DOCSLIB.ORG

Nested Relational Calculus NRC Core Operations Workflow Example

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nested Relational Calculus NRC Core Operations Workflow Example NRC as a formal model for expressing bioinformatics workflows A. Gambin 1, J. Hidders 2, N. Kwasnikowska 3, S. Lasota 1, J. Sroka 1, J. Tyszkiewicz 1, J. Van den Bussche 3 1 Warsaw University, 2 University of Antwerp, 3 Hasselt University Context Problems Our contribution ● bioinformatics workflows ● workflows execute as a mix of automated ● using Nested Relational Calculus [1] for scripts and manual intervention modeling data oriented workflows – network of data centered processing steps – difficult to maintain ● many bioinformatics workflows can be modeled ● processing steps involve ● results are stored in ad-hoc ways, e.g. files, in NRC – large amounts of complex data Excel sheets ● advantages of using NRC ● sequence files, BLAST reports – difficult to manage – puts data oriented workflows on a firm ● XML data foundation – a variety of tools Existing solutions – formalism is already well understood ● EMBOSS suite, BioPerl scripts ● workflow execution engines ● natural approach ● webservices, Mascot searches – Kepler [2], Taverna [3] – BioKleisli [4] is also based on NRC ● not based on a formal data model, or too complicated and not data oriented dataflow Nested Relational Calculus NRC core operations {PatSample} ● established formalism for querying over ● constant value of a base type — “John”, true, 89 ∗ complex objects [1] ● variable of any type, either base type or complex — $patient PatSample ● complex objects are arbitrarily nested ● tuple construction — 〈 name: “John”, condition: true, age: 89 〉 collections and tuples processPat ● tuple projection — $patient.name ● collections can be sets, multi-sets and lists PatData ● empty set construction — ∅ ● set-based model: sets {} and tuples 〈〉 -1 ● singleton set construction — {$patient} ∗ ● typed query language ● set union — $patientList = $healthy ∪ $diseased {PatData} – extensible repertoire of base types ● ● Boolean, String, Number flattening of a nested set clusterPatData ● FASTA sequence file – $patientList = flatten( {$healthy, $diseased}) PepClusters ● XML, based on a DTD or XML Schema ● iteration over a set – complex types: nested sets and tuples kSubsets kSubsets – for $patient in $patientList return $patient.name ● named program definition — pBLAST: FASTA → {AccessionNr} SubSets Workflow example – description – external programs, used as a “black box” selectSets selectSets ● 3D signal maps from LC-MS analysis of blood – internal programs, help with top-down design {TestTrain} samples ● equality test for base types — $patient.name = “John” ● two groups: diseased and normal ● emptiness test for sets — $patientList = ∅ tstatistic correlation ● extracting clusters corresponding to peptides ● conditional {CAlg} tstat corr – if $p.condition then $diseased ∪ {$p} else $healthy ∪ {$p} 〈⋅,⋅〉 ● core operations can be combined into programs FSelCAlg tstatistic Workflow example – NRC programs {TestTrain} ● top-down design of the workflow ∗ – after processing and clustering of raw patient data, k-fold cross validation is performed TestTrain define dataflow($s: {PatSample}): FSelCAlg as [train] [test] [train] [test] [train] [test] kfoldCrossValidation( clusterPatData( PepClusters for $i in $s return processPat($i))) train test train test train test tstatisticDT tstatisticRF tstatisticSVM ● some internal programs ● choosing classifiers, defined by a feature – the set of peptide clusters is divided k times into a PerformanceStats selection method training set and a test set by internal program dt rf svm – t-statistic, correlation selectSets and external program kSubsets , , ● and a classification algorithm these pairs are passed to internal programs tstatistic 〈⋅ ⋅ ⋅〉 and correlation, then a tuple is constructed from – Decision Trees (DT), Random Forest (RF), Support their results CAlg Vector Machine (SVM) define kfoldCrossValidation($pc: PepClusters): FSelCAlg as -1 ● k-fold cross validation to obtain the following ∗ performance statistics for each classifier 〈 tstat: tstatictic(selectSets(kSubsets($pc))), {CAlg} corr: