DOCSLIB.ORG

Subset Queries in Relational Databases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subset Queries in Relational Databases Subset Queries in Relational Databases Satyanarayana R Valluri Kamalakar Karlapalem [email protected] [email protected] Centre for Data Engineering International Institute of Information Technology Gachibowli, Hyderabad, INDIA Abstract 2. at the level of tuples of subsets. In this paper, we motivated the need for relational The objective of the paper is to present a class database systems to support subset query process- of queries that can be specified in a concise man- ing. We defined new operators in relational algebra, ner using relations of subsets. There are many and new constructs in SQL for expressing subset applications that require such queries to be speci- queries. We also illustrated the applicability of sub- fied. It should be noted that these queries can be set queries through different examples expressed translated to standard SQL queries using compli- using extended SQL statements and relational al- cated programming constructs which is non-trivial gebra expressions. Our aim is to show the utility of to application programmers. Therefore, there is a subset queries for next generation applications. motivation to facilitate direct execution of subset queries. Our aim in this paper is to reval the kind of ap- 1 Introduction plications that can be supported by subset queries but not to dwell on the efficiency issues of process- Relational database systems currently support pro- ing such queries. Once the notion of subset queries cessing of tuples of relations to generate a single and their utility is accepted, additional work to ef- result as a set of tuples. Relational algebra, cal- ficiently execute subset queries can be done as it is culus and SQL are used to specify queries on re- a challenging open research problem. lational databases. There have been extensions to In this paper, we relational algebra: `group by' clause groups the ¤ motivated the need for relational database sys- tuples and each group is represented by a single tems to support subset query processing, aggregated result tuple, `having' clause further re- ¤ strics the groups that should be part of the result. defined new operators in relational algebra, ¡£¢ A cube operator over dimensions generates and new constructs in SQL for expressing sub- result tuples, one for each group of tuples from a set queries, and subset of dimension domain values. In all the op- ¤ illustrated the applicability of subset queries erators: group by, having and cube, each group of through different examples expressed using tuples is represented by a single aggregated tuple. extended SQL statements and relational alge- In this paper, we relax this notion by proposing sub- bra expressions. set queries and show the utility of subset queries in concisely specifying new class of user queries. 1.1 Motivation A subset is a set of tuples. A relation of subset is a set of subsets. The operations on a relation of We motivate the utility of subset queries through subsets can be at two levels: examples. Consider an Item relation in a grocery shop: (ItemId, Name, Weight, Price, Type) where 1. at the level of subsets treating them as atomic ItemId is the unique id of the item, Name, Weight entities, and and Price denote the name, weight of the item in . grams and the price of the item in Dollars respec- The subset corresponding to query 1 is - © ¥¨§ § § ¦ tively. The domain of Type is ¥ “Eatable”,“Non- Eatable” ¦ . Table 1 shows an extension of the Item relation. Definition 2 Relation of subsets: A relation of subsets 1 is a set of subsets over the extension r of ! -¨. -¨. Query 1 “What are the items whose weight is -¨. 1 ¥ 2 ¦ the relation R. , where each ) more than 50 and whose price is less than 50?”. -¨. is a subset of tuples defined over the extension r, 4& 3 ¡ ¥¨§ © § §¦ 2 5 The answer to query 1 is the set of items . , where m is the number of subsets. Query 2 “What are the sets of “Non-Eatable” ¥6¥¨§ § ¦ ¥§ § § ¦ ¥§ § § ¦ For query 2, 1 = , , , items which can be bought such that the total price § § ¦ ¥§ § § § ¦7¦ ¥¨§ , . of these items is more than 150 and the total weight of these items is between 200 and 400?”. Unlike the query 1, there are multiple results for 2.2 Operations on subsets query 2. The result of the query is the set of sub- In this section, we define the properties that can be ¥¨§ ¨ § §¦ ¥§ ¨ § §¦ ¥¨§ § §¦ sets: ¥¥§ §¦ , , , , defined over the subsets. These operations can be § § § ¦¦ ¥§ . discussed under two categories: set operations and Unfortunately, SQL does not have provision for relational operations. specifying subset queries. This paper studies the problem of expressing subset queries and process- ing them. In the rest of the sections, we further 2.2.1 Set Operations develop the notion of subset queries and expound their utility. The set operations on subsets are shown in table 2. The organization of the paper is as follows. Sec- tion 2 introduces relation of subsets and its prop- erties. Section 3 develops subset relational algebra 2.2.2 Relational Operations and extensions to SQL to specify subset queries. The relational operations on the subsets are simi- Section 4 presents recent literature on novel SQL lar to those of the standard relational operations on extensions and contrasts it with subset queries. Fi- relations. The table 3 shows the various relational nally, Section 5 presents conclusions. operations on subsets. 