511 000001=0511 11 a11 0001=0311 001=021120 1110=0311 000011=0412 000011=0412 12 a12 0011=0212 002=021021 1100=0212 000111=0313 000111=0313 13 a13 0111=0113 011=011220 1000=0113 001111=0214 001111=0214 Table 1. Number encodings b=m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 4 1 4 10 20 35 56 84 120 165 220 5 1 5 15 35 70 126 210 330 495 715 6 1 6 21 56 126 252 462 792 1287 2002 Table 2. Number of numbers encoded in base b with m objects De¯nitions, properties We denote as N(b; m) the number of numbers encoded in base b with m objects. Here are some values for the function N(b; m): For our representations, the de¯nition of r ¡ combinations is useful in deter- mining the number of objects represented with m objects in a multiset with b types. b indicates our base. ¿ À µ ¶ µ ¶ b b ¡ 1 + m b ¡ 1 + m N(b; m) = = = (1) m m b ¡ 1 which is also the number of m ¡ combinations of a multiset of b types. Based on the Pascal formula: µ ¶ µ ¶ µ ¶ n n ¡ 1 n ¡ 1 = + r r r ¡ 1 Encodings and Arithmetic Operations in P Systems 5 and its extended form: µ ¶ r µ ¶ n X n ¡ 1 ¡ i = (2) r r ¡ i i=0 we replace in 2 b ¡ 1 + m for n and m for r, ¿ À µ ¶ µ ¶ b b ¡ 1 + m (b ¡ 1) ¡ 1 + (m ¡ i) N(b; m) = = = = m m (m ¡ i) m ¿ À m ¿ À m X b ¡ 1 X b ¡ 1 X = = N(b ¡ 1; i) m ¡ i i i=0 i=0 i=0 and obtain that Xm N(b; m) = N(b ¡ 1; i) (3) i=0 To develop encoding and decoding algorithms for a certain base b we have to solve this equation: mX¡1 N(b; i) ¡ n = 0 i=0 Since from 3 m¡1 ¿ À X b + 1 N(b; i) = N(b + 1; m ¡ 1) = = m ¡ 1 i=0 µ ¶ Q b + m ¡ 1 (b + m ¡ 1)! b¡1(m + i) = = i=0 m ¡ 1 b!(m ¡ 1)! b! we obtain that Q mX¡1 b¡1(m + i) N(b; i) ¡ n = 0 , i=0 ¡ n = 0: (4) b! i=0 The integer part of its greatest real positive root of 4 will represent m; i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Functional Hitchhiker's Guide to Hereditarily Finite Sets, Ackermann
    A Functional Hitchhiker’s Guide to Hereditarily Finite Sets, Ackermann Encodings and Pairing Functions – unpublished draft – Paul Tarau Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of North Texas [email protected] Abstract interest in various fields, from representing structured data The paper is organized as a self-contained literate Haskell in databases (Leontjev and Sazonov 2000) to reasoning with program that implements elements of an executable fi- sets and set constraints in a Logic Programming framework nite set theory with focus on combinatorial generation and (Dovier et al. 2000; Piazza and Policriti 2004; Dovier et al. arithmetic encodings. The code, tested under GHC 6.6.1, 2001). is available at http://logic.csci.unt.edu/tarau/ The Universe of Hereditarily Finite Sets is built from the research/2008/fSET.zip. empty set (or a set of Urelements) by successively applying We introduce ranking and unranking functions generaliz- powerset and set union operations. A surprising bijection, ing Ackermann’s encoding to the universe of Hereditarily Fi- discovered by Wilhelm Ackermann in 1937 (Ackermann nite Sets with Urelements. Then we build a lazy enumerator 1937; Abian and Lamacchia 1978; Kaye and Wong 2007) for Hereditarily Finite Sets with Urelements that matches the from Hereditarily Finite Sets to Natural Numbers, was the unranking function provided by the inverse of Ackermann’s original trigger for our work on building in a mathematically encoding and we describe functors between them resulting elegant programming language, a concise and executable in arithmetic encodings for powersets, hypergraphs, ordinals hereditarily finite set theory. The arbitrary size of the data and choice functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Cardinality and the Nature of Infinity
