Problems in Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Algorithms the UNIVERSITY SERIES in MATHEMATICS

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Problems in Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Algorithms the UNIVERSITY SERIES in MATHEMATICS Problems in Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Algorithms THE UNIVERSITY SERIES IN MATHEMATICS Series Editors: Sylvain E. Cappell, New York University Joseph J. Kohn, Princeton University Recent volumes in the series: COMPUTABILITY AND MODELS: Perspectives East and West S. Barry Cooper and Sergey S. Goncharov CONTEMPORARY GEOMETRY (J•• Q. Zhong Memorial Volume) Edited by Hung-Hsi Wu ELLIPTIC COHOMOLOGY Charles B. Thomas AN INTRODUCTION TO ALGEBRAIC NUMBER THEORY Takashi Ono LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS: with solved problems and MATLAB examples Branislav Kisacanin and Gyan C. Agarwal MATRIX THEORY: A Second Course James M. Ortega PROBABILITY MEASURES ON SEMIGROUPS: Convolution Products, Random Walks, and Random Matrices Goran Hognlis and Arunava Mukherjea PROBLEMS IN SET THEORY, MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND THE THEORY OF ALGORITHMS Igor Lavrov and Larisa Maksimova RECURRENCE IN TOPOLOGICAL DYNAMICS: Furstenberg Families and Ellis Actions Ethan Akin A SHORT INTRODUCTION TO INTUITIONISTIC LOGIC Grigori Mints TOPICS IN NUMBER THEORY J. S. Chahal VARIATIONS ON A THEME OF EULER: Quadratic Forms, Elliptic Curves, and Hopf Maps Takashi Ono A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher. Problems in Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Algorithms Igor Lavrov Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia and Larisa Maksimova Sobolev Institute of Mathematics of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences and Novosibirsk State University Novosibirsk, Russia Edited by Giovanna Corsi University of Bologna Bologna, Italy Translated by Valentin Shehtman Springer Science+Business Media, LLC ISBN 978-1-4613-4957-0 ISBN 978-1-4615-0185-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-0185-5 ©2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York Originally published by Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers in 2003 Softcover reprint of tbe hardcover 1st edition 2003 http://www.wkap.com W 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The translation of tbis work has been funded by iI* .. Via Val d' Aposa 7 - 40123 Bologna - ltaly Tel.: +39051 271992 Fax: +39051265983 e-mail: [email protected] - www.seps.it A C.I.P. record for tbis book is available from the Library of Congress All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, witb the exception of any material supplied specifically for tbe purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by tbe purchaser of the work Editor's note This volume owes its origin to the need, felt by every beginner anxious to acquire knowledge and techniques in basic areas of logic, for some sort of gymnasium, as it were, in which (s)he can take exercise and register the results achieved. The judgement of a number of friends and colleagues, whom I warmly thank, convinced me that an English translation of the exercise book" Prob­ lems in Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and Theory of Algorithms" by LLavrov and L.Maksimova, well established in Russian Universities, would fill such a gap. Gregory Mints and Sergei Artemov reinforced this conviction and assisted me in the search for a publisher. A final decisive factor was the financial and other assistance provided by the Segretariato Europeo per Ie Pubblicazioni Scientifiche (Bologna). I am especially grateful to its Pres­ ident, Professor Fabio Roversi-Monaco, who gave valuable support to the project and to its Secretary General, Chiara Segafredo, who arranged for its approval. My acquaintance with the Segretariato lowe to Guido Gherardi, formerly a student of logic in my own courses. Italy, August 2002 Giovanna Corsi Department of Philosophy University of Bologna v Preface This book is intended for the student in mathematics, computer science or philosophy. Its aim is to present fundamental theoretic results in logic and to make it possible for the reader to master basic concepts and methods in this foundational area. This is the first presentation in English of the book, which is widely used in Russian universities. In our country, the teaching of the main courses in mathematics is usually organized in the following way. The lectures are followed by training in the subject. The student has to solve a number of exercises in order to learn the basic notions of the subject and to acquire the desirable skills. The contents of such courses and their profit depends mainly on good coordination in the work of the professor and his assistants. Their work must be in parallel. Exercises must be chosen so that the related lecture course will be most effective. But this is not so easy. First of all, there are a lot of useful and necessary exercises but they are scattered in various books. Secondly, each book has its own approach and notation. In our book, we propose a systematic exposition of the first course in mathematical logic and related areas in the form of problems. The book is divided into two parts, each consisting of three chapters: Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Algorithms. Part I consists of exercises, and Part II contains instructions, hints and solutions to the problems of Part I. Each of the chapters is divided into sections, and every section begins with a short introduction containing all the definitions and notations that occur in the section. Notions introduced in preceding sections may be found via the Index. The main theorems are formulated in the form of problems. In order to simplify the proofs, we present the technical