2 Relation of Subsets 2.3 Properties of subsets ) -¨. Let be the intension of a relational schema. Let -0. "! Equality of subsets: Two subsets % and are ¥ ¦ be the set of attributes of said to be equal if they are defined on the same ¢ # ¥$ $ $ ¦ . Let = , , , be an extension of . Each '& *) ¡ # extension and contain the same set of tuples. $ % § ( $ % )0869;:=<?> 9;: ) . - - - , is a tuple defined over . - ) $ + $ + % % % ( % ). refers to the value of the attribute ( + ) of the Complement of a subset: Given -0. , the comple- $ +,# tuple % ( ). - ment . is defined as the set of tuples in extension -0. - . ¥¨$ %@/"$ %A+ # which do not belong to . -¨. -. - . # #"C + ¦ 2.1 Terminology and $ %7B . In this section we formally define the subsets and Table 4 shows the properties of subsets based on the set of subsets called relation of subsets. Further, the set theory. we develop the subset relational algebra. Definition 1 Subset of tuples: A subset of tuples 2.4 Relation of subsets operations taken from extension r of relation R is denoted as -¨. -. / . / is the cardinality of the subset, the number The operations on the relation of subsets can be dis- of tuples in the subset. Each tuple in -0. is defined cussed under two categories: set operations and re- over the same intension R. lational operations. Tuple ItemId Name Weight Price Type § 1 Soap 40 20 Non-Eatable § 2 Face Powder 250 70 Non-Eatable §© 3 Bread 60 15 Eatable § 4 Tooth Paste 150 50 Non-Eatable §D 5 Jam 35 65 Eatable §E 6 Chips 25 18 Eatable § 7 Hair Oil 100 35 Non-Eatable § 8 Sauce 75 40 Eatable § 9 Perfume 60 100 Non-Eatable F § 10 Candy 20 50 Eatable Table 1: Extension of the Item relation Operation Notation Definition ) ) -¨. -. -. -. G G ¥¨$ /0$ + $ + ¦ % % % % Union % or or both ) ) -0. -. -¨. -¨. H H ¥$ /0$ + $ + ¦ % % % % Intersection % and ) ) -0. -¨. -¨. -¨. C C ¥¨$ %I/0$ %J+ $ %7B+ ¦ % Set Difference % but - - . ¥¨$ %I/0$ %J+K# $ %7B+ ¦ Complement and . Table 2: Set Operations on a subset of tuples 2.4.1 Set Operations the result of applying a select condition on a sub- set might be an empty set. We assume that such The table 5 displays the various set operations that empty results are not included in the output. But can be applied on a relation of subsets. The output we can define a notion of outer subset select which of the unary union and unary intersection is a sin- include such empty results also in the output. Simi- gle subset of tuples whereas the output of the rest lar extensions can be made to the cross join and the of the operations is a relation of subsets. The name group by-having operations. “cross” is appropriate for the cross union and cross intersection operations since every pair of subsets are considered similar to the cross product opera- 2.5 Relation of subsets properties tion. While computing the cross union (cross in- Equality of relation of subsets: Two relations of tersection), if the result of the union (intersection) ) 1 1 subsets % and are said to be equal if they are of two subsets is empty, then we do not include it defined on the same extension # and both contain ) ) > 9;: -¨. in the output. But there may be some applications -¨. 1 +,1L% +,1 the same subsets. 1J% , . which require even the empty results in the output where a notion of outer cross union (cross intersec- Complement of relation of subsets: Given a re- 1 lation of subsets 1 , its complement, contains the - tion) can be used. - . 1 ¥ / complements of the subsets of 1 . 8> < -¨. - . +M1N¦ . 2.4.2 Relational Operations The table 6 shows the various relational opera- 3 Supporting subset queries tors that can be applied on relation of subsets. In [7], the notion of multi-relational algebra (MRA) 3.1 Subset representation is introduced for checking the correctness of query execution strategies in distributed databases. The A major problem for supporting subsets in rela- cross cartesian product and the cross join opera- tional databases is the representation of the subsets. tions are similar to the MJN operation defined on Since the first normal form states that the domain of multi-relations. every attribute should take only atomic values [11], As already mentioned in the previous sub-section a subset cannot be represented as a single tuple. Operation Notation Definition Description < 8 <V8 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory
    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version
    MATHEMATICS 144 SET THEORY FALL 2012 VERSION Table of Contents I. General considerations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1. Overview of the course…………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Historical background and motivation………………………………………………………….………………4 3. Selected problems………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 I I. Basic concepts. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 1. Topics from logic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2. Notation and first steps………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3. Simple examples…………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 I I I. Constructions in set theory.………………………………………………………………………………..……….34 1. Boolean algebra operations.……………………………………………………………………………………….34 2. Ordered pairs and Cartesian products……………………………………………………………………… ….40 3. Larger constructions………………………………………………………………………………………………..….42 4. A convenient assumption………………………………………………………………………………………… ….45 I V. Relations and functions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….49 1.Binary relations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….49 2. Partial and linear orderings……………………………..………………………………………………… ………… 56 3. Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….…….. 61 4. Composite and inverse function.…………………………………………………………………………… …….. 70 5. Constructions involving functions ………………………………………………………………………… ……… 77 6. Order types……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………… 80 i V. Number systems and set theory …………………………………………………………………………………. 84 1. The Natural Numbers and Integers…………………………………………………………………………….83 2. Finite induction
    [Show full text]
  • The Matroid Theorem We First Review Our Definitions: a Subset System Is A
    CMPSCI611: The Matroid Theorem Lecture 5 We first review our definitions: A subset system is a set E together with a set of subsets of E, called I, such that I is closed under inclusion. This means that if X ⊆ Y and Y ∈ I, then X ∈ I. The optimization problem for a subset system (E, I) has as input a positive weight for each element of E. Its output is a set X ∈ I such that X has at least as much total weight as any other set in I. A subset system is a matroid if it satisfies the exchange property: If i and i0 are sets in I and i has fewer elements than i0, then there exists an element e ∈ i0 \ i such that i ∪ {e} ∈ I. 1 The Generic Greedy Algorithm Given any finite subset system (E, I), we find a set in I as follows: • Set X to ∅. • Sort the elements of E by weight, heaviest first. • For each element of E in this order, add it to X iff the result is in I. • Return X. Today we prove: Theorem: For any subset system (E, I), the greedy al- gorithm solves the optimization problem for (E, I) if and only if (E, I) is a matroid. 2 Theorem: For any subset system (E, I), the greedy al- gorithm solves the optimization problem for (E, I) if and only if (E, I) is a matroid. Proof: We will show first that if (E, I) is a matroid, then the greedy algorithm is correct. Assume that (E, I) satisfies the exchange property.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Organizing Tuple Reconstruction in Column-Stores
    Self-organizing Tuple Reconstruction in Column-stores Stratos Idreos Martin L. Kersten Stefan Manegold CWI Amsterdam CWI Amsterdam CWI Amsterdam The Netherlands The Netherlands The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION Column-stores gained popularity as a promising physical de- A prime feature of column-stores is to provide improved sign alternative. Each attribute of a relation is physically performance over row-stores in the case that workloads re- stored as a separate column allowing queries to load only quire only a few attributes of wide tables at a time. Each the required attributes. The overhead incurred is on-the-fly relation R is physically stored as a set of columns; one col- tuple reconstruction for multi-attribute queries. Each tu- umn for each attribute of R. This way, a query needs to load ple reconstruction is a join of two columns based on tuple only the required attributes from each relevant relation. IDs, making it a significant cost component. The ultimate This happens at the expense of requiring explicit (partial) physical design is to have multiple presorted copies of each tuple reconstruction in case multiple attributes are required. base table such that tuples are already appropriately orga- Each tuple reconstruction is a join between two columns nized in multiple different orders across the various columns. based on tuple IDs/positions and becomes a significant cost This requires the ability to predict the workload, idle time component in column-stores especially for multi-attribute to prepare, and infrequent updates. queries [2, 6, 10].