correlation(selectSets(kSubsets($pc))) 〉 – sensitivity, specificity – for each pair of training set and test set, external Acknowledments Workflow example – data types programs corresponding to chosen classifiers with t-statistic as feature selection method are invoked, Special thanks to J. Dutkowski, A. Gambin, B. Kluge, K. ● base types Kowalczyk, J.Tiuryn from Institute of Informatics, Warsaw then a tuple is constructed from received results University, and M. Dadlez from Institute of Biochemistry and String, Number, Boolean, Sample Biophysics, Polish Academy of Science, for providing their define tstatistic($tt: {TestTrain}): {Calg} as workflow. ● complex types for $i in $tt return References – input type 〈 dt: tstatisticDT($i.train, $i.test), [1] P. Buneman et al., “Principles of programming with complex objects PatSample = 〈 id: String, sample: Sample, diseased: Boolean 〉 rf: tstatisticRF($i.train, $i.test), and collection types”, Theoretical Computer Science, 1995, 149:3–48. – output type svm: tstatisticSVM($i.train, $i.test) 〉 [2] I. Attinas et al., “Kepler: An Extensible System for Design and FSelCAlg = 〈 tstat: {CAlg}, corr: {Calg} 〉 Execution of Scientific Workflows”, in proc. SSDBM 2004. [3] T. Oinn et al., “Taverna: a tool for the composition and enactment of with CAlg = 〈 dt: PStats, rf: PStats, svm: PStats 〉 Graphical representation bioinformatics workflows”, Bioinformatics, 2004, 20(17):3045–3054. and PStats = 〈 sensitivity: Number, specificity: Number 〉 ● dataflow language based on Petri nets and [4] S. Davidson et al., “BioKleisli: A Digital Library for Biomedical – auxiliary types Nested Relational Calculus [6] Researchers”, J. Digital Libraries, 1997, 1(1):36–53. TestTrain = 〈 test: PepClusters, train: PepClusters 〉 [5] A. Tröger et al., “A language for comprehensively supporting the in ● typing system and core operations from NRC vitro experimental process in silico”, in proc. BIBE 2004. PepClusters = { 〈 clustermass: Number, patlist: PatList 〉 } [6] J. Hidders et al., “Petri nets + nested relational calculus = dataflow PatList = { 〈 patid: String, diseased: Boolean, intensity: Number 〉 } ● top-down, hierarchical design of the data flow language”, submitted to CoopIS 2005. NRC as a formal model for expressing bioinformatics workflows A. Gambin 1, J. Hidders 2, N. Kwasnikowska 3, S. Lasota 1, J. Sroka 1, J. Tyszkiewicz 1, J. Van den Bussche 3 1 Warsaw University, 2 University of Antwerp, 3 Hasselt University Context Problems Our contribution ● bioinformatics workflows ● workflows execute as a mix of automated ● using Nested Relational Calculus [1] for scripts and manual intervention modeling data oriented workflows – network of data centered processing steps – difficult to maintain ● many bioinformatics workflows can be modeled ● processing steps involve ● results are stored in ad-hoc ways, e.g. files, in NRC – large amounts of complex data Excel sheets ● advantages of using NRC ● sequence files, BLAST reports – difficult to manage – puts data oriented workflows on a firm ● XML data foundation – a variety of tools Existing solutions – formalism is already well understood ● EMBOSS suite, BioPerl scripts ● workflow execution engines ● natural approach ● webservices, Mascot searches – Kepler [2], Taverna [3] – BioKleisli [4] is also based on NRC ● not based on a formal data model, or too complicated and not data oriented dataflow Nested Relational Calculus NRC core operations {PatSample} ● established formalism for querying over ● constant value of a base type — “John”, true, 89 ∗ complex objects [1] ● variable of any type, either base type or complex — $patient PatSample ● complex objects are arbitrarily nested ● tuple construction — 〈 name: “John”, condition: true, age: 89 〉 collections and tuples processPat ● tuple projection — $patient.name ● collections can be sets, multi-sets and lists PatData ● empty set construction — ∅ ● set-based model: sets {} and tuples 〈〉 -1 ● singleton set construction — {$patient} ∗ ● typed query language ● set union — $patientList = $healthy ∪ $diseased {PatData} – extensible repertoire of base types ● ● Boolean, String, Number flattening of a nested set clusterPatData ● FASTA sequence file – $patientList = flatten( {$healthy, $diseased}) PepClusters ● XML, based on a DTD or XML Schema ● iteration over a set – complex types: nested sets and tuples kSubsets kSubsets – for $patient in $patientList return $patient.name ● named program definition — pBLAST: FASTA → {AccessionNr} SubSets Workflow example – description – external programs, used as a “black box” selectSets selectSets ● 3D signal maps from LC-MS analysis of blood – internal programs, help with top-down design {TestTrain} samples ● equality test for base types — $patient.name = “John” ● two groups: diseased and normal ● emptiness test for sets — $patientList = ∅ tstatistic correlation ● extracting clusters corresponding to peptides ● conditional {CAlg} tstat corr – if $p.condition then $diseased ∪ {$p} else $healthy ∪ {$p} 〈⋅,⋅〉 ● core operations can be combined into programs FSelCAlg tstatistic Workflow example – NRC programs {TestTrain} ● top-down design of the workflow ∗ – after processing and clustering of raw patient data, k-fold cross validation is performed TestTrain define dataflow($s: {PatSample}): FSelCAlg as [train] [test] [train] [test] [train] [test] kfoldCrossValidation( clusterPatData( PepClusters for $i in $s return processPat($i))) train test train test train test tstatisticDT tstatisticRF tstatisticSVM ● some internal programs ● choosing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nested Complexes and Their Polyhedral Realizations Andrei Zelevinsky
    Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly Volume 2, Number 3 (Special Issue: In honor of Robert MacPherson, Part 1 of 3 ) 655|671, 2006 Nested Complexes and their Polyhedral Realizations Andrei Zelevinsky To Bob MacPherson on the occasion of his 60th birthday 1. Introduction This note which can be viewed as a complement to [9], presents a self-contained overview of basic properties of nested complexes and their two dual polyhedral realizations: as complete simplicial fans, and as simple polytopes. Most of the results are not new; our aim is to bring into focus a striking similarity between nested complexes and associated fans and polytopes on one side, and cluster complexes and generalized associahedra introduced and studied in [7, 2] on the other side. First a very brief history (more details and references can be found in [10, 9]). Nested complexes appeared in the work by De Concini - Procesi [3] in the context of subspace arrangements. More general complexes associated with arbitrary ¯nite graphs were introduced and studied in [1] and more recently in [10]; these papers also present a construction of associated simple convex polytopes (dubbed graph associahedra in [1], and De Concini - Procesi associahedra in [10]). An even more general setup developed by Feichtner - Yuzvinsky in [6] associates a nested complex and a simplicial fan to an arbitrary ¯nite atomic lattice. In the present note we follow [5] and [9] in adopting an intermediate level of generality, and studying the nested complexes associated to building sets (see De¯nition 2.1 below). Feichtner and Sturmfels in [5] show that the simplicial fan associated to a building set is the normal fan of a simple convex polytope, while Postnikov in [9] gives an elegant construction of this polytope as a Minkowski sum of simplices.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPLEXES of TREES and NESTED SET COMPLEXES 11 K+2 and Congruent to 2 Mod K, and at Least One Internal Edge
    COMPLEXES OF TREES AND NESTED SET COMPLEXES EVA MARIA FEICHTNER Abstract. We exhibit an identity of abstract simplicial complexes between the well- studied complex of trees Tn and the reduced minimal nested set complex of the partition lattice. We conclude that the order complex of the partition lattice can be obtained from the complex of trees by a sequence of stellar subdivisions. We provide an explicit cohomology basis for the complex of trees that emerges naturally from this context. Motivated by these results, we review the generalization of complexes of trees to complexes of k-trees by Hanlon, and we propose yet another, in the context of nested set complexes more natural, generalization. 