    Cardinality and The Nature of Infinity Recap from Last Time Functions ● A function f is a mapping such that every value in A is associated with a single value in B. ● For every a ∈ A, there exists some b ∈ B with f(a) = b. ● If f(a) = b0 and f(a) = b1, then b0 = b1. ● If f is a function from A to B, we call A the domain of f andl B the codomain of f. ● We denote that f is a function from A to B by writing f : A → B Injective Functions ● A function f : A → B is called injective (or one-to-one) iff each element of the codomain has at most one element of the domain associated with it. ● A function with this property is called an injection. ● Formally: If f(x0) = f(x1), then x0 = x1 ● An intuition: injective functions label the objects from A using names from B. Surjective Functions ● A function f : A → B is called surjective (or onto) iff each element of the codomain has at least one element of the domain associated with it. ● A function with this property is called a surjection. ● Formally: For any b ∈ B, there exists at least one a ∈ A such that f(a) = b. ● An intuition: surjective functions cover every element of B with at least one element of A. Bijections ● A function that associates each element of the codomain with a unique element of the domain is called bijective. ● Such a function is a bijection. ● Formally, a bijection is a function that is both injective and surjective.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperbolic Pairing Function
    Hyperbolic pairing function --Steve Witham 2020-03-31. DRAFT v0.5. Function v0. Check the history at the bottom. "In mathematics, a pairing function is a process to uniquely encode two natural numbers into a single natural number." 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function) Georg Cantor's pairing function indexes pairs by scanning diagonals in the x, y grid. Here we define a pairing that collects (positive) integer points that hyperbolas pass through, for which the sequence in OEIS A006218 (https://oeis.org/A006218) is very helpful. This definition (one of several there)... means that, since each pair whose product is can be identified with one of 's divisors, the range has just enough room to encode those pairs. If we assign each pair a location within the range, a pairing function is defined. Contents Encoding Worked example Notes Exercise Decoding Cost in bits Calculating Exactly Approximately Bounds on Calculating the "inverse": This means search Approximating the inverse Bounds on Digression about harmonic numbers References Encoding The number of ordered pairs whose product is naturally matches the number divisors of . For example, Knowing , we can identify by encoding its first number (that is, ) into an offset within the range of encoded numbers ( 's) that belong to . We must fix the order of the primes in the factoring of in order to fix the definition of . Let's use the usual order: and are products of different powers of the same 's: But each is just , and we ignore for now. Given the 's and 's in our standard order, the following defines .
    [Show full text]
  • The Rosenberg-Strong Pairing Function (Rosenberg and Strong, 1972; Rosenberg, 1974) for the Non-Negative Integers Is Defined by the Formula5
    The Rosenberg-Strong Pairing Function Matthew P. Szudzik 2019-01-28 Abstract This article surveys the known results (and not very well-known re- sults) associated with Cantor’s pairing function and the Rosenberg-Strong pairing function, including their inverses, their generalizations to higher dimensions, and a discussion of a few of the advantages of the Rosenberg- Strong pairing function over Cantor’s pairing function in practical appli- cations. In particular, an application to the problem of enumerating full binary trees is discussed. 1 Cantor’s pairing function Given any set B,a pairing function1 for B is a one-to-one correspondence from the set of ordered pairs B2 to the set B. The only finite sets B with pairing functions are the sets with fewer than two elements. But if B is infinite, then a pairing function for B necessarily exists.2 For example, Cantor’s pairing function (Cantor, 1878) for the positive integers is the function 1 p(x, y)= (x2 +2xy + y2 x 3y + 2) 2 − − that maps each pair (x, y) of positive integers to a single positive integer p(x, y). Cantor’s pairing function serves as an important example in elementary set theory (Enderton, 1977). It is also used as a fundamental tool in recursion theory and other related areas of mathematics (Rogers, 1967; Matiyasevich, arXiv:1706.04129v5 [cs.DM] 28 Jan 2019 1993). A few different variants of Cantor’s pairing function appear in the literature. First, given any pairing function f(x, y) for the positive integers, the function 1 There is no general agreement on the definition of a pairing function in the published lit- erature.