lemmas in the same form and give them in separate exercises. Most of the exercises are followed by solu­ tions or hints, which are given in the second part of the book. Sometimes we expound a detailed solution of an easy problem in order to illustrate vii viii PREFACE a method of solving. In subsequent cases we give only a hint. The most difficult exercises are distinguished by an asterisk *. For convenience, the sections of Part II have the same titles and numbers as the sections contain­ ing the corresponding problems. In each chapter, many problems may be solved independently of other chapters. When this is not so, references are given either in the exercise or in the hints for solution. This structure of the book turned out to be rather convenient. The au­ thors hope, with some confidence, that the book is self-contained. The reader may use it for studying Set Theory, Mathematical Logic and Computability Theory (at least the foundations of these) without preliminary preparation. The material presented in our book was extracted from various books on logic, which are included in the References. It is natural that we could not avoid many specialized areas of the theo­ ries mentioned, which could not be explored in depth. Some of these topics are only outlined, some initial notions and results are given. For example, axiomatic set theory (see Section 2.7) does not take up much space although all the problems of Chapter 1 may be formulated and solved in the theory ZF. In Chapter 2, devoted to Mathematical Logic, non-classical logical systems are not presented except for intuitionistic logic. In Chapter 3, of the various formalizations of algorithms only recursive functions and Turing machines are presented. The authors planned but, unfortunately, have not written a chapter devoted to the famous G6del incompleteness theorem. Notations and abbreviations usual in mathematical writings are some­ times used without explanation. The following may be particularly noted: Z,N, Q, R denote the sets of all integers, non-negative integers, rational and real numbers respectively; {x I ... x ... } the set of all x satisfying the condition ... x ... ; {Xl, X2, ••. } the set consisting of Xl. X2, •• ·; (x!, X2, ••• , xn ) the sequence of elements Xl, X2, ••• , Xn ; =} stands for "implies"; {::} for "if and only if"; ;:::= for" is by definition" . The first edition of our book in Russia arose from our teaching at Novosi­ birsk State University. Now the book has been widely used in Russian universities. In 2001 its fourth edition was published. There are also trans­ lations into Hungarian and Polish. In every new edition we tried to take into account all suggestions and remarks of our colleagues actively using the book in their teaching or research. To all these persons we express our deep gratitude. ix The present edition has involved both translation and revision. Special thanks are due to Valentin Shehtman, who prepared the translation into En­ glish and suggested many improvements, and to Aleksey Romanov and Ilya Shapirovsky, who typed the formulas in LATEX. We are greatly indebted to Giovanna Corsi, our editor of the translation, whose initiative and activity made possible the publication of the English version of the book, and also to the Segretariato Europeo per Ie Pubblicazioni Scientifiche (SEPS), which supported the project. Russia, August 2002 Igor Lavrov Larisa Maksimova Department of Mathematics Novosibirsk State University Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow Sobolev Institute of Mathematics Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences Contents Preface vii I Problems 1 1 Set theory 3 1.1 Operations on sets 3 1.2 Relations and functions 11 1.3 Special binary relations 19 1.4 Cardinal numbers. 30 1.5 Ordinal numbers . 34 1.6 Operations on cardinal numbers. 44 2 Mathematical logic 51 2.1 Algebra of propositions 51 2.2 Truth functions ..... 60 2.3 Propositional calculi .. 67 2.4 The language of predicate logic 79 2.5 Satisfiability of predicate formulas 88 2.6 Predicate calculi . 96 2.7 Axiomatic theories .
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected]
    John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected] LOGIC & PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY Introduction For present purposes “logic” will be understood to mean the subject whose development is described in Kneale & Kneale [1961] and of which a concise history is given in Scholz [1961]. As the terminological discussion at the beginning of the latter reference makes clear, this subject has at different times been known by different names, “analytics” and “organon” and “dialectic”, while inversely the name “logic” has at different times been applied much more broadly and loosely than it will be here. At certain times and in certain places — perhaps especially in Germany from the days of Kant through the days of Hegel — the label has come to be used so very broadly and loosely as to threaten to take in nearly the whole of metaphysics and epistemology. Logic in our sense has often been distinguished from “logic” in other, sometimes unmanageably broad and loose, senses by adding the adjectives “formal” or “deductive”. The scope of the art and science of logic, once one gets beyond elementary logic of the kind covered in introductory textbooks, is indicated by two other standard references, the Handbooks of mathematical and philosophical logic, Barwise [1977] and Gabbay & Guenthner [1983-89], though the latter includes also parts that are identified as applications of logic rather than logic proper. The term “philosophical logic” as currently used, for instance, in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, is a near-synonym for “nonclassical logic”. There is an older use of the term as a near-synonym for “philosophy of language”.