1. Introduction In this article we explore the connection between complexes of trees and nested set complexes of specific lattices. Nested set complexes appear as the combinatorial core in De Concini-Procesi wonderful compactifications of arrangement complements [DP1]. They record the incidence struc- ture of natural stratifications and are crucial for descriptions of topological invariants in combinatorial terms. Disregarding their geometric origin, nested set complexes can be defined for any finite meet-semilattice [FK]. Interesting connections between seemingly distant fields have been established when relating the purely oder-theoretic concept of nested sets to various contexts in geometry. See [FY] for a construction linking nested set complexes to toric geometry, and [FS] for an appearance of nested set complexes in tropical geometry. This paper presents yet another setting where nested set complexes appear in a mean- ingful way and, this time, contribute to the toolbox of topological combinatorics and combinatorial representation theory.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Supplement
    Introduction to Functional Analysis Chapter 3. Major Banach Space Theorems 3.2. Baire Category Theorem—Proofs of Theorems June 12, 2021 () Introduction to Functional Analysis June 12, 2021 1 / 6 Table of contents 1 Proposition 3.1. The Nested Set Theorem 2 Proposition 3.2. Baire’s Theorem 3 Corollary 3.3. Dual Form of Baire’s Theorem () Introduction to Functional Analysis June 12, 2021 2 / 6 Next, suppose both x, y ∈ Fn for all n ∈ N. Then kx − yk ≤ diam(Fn) for all n ∈ N and since diam(Fn) → 0, then kx − yk = 0, or x = y, establishing uniqueness. Proposition 3.1. The Nested Set Theorem Proposition 3.1. The Nested Set Theorem Proposition 3.1. The Nested Set Theorem. Given a sequence F1 ⊇ F2 ⊇ F3 ⊇ · · · of closed nonempty sets in a Banach space such that diam(Fn) → 0, there is a unique point that is in Fn for all n ∈ N. Proof. Choose some xn ∈ Fn for each n ∈ N. Since diam(Fn) → 0, for all ε > 0 there exists N ∈ N such that if n ≥ N then diam(Fn) < ε. Since the Fn are nested, then for all m, n ≥ N, we have kxn − xmk < ε, and so (xn) is a Cauchy sequence. Since we are in a Banach space, there is x such that (xn) → x. Now for n ∈ N, the sequence (xn, xn+1, xn+2,...) ⊆ Fn is convergent to x and since Fn is closed then Fn = F n. So x ∈ Fn by Theorem 2.2.A(iii). That is x ∈ Fn for all n ∈ N.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexes of Trees and Nested Set Complexes
    Pacific Journal of Mathematics COMPLEXES OF TREES AND NESTED SET COMPLEXES EVA MARIA FEICHTNER Volume 227 No. 2 October 2006 PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 227, No. 2, 2006 COMPLEXES OF TREES AND NESTED SET COMPLEXES EVA MARIA FEICHTNER We exhibit an identity of abstract simplicial complexes between the well- studied complex of trees Tn and the reduced minimal nested set complex of the partition lattice. We conclude that the order complex of the partition lattice can be obtained from the complex of trees by a sequence of stellar subdivisions. We provide an explicit cohomology basis for the complex of trees that emerges naturally from this context. Motivated by these results, we review the generalization of complexes of trees to complexes of k-trees by Hanlon, and we propose yet another generalization, more natural in the context of nested set complexes. 1. Introduction In this article we explore the connection between complexes of trees and nested set complexes of specific lattices. Nested set complexes appear as the combinatorial core in De Concini and Pro- cesi’s [1995] wonderful compactifications of arrangement complements. They record the incidence structure of natural stratifications and are crucial for descrip- tions of topological invariants in combinatorial terms. Disregarding their geometric origin, nested set complexes can be defined for any finite meet-semilattice [Feicht- ner and Kozlov 2004]. Interesting connections between seemingly distant fields have been established when relating the purely order-theoretic concept of nested sets to various contexts in geometry. See [Feichtner and Yuzvinsky 2004] for a construction linking nested set complexes to toric geometry, and [Feichtner and Sturmfels 2005] for an appearance of nested set complexes in tropical geometry.