    [Show full text]
  • Hilbert's 10Th Problem
    Utrecht University Bachelor Thesis 7.5 ects Hilbert’s 10th Problem Author: Supervisor: Richard Dirven Dr. Jaap van Oosten 5686091 A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in the Department of Mathematics Faculty of Science June 17, 2021 i “Mathematics knows no races or geographic boundaries; for mathematics, the cultural world is one country.” David Hilbert ii Contents I Computability Theory1 1 Register Machines & Computability2 1.1 Register Machines...............................2 1.1.1 An overview..............................2 1.1.2 Formalization.............................3 1.1.3 Closure Properties..........................5 1.2 Computable Functions............................6 1.2.1 Introduction..............................6 1.2.2 Closure Properties..........................6 2 Primitive Recursive Functions9 2.1 Introduction..................................9 2.2 Important primitive recursive functions.................. 11 2.2.1 Primitive recursiveness of the equality relation.......... 11 2.2.2 Powerful building blocks...................... 12 2.3 Partial Recursive Functions......................... 15 3 Tuple Coding 17 3.1 The Cantor pairing function......................... 17 3.2 Tuple pairing function............................ 18 3.3 Functions on sequences............................ 19 4 Computability, Decidability & Enumerability 21 4.1 Equality of computability and recursiveness................ 21 4.2 Decidability & Enumerability........................ 23 II Diophantine
    [Show full text]
  • F12:Homework:H14
    H14-F12-CS40 page 1 section first name last name First name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z (M2,M5,M7 or T4) initial initial (color-in initial) Last name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z (color-in initial) H14: Due Mon 11.05 in Lecture. Total Points: 50 MAY ONLY BE TURNED IN DURING Lecture ON Mon 11.05, or offered in person, for in person grading, during instructor or TAs office hours. See the course syllabus at https://foo.cs.ucsb.edu/40wiki/index.php/F12:Syllabus for more details. (1) (10 pts) Fill in the information below. Also, fill in the A-Z header by coloring in the first letter of your first and last name (as it would appears in Gauchospace), writing either M2, M5, M7 or T4 to indicate your discussion section meeting time, i.e., Monday at 2pm, Monday at 4pm, or Tuesday at 5pm. writing your first and last initial in large capital letters (e.g. P C). All of this helps us to manage the avalanche of paper that results from the daily homework. name: umail address: @umail.ucsb.edu Your reading assignment for H14/H15 includes The handout given out with this assignment (which can be found on the wiki under the link for Homework H11---it is part of the printable PDF) Skimming selected portions of Sections 2.4 in the textbook, as guided by that handout.
    [Show full text]
  • Automating Grammar Comparison
    Automating Grammar Comparison Ravichandhran Madhavan Mikaël Mayer Sumit Gulwani EPFL, Switzerland EPFL, Switzerland Microsoft Research, USA ravi.kandhadai@epfl.ch mikael.mayer@epfl.ch [email protected] rtifact ∗ A Comple * t * te n * A * te Viktor Kuncak s W i E s A e n C l l L o D C S o * * c P u e m s E u O e e EPFL, Switzerland n v R t e O o d t a y * s E a * l u d a e viktor.kuncak@epfl.ch t Abstract S ! ID E S ! S + S j S ∗ S j ID We consider from a practical perspective the problem of E ! +S j ∗ S j checking equivalence of context-free grammars. We present Figure 1. Grammars recognizing simple arithmetic expres- techniques for proving equivalence, as well as techniques sions. An example proven equivalent by our tool. for finding counter-examples that establish non-equivalence. Among the key building blocks of our approach is a novel algorithm for efficiently