    [Show full text]
  • Juhani Pallasmaa, Architect, Professor Emeritus
    1 CROSSING WORLDS: MATHEMATICAL LOGIC, PHILOSOPHY, ART Honouring Juliette Kennedy University oF Helsinki, Small Hall Friday, 3 June, 2016-05-28 Juhani Pallasmaa, Architect, ProFessor Emeritus Draft 28 May 2016 THE SIXTH SENSE - diffuse perception, mood and embodied Wisdom ”Whether people are fully conscious oF this or not, they actually derive countenance and sustenance From the atmosphere oF things they live in and with”.1 Frank Lloyd Wright . --- Why do certain spaces and places make us Feel a strong aFFinity and emotional identification, while others leave us cold, or even frighten us? Why do we feel as insiders and participants in some spaces, Whereas others make us experience alienation and ”existential outsideness”, to use a notion of Edward Relph ?2 Isn’t it because the settings of the first type embrace and stimulate us, make us willingly surrender ourselves to them, and feel protected and sensually nourished? These spaces, places and environments strengthen our sense of reality and selF, whereas disturbing and alienating settings weaken our sense oF identity and reality. Resonance with the cosmos and a distinct harmonious tuning were essential qualities oF architecture since the Antiquity until the instrumentalized and aestheticized construction of the industrial era. Historically, the Fundamental task oF architecture Was to create a harmonic resonance betWeen the microcosm oF the human realm and the macrocosm oF the Universe. This harmony Was sought through proportionality based on small natural numbers FolloWing Pythagorean harmonics, on Which the harmony oF the Universe Was understood to be based. The Renaissance era also introduced the competing proportional ideal of the Golden Section.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic
    Copyright c 1998–2005 by Stephen G. Simpson Mathematical Logic Stephen G. Simpson December 15, 2005 Department of Mathematics The Pennsylvania State University University Park, State College PA 16802 http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson/ This is a set of lecture notes for introductory courses in mathematical logic offered at the Pennsylvania State University. Contents Contents 1 1 Propositional Calculus 3 1.1 Formulas ............................... 3 1.2 Assignments and Satisfiability . 6 1.3 LogicalEquivalence. 10 1.4 TheTableauMethod......................... 12 1.5 TheCompletenessTheorem . 18 1.6 TreesandK¨onig’sLemma . 20 1.7 TheCompactnessTheorem . 21 1.8 CombinatorialApplications . 22 2 Predicate Calculus 24 2.1 FormulasandSentences . 24 2.2 StructuresandSatisfiability . 26 2.3 TheTableauMethod......................... 31 2.4 LogicalEquivalence. 37 2.5 TheCompletenessTheorem . 40 2.6 TheCompactnessTheorem . 46 2.7 SatisfiabilityinaDomain . 47 3 Proof Systems for Predicate Calculus 50 3.1 IntroductiontoProofSystems. 50 3.2 TheCompanionTheorem . 51 3.3 Hilbert-StyleProofSystems . 56 3.4 Gentzen-StyleProofSystems . 61 3.5 TheInterpolationTheorem . 66 4 Extensions of Predicate Calculus 71 4.1 PredicateCalculuswithIdentity . 71 4.2 TheSpectrumProblem . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 75 4.3 PredicateCalculusWithOperations . 78 4.4 Predicate Calculus with Identity and Operations . ... 82 4.5 Many-SortedPredicateCalculus . 84 1 5 Theories, Models, Definability 87 5.1 TheoriesandModels ......................... 87 5.2 MathematicalTheories. 89 5.3 DefinabilityoveraModel . 97 5.4 DefinitionalExtensionsofTheories . 100 5.5 FoundationalTheories . 103 5.6 AxiomaticSetTheory . 106 5.7 Interpretability . 111 5.8 Beth’sDefinabilityTheorem. 112 6 Arithmetization of Predicate Calculus 114 6.1 Primitive Recursive Arithmetic . 114 6.2 Interpretability of PRA in Z1 ....................114 6.3 G¨odelNumbers ............................ 114 6.4 UndefinabilityofTruth. 117 6.5 TheProvabilityPredicate .