    [Show full text]
  • Submodularity Helps in Nash and Nonsymmetric Bargaining Games∗
    Submodularity Helps in Nash and Nonsymmetric Bargaining Games∗ Deeparnab Chakrabartyy Gagan Goelz Vijay V. Vazirani x Lei Wang{ Changyuan Yuk Abstract Motivated by the recent work of [Vaz12], we take a fresh look at understanding the quality and robustness of solutions to Nash and nonsymmetric bargaining games by subjecting them to several stress tests. Our tests are quite basic, e.g., we ask whether the solutions are computable in polynomial time, and whether they have certain properties such as efficiency, fairness, desirable response when agents change their disagreement points or play with a subset of the agents. Our main conclusion is that imposing submodularity, a natural economies of scale condition, on Nash and nonsymmetric bargaining games endows them with several desirable properties. ∗This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 60553001, and the National Basic Research Program of China Grant 2007CB807900,2007CB807901. A preliminary version of this appeared in the Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (2008, Shanghai). yCurrent address: Microsoft Research, Bangalore, India 560001. Email: [email protected]. Work done as a graduate student at Georgia Tech. zCurrent address: Google Inc., NYC, New York. Email: [email protected]. Work done as a graduate student at Georgia Tech. xCollege of Computing, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332{0280. Email: [email protected] {Current Address: Microsoft Corporation, Bellevue, WA 98004 Email: [email protected]. Work done as a graduate student at Georgia Tech. kInstitute for Theoretical Computer Science, Tsinghua University 1 1 Introduction Bargaining is perhaps the oldest situations of conflict of interest, and since game theory develops solution concepts for negotiating in such situations, it is perhaps not surprising that bargaining was first modeled as a game in John Nash's seminal 1950 paper [Nas50], using the framework of game theory given a few years earlier by von Neumann and Morgenstern [vNM44].
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Inductive Definitions in Constructive Set Theory
    Generalized Inductive Definitions in Constructive Set Theory Michael Rathjen∗ Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210, U.S.A. [email protected] February 17, 2010 Abstract The intent of this paper is to study generalized inductive definitions on the basis of Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, CZF. In theories such as classical Zermelo- Fraenkel Set Theory, it can be shown that every inductive definition over a set gives rise to a least and a greatest fixed point, which are sets. This principle, notated GID, can also be deduced from CZF plus the full impredicative separation axiom or CZF augmented by the power set axiom. Full separation and a fortiori the power set axiom, however, are entirely unacceptable from a constructive point of view. It will be shown that while CZF + GID is stronger than CZF, the principle GID does not embody the strength of any of these axioms. CZF + GID can be interpreted in Feferman's Explicit Mathematics with a least fixed point principle. The proof-theoretic strength of the latter theory is expressible by means of a fragment of second order arithmetic. MSC:03F50, 03F35 Keywords: Constructive set theory, Martin-L¨oftype theory, inductive definitions, proof-theoretic strength 1 Introduction In set theory, a monotone inductive definition over a given set A is derived from a mapping Ψ: P(A) !P(A) that is monotone, i.e., Ψ(X) ⊆ Ψ(Y ) whenever X ⊆ Y ⊆ A. Here P(A) denotes the class of all subsets of A. The set inductively defined by Ψ, Ψ1, is the smallest set Z such that ∗This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Exact Inference for Recursive Cardinality Models
    Fast Exact Inference for Recursive Cardinality Models Daniel Tarlow, Kevin Swersky, Richard S. Zemel, Ryan P. Adams, Brendan J. Frey Dept. of Computer Science Sch. of Eng. & Appl. Sci. Prob. & Stat. Inf. Group University of Toronto Harvard University University of Toronto fdtarlow,kswersky,[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract celebrated result is the ability of the \graph cuts" algo- rithm to exactly find the maximum a posteriori (MAP) Cardinality potentials are a generally use- assignment in any pairwise graphical model with bi- ful class of high order potential that affect nary variables, where the internal potential structure probabilities based on how many of D bi- is restricted to be submodular. Along similar lines, nary variables are active. Maximum a poste- polynomial-time algorithms can exactly compute the riori (MAP) inference for cardinality poten- partition