enumerating and sampling words Categories and Subject Descriptors D.3.1 [Programming and parse trees from arbitrary context-free grammars; the Languages]: Formal Definitions and Theory—Syntax; D.3.4 algorithm supports polynomial time random access to words [Programming Languages]: Processors—Parsing, Compilers, belonging to the grammar. Furthermore, we propose an Interpreters; K.3.2 [Computers and Education]: Computer algorithm for proving equivalence of context-free grammars and Information Science Education; D.2.5 [Software Engi- that is complete for LL grammars, yet can be invoked on any neering]: Testing and Debugging context-free grammar, including ambiguous grammars.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. Sequences and Strings Filled
    Sequences and Strings 4.3 Sequences Definition: Sequence [1st Attempt] An ordered list of items Notation: • Labels are lower-case letters Elements are subscripted: • e1, e2, … is an -element sequence. • {en} ⇒ e n Example: Soup! Cost sequence: s = 2,4,6,8,10,… ($2 per can) Soup Saturday: Buy 3 cans of soup, get on free! s′! = 2,4,6,6,8,10,12,12… (Not a set!) Rules n Recall: Sequence defined by the rule 2i ∑ 2i ← i=1 Example: defines the original soup price sequence sn = 2n n2 + 1,n ≥ 0 defines the infinite sequence 1,2,5,10,17,… More notation: Infinite sequences: 1. Ellipses (as in 1,2,5,10,17,…) 2. ∞ {dn}n=1 Sequences and Functions Definition: Sequence [Final Version] A sequence is the ordered range of a function from a set of integers to some set S Example: o(n) = 2n − 1 on the domain {1,2,3,4,5} defines the sequence 1,3,5,7,9 As a relation: {(1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,9)} Range of {1,3,5,7,9} (Thus, the “ordered range” wording) Arithmetic and Geometric Sequences Definition: Arithmetic Sequence (a.k.a. Arithmetic Progression) In an arithmetic sequence, the common difference is constant d = an+1 − an Definition: Geometric Sequence (a.k.a. Geometric Progression) In a geometric sequence, the common ratio gn+1 r = is constant gn Example: In o: 1, 3, 5, 7,9 d = 2 2 4 8 2 In g : 1, , , …, r = 3 9 27 3 Arithmetic Series • The sum of the terms of an arithmetic sequence (a.k.a arithmetic series): 1 s = a + … + a = n(a + a ) n 1 n 2 1 n Here’s why: First, note that .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 RAM Programs, Turing Machines, and the Partial Recursive Functions
    Chapter 4 RAM Programs, Turing Machines, and the Partial Recursive Functions See the scanned version of this chapter found in the web page for CIS511: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/old511/html/tcbookpdf3a.pdf 87 88 CHAPTER 4. RAM PROGRAMS, TURING MACHINES Chapter 5 Universal RAM Programs and Undecidability of the Halting Problem 5.1 Pairing Functions Pairing functions are used to encode pairs of integers into single integers, or more generally, finite sequences of integers into single integers. We begin by exhibiting a bijective pairing function J : N2 → N. The function J has the graph partially showed below: . 6 ... " 37... "" 148... """ 0259... The function J corresponds to a certain way of enumerating pairs of integers. Note that the value of x + y is constant along each diagonal, and consequently, we have J(x, y)=1+2+···+(x + y)+x, =((x + y)(x + y +1)+2x)/2, =((x + y)2 +3x + y)/2, that is, J(x, y)=((x + y)2 +3x + y)/2. Let K : N → N and L: N → N be the projection functions onto the axes, that is, the unique functions such that K(J(a, b)) = a and L(J(a, b)) = b, 89 90 CHAPTER 5. UNIVERSAL RAM PROGRAMS AND THE HALTING PROBLEM for all a, b ∈ N. Clearly, J is primitive recursive, since it is given by a polynomial. It is not hard to prove that J is injective and surjective, and that it is strictly monotonic in each argument, which means that for all x, x!,y,y! ∈ N, if x<x! then J(x, y) <J(x!,y), and if y<y! then J(x, y) <J(x, y!).