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Mathematics
    Mathematical Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Stephen G. Simpson Pennsylvania State University Open House / Graduate Conference April 2–3, 2010 1 Foundations of mathematics (f.o.m.) is the study of the most basic concepts and logical structure of mathematics as a whole. Among the most basic mathematical concepts are: number, shape, set, function, algorithm, mathematical proof, mathematical definition, mathematical axiom, mathematical theorem. Some typical questions in f.o.m. are: 1. What is a number? 2. What is a shape? . 6. What is a mathematical proof? . 10. What are the appropriate axioms for mathematics? Mathematical logic gives some mathematically rigorous answers to some of these questions. 2 The concepts of “mathematical theorem” and “mathematical proof” are greatly clarified by the predicate calculus. Actually, the predicate calculus applies to non-mathematical subjects as well. Let Lxy be a 2-place predicate meaning “x loves y”. We can express properties of loving as sentences of the predicate calculus. ∀x ∃y Lxy ∃x ∀y Lyx ∀x (Lxx ⇒¬∃y Lyx) ∀x ∀y ∀z (((¬ Lyx) ∧ (¬ Lzy)) ⇒ Lzx) ∀x ((∃y Lxy) ⇒ Lxx) 3 There is a deterministic algorithm (the Tableau Method) which shows us (after a finite number of steps) that particular sentences are logically valid. For instance, the tableau ∃x (Sx ∧∀y (Eyx ⇔ (Sy ∧ ¬ Eyy))) Sa ∧∀y (Eya ⇔ Sy ∧ ¬ Eyy) Sa ∀y (Eya ⇔ Sy ∧ ¬ Eyy) Eaa ⇔ (Sa ∧ ¬ Eaa) / \ Eaa ¬ Eaa Sa ∧ ¬ Eaa ¬ (Sa ∧ ¬ Eaa) Sa / \ ¬ Sa ¬ ¬ Eaa ¬ Eaa Eaa tells us that the sentence ¬∃x (Sx ∧∀y (Eyx ⇔ (Sy ∧ ¬ Eyy))) is logically valid. This is the Russell Paradox. 4 Two significant results in mathematical logic: (G¨odel, Tarski, .
    [Show full text]
  • A Mathematical Theory of Computation?
    A Mathematical Theory of Computation? Simone Martini Dipartimento di Informatica { Scienza e Ingegneria Alma mater studiorum • Universit`adi Bologna and INRIA FoCUS { Sophia / Bologna Lille, February 1, 2017 1 / 57 Reflect and trace the interaction of mathematical logic and programming (languages), identifying some of the driving forces of this process. Previous episodes: Types HaPOC 2015, Pisa: from 1955 to 1970 (circa) Cie 2016, Paris: from 1965 to 1975 (circa) 2 / 57 Why types? Modern programming languages: control flow specification: small fraction abstraction mechanisms to model application domains. • Types are a crucial building block of these abstractions • And they are a mathematical logic concept, aren't they? 3 / 57 Why types? Modern programming languages: control flow specification: small fraction abstraction mechanisms to model application domains. • Types are a crucial building block of these abstractions • And they are a mathematical logic concept, aren't they? 4 / 57 We today conflate: Types as an implementation (representation) issue Types as an abstraction mechanism Types as a classification mechanism (from mathematical logic) 5 / 57 The quest for a \Mathematical Theory of Computation" How does mathematical logic fit into this theory? And for what purposes? 6 / 57 The quest for a \Mathematical Theory of Computation" How does mathematical logic fit into this theory? And for what purposes? 7 / 57 Prehistory 1947 8 / 57 Goldstine and von Neumann [. ] coding [. ] has to be viewed as a logical problem and one that represents a new branch of formal logics. Hermann Goldstine and John von Neumann Planning and Coding of problems for an Electronic Computing Instrument Report on the mathematical and logical aspects of an electronic computing instrument, Part II, Volume 1-3, April 1947.