function in an Ising model if the underlying tial models is well-understood, with efficient graph is planar (Fisher, 1961). computations taking O(D log D) time. Yet Extensions of these results have been a topic of much efficient marginalization and sampling have recent interest, particularly for the case of MAP in- not been addressed as thoroughly in the ma- ference. Gould (2011) shows how to do exact MAP chine learning community. We show that inference in models with certain higher order terms there exists a simple algorithm for comput- via graph cut-like algorithms, and Ramalingham et al. ing marginal probabilities and drawing ex- (2008) give results for multilabel submodular models. act joint samples that runs in O(D log2 D) Tarlow et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Graph-Theoretic Method for Organizing Overlapping Clusters Into Trees, Multiple Trees, Or Extended Trees
    Joumal of Classification 12:283-313 (1995) A Graph-Theoretic Method for Organizing Overlapping Clusters into Trees, Multiple Trees, or Extended Trees J. Douglas CarroU James E. Corter Rutgers University Teachers CoUege, Columbia University Abstract: A clustering that consists of a nested set of clusters may be represented graphically by a tree. In contrast, a clustedng that includes non-nested ovedapping clusters (sometimes termed a "nonhierarchical' ' cluste¡ cannot be represented by a tree. Graphical representations of such non-nested ovedapping clusterings are usuaUy complex and difficult to interpret. Carroll and Pruzansky (1975, 1980) sug- gested representing non-nested clusterings with multiple ultramet¡ or additive trees. Corter and Tversky (1986) introduced the extended tree (EXTREE) model, which represents a non-nested structure asa tree plus ovedapping clusters that ate represented by marked segments in the tree. We show here that the problem of finding a nested (i.e., tree-structured) set of clusters in ah ovedapping clustering can be reformulated as the problem of finding a clique in a graph. Thus, clique- finding algo¡ can be used to identify sets of clusters in the solution that can be represented by trees. This formulation provides a means of automaticaUy con- structing a multiple tree or extended tree representation of any non-nested cluster- ing. The method, called "clustrees", is applied to several non-nested overlapping clusterings de¡ using the MAPCLUS program (Arabie and Carroll 1980). Keywords: Overlapping clustering; Ultrametric; Additive tree; Extended tree; Multiple trees; Graph; Clique; Proximities. Authors' addresses: Please address correspondence to: James Corter, Box 41, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • When Is a Right Orderable Group Locally Indicable?
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 128, Number 3, Pages 637{641 S 0002-9939(99)05534-3 Article electronically published on October 25, 1999 WHEN IS A RIGHT ORDERABLE GROUP LOCALLY INDICABLE? PATRIZIA LONGOBARDI, MERCEDE MAJ, AND AKBAR RHEMTULLA (Communicated by Ronald M. Solomon) Abstract. If a group G has an ascending series 1 = G0 G1 Gρ =G ≤ ≤···≤ of subgroups such that for each ordinal α, Gα C G,andGα+1=Gα has no non- abelian free subsemigroup, then G is right orderable if and only if it is locally indicable. In particular if G is a radical-by-periodic group, then it is right orderable if and only if it is locally indicable. 1. Introduction x Recall that a group G is said to be locally indicable if every finitely generated non-trivial subgroup of G has an infinite cyclic quotient. Such groups are right orderable, as was shown by R.G. Burns and V.W. Hale in [2]. On the other hand, a right orderable group need not be locally indicable as was shown by G.M. Bergman in [1]. It was shown in [9] that a finite extension of a polycyclic group is right orderable only if it is locally indicable. This result was extended to groups which are finite extensions of solvable groups by I.M. Chiswell and P. Kropholler in [3] and to the class of periodic extensions of radical groups by V. M. Tararin in [10]. The purpose of this paper is to show that if a group G has a normal ascending series 1 = G G G = G of subgroups such that for each ordinal 0 ≤ 1 ≤ ··· ≤ ρ α<ρ; Gα+1=Gα has no non-abelian free subsemigroup, then G is right orderable only if it is locally indicable.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Analysis (4Th Edition)