    [Show full text]
  • On Free Products of N-Tuple Semigroups
    n-tuple semigroups Anatolii Zhuchok Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University Starobilsk, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] Anatolii Zhuchok Plan 1. Introduction 2. Examples of n-tuple semigroups and the independence of axioms 3. Free n-tuple semigroups 4. Free products of n-tuple semigroups 5. References Anatolii Zhuchok 1. Introduction The notion of an n-tuple algebra of associative type was introduced in [1] in connection with an attempt to obtain an analogue of the Chevalley construction for modular Lie algebras of Cartan type. This notion is based on the notion of an n-tuple semigroup. Recall that a nonempty set G is called an n-tuple semigroup [1], if it is endowed with n binary operations, denoted by 1 ; 2 ; :::; n , which satisfy the following axioms: (x r y) s z = x r (y s z) for any x; y; z 2 G and r; s 2 f1; 2; :::; ng. The class of all n-tuple semigroups is rather wide and contains, in particular, the class of all semigroups, the class of all commutative trioids (see, for example, [2, 3]) and the class of all commutative dimonoids (see, for example, [4, 5]). Anatolii Zhuchok 2-tuple semigroups, causing the greatest interest from the point of view of applications, occupy a special place among n-tuple semigroups. So, 2-tuple semigroups are closely connected with the notion of an interassociative semigroup (see, for example, [6, 7]). Moreover, 2-tuple semigroups, satisfying some additional identities, form so-called restrictive bisemigroups, considered earlier in the works of B. M. Schein (see, for example, [8, 9]).
    [Show full text]
  • TOPOLOGY and ITS APPLICATIONS the Number of Complements in The
    TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS ELSEVIER Topology and its Applications 55 (1994) 101-125 The number of complements in the lattice of topologies on a fixed set Stephen Watson Department of Mathematics, York Uniuersity, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ont., Canada M3J IP3 (Received 3 May 1989) (Revised 14 November 1989 and 2 June 1992) Abstract In 1936, Birkhoff ordered the family of all topologies on a set by inclusion and obtained a lattice with 1 and 0. The study of this lattice ought to be a basic pursuit both in combinatorial set theory and in general topology. In this paper, we study the nature of complementation in this lattice. We say that topologies 7 and (T are complementary if and only if 7 A c = 0 and 7 V (T = 1. For simplicity, we call any topology other than the discrete and the indiscrete a proper topology. Hartmanis showed in 1958 that any proper topology on a finite set of size at least 3 has at least two complements. Gaifman showed in 1961 that any proper topology on a countable set has at least two complements. In 1965, Steiner showed that any topology has a complement. The question of the number of distinct complements a topology on a set must possess was first raised by Berri in 1964 who asked if every proper topology on an infinite set must have at least two complements. In 1969, Schnare showed that any proper topology on a set of infinite cardinality K has at least K distinct complements and at most 2” many distinct complements.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy in Linear Rational Expectations Models
    Journal of Mathematical Economics 40 (2004) 815–830 Determinacy in linear rational expectations models Stéphane Gauthier∗ CREST, Laboratoire de Macroéconomie (Timbre J-360), 15 bd Gabriel Péri, 92245 Malakoff Cedex, France Received 15 February 2002; received in revised form 5 June 2003; accepted 17 July 2003 Available online 21 January 2004 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to assess the relevance of rational expectations solutions to the class of linear univariate models where both the number of leads in expectations and the number of lags in predetermined variables are arbitrary. It recommends to rule out all the solutions that would fail to be locally unique, or equivalently, locally determinate. So far, this determinacy criterion has been applied to particular solutions, in general some steady state or periodic cycle. However solutions to linear models with rational expectations typically do not conform to such simple dynamic patterns but express instead the current state of the economic system as a linear difference equation of lagged states. The innovation of this paper is to apply the determinacy criterion to the sets of coefficients of these linear difference equations. Its main result shows that only one set of such coefficients, or the corresponding solution, is locally determinate. This solution is commonly referred to as the fundamental one in the literature. In particular, in the saddle point configuration, it coincides with the saddle stable (pure forward) equilibrium trajectory. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. JEL classification: C32; E32 Keywords: Rational expectations; Selection; Determinacy; Saddle point property 1. Introduction The rational expectations hypothesis is commonly justified by the fact that individual forecasts are based on the relevant theory of the economic system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers
    Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. A taste of set theory for philosophers Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ ∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Helsinki and Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam November 17, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Elementary set theory 2 3 Cardinal and ordinal numbers 3 3.1 Equipollence . 4 3.2 Countable sets . 6 3.3 Ordinals . 7 3.4 Cardinals . 8 4 Axiomatic set theory 9 5 Axiom of Choice 12 6 Independence results 13 7 Some recent work 14 7.1 Descriptive Set Theory . 14 7.2 Non well-founded set theory . 14 7.3 Constructive set theory . 15 8 Historical Remarks and Further Reading 15 ∗Research partially supported by grant 40734 of the Academy of Finland and by the EUROCORES LogICCC LINT programme. I Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. 1 Introduction Originally set theory was a theory of infinity, an attempt to understand infinity in ex- act terms. Later it became a universal language for mathematics and an attempt to give a foundation for all of mathematics, and thereby to all sciences that are based on mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • 180: Counting Techniques
    180: Counting Techniques In the following exercise we demonstrate the use of a few fundamental counting principles, namely the addition, multiplication, complementary, and inclusion-exclusion principles. While none of the principles are particular complicated in their own right, it does take some practice to become familiar with them, and recognise when they are applicable. I have attempted to indicate where alternate approaches are possible (and reasonable). Problem: Assume n ≥ 2 and m ≥ 1. Count the number of functions f :[n] ! [m] (i) in total. (ii) such that f(1) = 1 or f(2) = 1. (iii) with minx2[n] f(x) ≤ 5. (iv) such that f(1) ≥ f(2). (v) that are strictly increasing; that is, whenever x < y, f(x) < f(y). (vi) that are one-to-one (injective). (vii) that are onto (surjective). (viii) that are bijections. (ix) such that f(x) + f(y) is even for every x; y 2 [n]. (x) with maxx2[n] f(x) = minx2[n] f(x) + 1. Solution: (i) A function f :[n] ! [m] assigns for every integer 1 ≤ x ≤ n an integer 1 ≤ f(x) ≤ m. For each integer x, we have m options. As we make n such choices (independently), the total number of functions is m × m × : : : m = mn. (ii) (We assume n ≥ 2.) Let A1 be the set of functions with f(1) = 1, and A2 the set of functions with f(2) = 1. Then A1 [ A2 represents those functions with f(1) = 1 or f(2) = 1, which is precisely what we need to count. We have jA1 [ A2j = jA1j + jA2j − jA1 \ A2j.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory
    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Set Theory: a Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory
    Surviving Set Theory: A Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Angela N. Ripley, M.M. Graduate Program in Music The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: David Clampitt, Advisor Anna Gawboy Johanna Devaney Copyright by Angela N. Ripley 2015 Abstract Undergraduate music students often experience a high learning curve when they first encounter pitch-class set theory, an analytical system very different from those they have studied previously. Students sometimes find the abstractions of integer notation and the mathematical orientation of set theory foreign or even frightening (Kleppinger 2010), and the dissonance of the atonal repertoire studied often engenders their resistance (Root 2010). Pedagogical games can help mitigate student resistance and trepidation. Table games like Bingo (Gillespie 2000) and Poker (Gingerich 1991) have been adapted to suit college-level classes in music theory. Familiar television shows provide another source of pedagogical games; for example, Berry (2008; 2015) adapts the show Survivor to frame a unit on theory fundamentals. However, none of these pedagogical games engage pitch- class set theory during a multi-week unit of study. In my dissertation, I adapt the show Survivor to frame a four-week unit on pitch- class set theory (introducing topics ranging from pitch-class sets to twelve-tone rows) during a sophomore-level theory course. As on the show, students of different achievement levels work together in small groups, or “tribes,” to complete worksheets called “challenges”; however, in an important modification to the structure of the show, no students are voted out of their tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Set Difference and Symmetric Difference of Fuzzy Sets
    Preliminaries Symmetric Dierence Set Dierence and Symmetric Dierence of Fuzzy Sets N.R. Vemuri A.S. Hareesh M.S. Srinath Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad and Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, India Fuzzy Sets Theory and Applications 2014, Liptovský Ján, Slovak Republic Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Outline 1 Preliminaries Introduction Earlier work 2 Symmetric Dierence Denition Examples Properties Applications Future Work References Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries
    [Show full text]