    [Show full text]
  • Answering Hilbert's 1St Problem
    Answering Hilbert’s 1st Problem Charles Sauerbier (19 March 2021) Dogma gives a charter to mistake, but the very breath of science is a contest with mistake, and must keep the conscience alive. ~ George Eliot Abstract Hilbert’s first problem is of importance in relation to work being done in computational systems. It is the question of equipollence of natural and real numbers. By construction equipollence is established for real numbers in open interval (0, 1) and natural numbers and, from such to all real numbers. Construction stands in contradiction of the generally accepted diagonal argument of Cantor. Mathematics being irrefutable, in absence rejection of all theory of mathematics and logic, the problem exists in acceptance; that itself arises of more fundamental a problem in science generally. The problem within Hilbert’s problem is of Schopenhauer’s, et al, “will and representation” born. Keywords Number Theory, Set Theory, Cardinality, Enumeration Algorithms, Recursive Enumeration Background Hilbert in lecture, as recorded in [1], produced at the turn of the last century a list of problems in mathematics. The first problem in his list is titled “Cantor’s Problem of the Cardinal Number of the Continuum”. By all available references this remains an open problem a century after being posited. The question is itself central to many open problems in computational systems theory. In answering Hilbert’s challenge so distant in time one opens new problems, and upends some of what has come to be accepted. The question of whether the set of real numbers is denumerable predates both Cantor and Hilbert. Smorynski in [2] presents Cantor’s “Pairing Function”, that is an element in proof of work presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • Grothendieck Ring of the Pairing Function Without Cycles
    Grothendieck ring of the pairing function without cycles Esther Elbaz February 12, 2020 Abstract A bijection (l; r) between M 2 and M is said to be a pairing function with no cy- cles, if any composition of its coordinate functions has no fixed point. We compute here the Grothendieck ring of the pairing function without cycles to be isomorphic to 2 2 Z ' Z[X]=(X − X ). In a previous article, we illustrated ideas to construct, given a quotient R of a polynomial ring over Z, a structure whose Grothendieck ring is Z. Following these very ideas, the 2 structure we should consider to obtain a structure with Grothendieck ring Z[X]=(X − X ) is precisely the pairing function without cycles. The method we use here to compute its Grothendieck ring has already allowed us to treat the case of a bijection, without cycles, between a set and itself deprived of N point, for any N 2 N (the Grothendieck ring is Z[X]=(N)), and will allow us to treat in forthcoming papers the bijection without cycles between a set and the union of two disjoint copies of itself (the Grothendieck ring is Z), and for every integer N, an enrichment of this structure whose Grothendieck ring is Z=NZ. Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Method........................................3 1.2 Pairing function without cycles...........................5 2 Representation of formulas and definable sets by binary trees6 3 Closed tree and simple formulas9 4 Form of the definable injections 11 5 Simple sets 13 6 Decomposition of definable sets 14 7 Definable injection on simple set 16 8 Representation of a decomposition: tree of a decomposition 17 9 Computation of the Grothendieck ring 20 10 Example of pairing function without cycles on N 22 1 1 Introduction The notion of Grothendieck ring of a theory has been introduced in the early 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Logicism Via the Logic of Orderly Pairing
    Natural Logicism via the Logic of Orderly Pairing by Neil Tennant∗ Department of Philosophy The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 email [email protected] October 7, 2008 ∗Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Arch´eAbstraction Weekend on Tennant's Philosophy of Mathematics in St. Andrews in May 2004 and to the Midwest Workshop in Philosophy of Mathematics at Notre Dame in October 2005. The author is grateful for helpful comments from members of both audiences, especially the St. Andrews commentators Peter Milne, Ian Rumfitt, Peter Smith and Alan Weir; and from George Schumm, Timothy Smiley and Matthias Wille. Comments by two anonymous referees have also led to significant improvements. 1 Abstract The aim here is to describe how to complete the constructive logicist program, in the author's book Anti-Realism and Logic, of deriving all the Peano-Dedekind postulates for arithmetic within a theory of natural numbers that also accounts for their applicability in counting finite collections of objects. The axioms still to be derived are those for addition and multiplication. Frege did not derive them in a fully explicit, conceptually illuminating way. Nor has any neo-Fregean done so. These outstanding axioms need to be derived in a way fully in keep- ing with the spirit and the letter of Frege's logicism and his doctrine of definition. To that end this study develops a logic, in the Gentzen- Prawitz style of natural deduction, for the operation of orderly pairing. The logic is an extension of free first-order logic with identity. Orderly pairing is treated as a primitive.
    [Show full text]