    Preface The first three editions of H.L.Royden's Real Analysis have contributed to the education of generations of mathematical analysis students. This fourth edition of Real Analysis preserves the goal and general structure of its venerable predecessors-to present the measure theory, integration theory, and functional analysis that a modem analyst needs to know. The book is divided the three parts: Part I treats Lebesgue measure and Lebesgue integration for functions of a single real variable; Part II treats abstract spaces-topological spaces, metric spaces, Banach spaces, and Hilbert spaces; Part III treats integration over general measure spaces, together with the enrichments possessed by the general theory in the presence of topological, algebraic, or dynamical structure. The material in Parts II and III does not formally depend on Part I. However, a careful treatment of Part I provides the student with the opportunity to encounter new concepts in a familiar setting, which provides a foundation and motivation for the more abstract concepts developed in the second and third parts. Moreover, the Banach spaces created in Part I, the LP spaces, are one of the most important classes of Banach spaces. The principal reason for establishing the completeness of the LP spaces and the characterization of their dual spaces is to be able to apply the standard tools of functional analysis in the study of functionals and operators on these spaces. The creation of these tools is the goal of Part II. NEW TO THE EDITION This edition contains 50% more exercises than the previous edition Fundamental results, including Egoroff s Theorem and Urysohn's Lemma are now proven in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 173 Lecture 8: Set Theory (I)
    CS 173 Lecture 8: Set Theory (I) Jos´eMeseguer University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1 Preliminary Notions about Sets Intuitively, A set is an unordered collection of objects Given any set, say A, the objects belonging to it are called its elements. The property of an object a being an element of set A is written a P A. Such a property is called set membership, and the simbol P is called the membership predicate. We read a P A as \a belongs to A" or \a in A" or \a is an element of A." Objects Acceptable as Set Elements. Any precisely specified object can be an element of a set. For example, objects such as: { any number is N, Z, Q, or R { a truth value like T or F { any symbol such as an ASCII character, or a standard alphabet letter, or a Greek letter, or a Hebrew letter { any data structure such as, for example, a pair like p2; 3{17q, a triple like pa; b; cq, or an n-tuple like pa1; : : : ; anq { any set 1 is also an object that can be an element of another set. can all be elements of sets. The only general requirements about such objects are: 1. any object should be precisely specified 2. equality between such objects should also be precisely specified. Examples: 1{2 “ 2{4, a ­“ b, p1{2; 2{10q “ p2{4; 1{5q, a ­“ pa; 7q. Only Elements Matter. As we shall see, A set A is completely determined by its elements. 1 For set theory buffs: objects that are not sets are technically called urelements, coming from the German for \primitive elements." It turns out that it is possible to do all of set theory without using any such urelements, so that sets are the only objects used: amazingly enough, everything can be built up as a set, literally out of nothing, i.e., out of the empty set H.
    [Show full text]
  • Trees and Other Hierarchies in Mysql
    Get It Done With MySQL 5&Up, Chapter 20. Copyright © Peter Brawley and Arthur Fuller 2018. All rights reserved. TOC Previous Next Trees and Other Hierarchies in MySQL Graphs and SQL Edge list Edge-list model of a tree CTE edge list treewalk Draw the tree Nested sets model of a tree Edge list model of a network Parts explosions Most non-trivial data is hierarchical. Customers have orders, which have line items, which refer to products, which have prices. Population samples have subjects, who take tests, which give results, which have sub-results and norms. Web sites have pages, which have links, which collect hits across dates and times. These are hierarchies of tables. The number of tables limits the number of JOINs needed to walk the tree. For such queries, conventional SQL is an excellent tool. But when tables map a family tree, or a browsing history, or a bill of materials, table rows relate hierarchically to other rows in the same table. We no longer know how many JOINs we need to walk the tree. We need a different data model. That model is the graph (Fig 1), which is a set of nodes (vertices) and the edges (lines or arcs) that connect them. This chapter is about how to model and query graphs in a MySQL database. Graph theory is a branch of topology, the study of geometric relations that aren't changed by stretching and compression—rubber sheet geometry, some call it. Graph theory is ideal for modelling hierarchies—like family trees, browsing histories, search trees, Bayesian networks and bills of materials— whose shape and size we can't know in advance.
    [Show full text]