    [Show full text]
  • Warren Goldfarb, Notes on Metamathematics
    Notes on Metamathematics Warren Goldfarb W.B. Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic Department of Philosophy Harvard University DRAFT: January 1, 2018 In Memory of Burton Dreben (1927{1999), whose spirited teaching on G¨odeliantopics provided the original inspiration for these Notes. Contents 1 Axiomatics 1 1.1 Formal languages . 1 1.2 Axioms and rules of inference . 5 1.3 Natural numbers: the successor function . 9 1.4 General notions . 13 1.5 Peano Arithmetic. 15 1.6 Basic laws of arithmetic . 18 2 G¨odel'sProof 23 2.1 G¨odelnumbering . 23 2.2 Primitive recursive functions and relations . 25 2.3 Arithmetization of syntax . 30 2.4 Numeralwise representability . 35 2.5 Proof of incompleteness . 37 2.6 `I am not derivable' . 40 3 Formalized Metamathematics 43 3.1 The Fixed Point Lemma . 43 3.2 G¨odel'sSecond Incompleteness Theorem . 47 3.3 The First Incompleteness Theorem Sharpened . 52 3.4 L¨ob'sTheorem . 55 4 Formalizing Primitive Recursion 59 4.1 ∆0,Σ1, and Π1 formulas . 59 4.2 Σ1-completeness and Σ1-soundness . 61 4.3 Proof of Representability . 63 3 5 Formalized Semantics 69 5.1 Tarski's Theorem . 69 5.2 Defining truth for LPA .......................... 72 5.3 Uses of the truth-definition . 74 5.4 Second-order Arithmetic . 76 5.5 Partial truth predicates . 79 5.6 Truth for other languages . 81 6 Computability 85 6.1 Computability . 85 6.2 Recursive and partial recursive functions . 87 6.3 The Normal Form Theorem and the Halting Problem . 91 6.4 Turing Machines .
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Computability Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTABILITY THEORY CINDY CHUNG Abstract. This paper will give an introduction to the fundamentals of com- putability theory. Based on Robert Soare's textbook, The Art of Turing Computability: Theory and Applications, we examine concepts including the Halting problem, properties of Turing jumps and degrees, and Post's Theo- rem.1 In the paper, we will assume the reader has a conceptual understanding of computer programs. Contents 1. Basic Computability 1 2. The Halting Problem 2 3. Post's Theorem: Jumps and Quantifiers 3 3.1. Arithmetical Hierarchy 3 3.2. Degrees and Jumps 4 3.3. The Zero-Jump, 00 5 3.4. Post's Theorem 5 Acknowledgments 8 References 8 1. Basic Computability Definition 1.1. An algorithm is a procedure capable of being carried out by a computer program. It accepts various forms of numerical inputs including numbers and finite strings of numbers. Computability theory is a branch of mathematical logic that focuses on algo- rithms, formally known in this area as computable functions, and studies the degree, or level of computability that can be attributed to various sets (these concepts will be formally defined and elaborated upon below). This field was founded in the 1930s by many mathematicians including the logicians: Alan Turing, Stephen Kleene, Alonzo Church, and Emil Post. Turing first pioneered computability theory when he introduced the fundamental concept of the a-machine which is now known as the Turing machine (this concept will be intuitively defined below) in his 1936 pa- per, On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem[7].
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic Underlying the Receptive Field Organization of Neurons in Mammalian Primary Visual Cortex Shigeko Takahashi* Kyoto City University of Arts, Japan
    S Journal of O p s e s n Acce Neurology and Neuro Toxicology REVIEW ARTICLE Mathematical Logic Underlying the Receptive Field Organization of Neurons in Mammalian Primary Visual Cortex Shigeko Takahashi* Kyoto City University of Arts, Japan Abstract With the camera-type eyes which have a specialized function for the image-forming vision, the primary visual cortex (V1) is common to all mammalian species, and is considered to be established at early stage in mammalian evolution, being inherited in all lineages. A defining characteristic of the mammalian V1 is the presence of orientation-selective neurons (or simple cells), which are activated in response to line-, or edge- stimuli in some orientations better than others. It is not yet known as for what were the driving forces that made the robust emergence of such a common design for V1 neurons in mammalian evolution. In this study, I address this problem by employing mathematical approach to arithmetizing various kind of geometries. The formalism which I employ here can not only account for an essential role of the receptive field organization of orientation-selective V1 neurons to the processing of images, but also be used to focus in a concise way to develop mathematical logic as a model of how visual neurons work. Key words: The primary visual cortex (V1); orientation-selective neurons; image-forming vision; axiomatization of geometry Introduction map, known as retinotopy, a well-defined pattern of geniculo- cortical afferents, and distinct properties of neuronal response Light in external environment plays a central role in modulating (the receptive field size and the orientation-selectivity) [2]; V1 the behavior and physiology of most animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Relational Databases, Logic, and Complexity
    Relational Databases, Logic, and Complexity Phokion G. Kolaitis University of California, Santa Cruz & IBM Research-Almaden [email protected] 2009 GII Doctoral School on Advances in Databases 1 What this course is about Goals: Cover a coherent body of basic material in the foundations of relational databases Prepare students for further study and research in relational database systems Overview of Topics: Database query languages: expressive power and complexity Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus Conjunctive queries and homomorphisms Recursive queries and Datalog Selected additional topics: Bag Semantics, Inconsistent Databases Unifying Theme: The interplay between databases, logic, and computational complexity 2 Relational Databases: A Very Brief History The history of relational databases is the history of a scientific and technological revolution. Edgar F. Codd, 1923-2003 The scientific revolution started in 1970 by Edgar (Ted) F. Codd at the IBM San Jose Research Laboratory (now the IBM Almaden Research Center) Codd introduced the relational data model and two database query languages: relational algebra and relational calculus . “A relational model for data for large shared data banks”, CACM, 1970. “Relational completeness of data base sublanguages”, in: Database Systems, ed. by R. Rustin, 1972. 3 Relational Databases: A Very Brief History Researchers at the IBM San Jose Laboratory embark on the System R project, the first implementation of a relational database management system (RDBMS) In 1974-1975, they develop SEQUEL , a query language that eventually became the industry standard SQL . System R evolved to DB2 – released first in 1983. M. Stonebraker and E. Wong embark on the development of the Ingres RDBMS at UC Berkeley in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Mathematical Logic? a Survey
    What is mathematical logic? A survey John N. Crossley1 School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia 3800 [email protected] 1 Introduction What is mathematical logic? Mathematical logic is the application of mathemat- ical techniques to logic. What is logic? I believe I am following the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle when I say that logic is the (correct) rearranging of facts to find the information that we want. Logic has two aspects: formal and informal. In a sense logic belongs to ev- eryone although we often accuse others of being illogical. Informal logic exists whenever we have a language. In particular Indian Logic has been known for a very long time. Formal (often called, ‘mathematical’) logic has its origins in ancient Greece in the West with Aristotle. Mathematical logic has two sides: syntax and semantics. Syntax is how we say things; semantics is what we mean. By looking at the way that we behave and the way the world behaves, Aris- totle was able to elicit some basic laws. His style of categorizing logic led to the notion of the syllogism. The most famous example of a syllogism is All men are mortal Socrates is a man [Therefore] Socrates is mortal Nowadays we mathematicians would write this as ∀x(Man(x) → Mortal (x)) Man(S) (1) Mortal (S) One very general form of the above rule is A (A → B) (2) B otherwise know as modus ponens or detachment: the A is ‘detached’ from the formula (A → B) leaving B. This is just one example of a logical rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic in Philosophy of Mathematics
    Logic in Philosophy of Mathematics Hannes Leitgeb 1 What is Philosophy of Mathematics? Philosophers have been fascinated by mathematics right from the beginning of philosophy, and it is easy to see why: The subject matter of mathematics| numbers, geometrical figures, calculation procedures, functions, sets, and so on|seems to be abstract, that is, not in space or time and not anything to which we could get access by any causal means. Still mathematicians seem to be able to justify theorems about numbers, geometrical figures, calcula- tion procedures, functions, and sets in the strictest possible sense, by giving mathematical proofs for these theorems. How is this possible? Can we actu- ally justify mathematics in this way? What exactly is a proof? What do we even mean when we say things like `The less-than relation for natural num- bers (non-negative integers) is transitive' or `there exists a function on the real numbers which is continuous but nowhere differentiable'? Under what conditions are such statements true or false? Are all statements that are formulated in some mathematical language true or false, and is every true mathematical statement necessarily true? Are there mathematical truths which mathematicians could not prove even if they had unlimited time and economical resources? What do mathematical entities have in common with everyday objects such as chairs or the moon, and how do they differ from them? Or do they exist at all? Do we need to commit ourselves to the existence of mathematical entities when we do mathematics? Which role does mathematics play in our modern scientific theories, and does the em- pirical support of scientific theories translate into empirical support of the mathematical parts of these theories? Questions like these are among the many fascinating questions that get asked by philosophers of mathematics, and as it turned out, much of the progress on these questions in the last century is due to the development of modern mathematical and philosophical logic.
    [Show full text]