DOCSLIB.ORG

1. Partially Ordered Sets - Solutions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1. Partially Ordered Sets - Solutions 1. PARTIALLY ORDERED SETS - SOLUTIONS 2. For two posets A and B: (a) Show that if f : A ! B is an order embedding, then f is one-to-one. Solution: We need to show that a 6= a0 ) f (a) 6= f (a0): Equivalently, we can show that f (a) = f (a0) ) a = a0: Note that f (a) = f (a0) ) f (a) ≤ f (a0) and f (a) = f (a0) ) f (a0) ≤ f (a): Since f is an order embedding, this implies that a ≤ a0 and a0 ≤ a, which together imply that a = a0. (b) Show that if f : A ! B is an order isomorphism, then there is an order isomorphism g: B ! A. Solution: Using the result from part (a), f is one-to-one and onto, so f −1 is a well-defined function and is also one-to-one and onto. Let g = f −1. We can show that g is an order embed- ding, and hence an order isomorphism. To show that, note that since f is an order embedding, f (a) ≤ f (a0) () a ≤ a0; which, letting b = f (a) and b0 = f (a0), implies that b ≤ b0 () g(b) ≤ g(b0): Thus, g is an order embedding. E. A. Lee, Concurrent Models of Computation 3 1. PARTIALLY ORDERED SETS - SOLUTIONS 3. Let w = f0/;f0/g;f0/;f0/gg;···g be the von Neumann numbers as defined on page ??. This problem explores the relationship between this set and N. (a) Let f : w ! N be defined by f (x) = jxj; 8 x 2 w : That is, f (x) is the size of the set x. Show that f is a bijection. Solution: f is onto because the set w contains at least one set with any size n 2 N. f is one-to-one because w contains no more than one set with any size n 2 N. Since f is onto and one-to-one, it is a bijection. (b) Let (w;⊆) and (N;≤) be posets, where ⊆ is the usual subset order and ≤ is the usual numeric order. Show that these posets are order isomorphic. Solution: The function f of part (a) is an order isomorphism because it is onto (shown in part (a)) and an order embedding. To show it is an order embedding, just note that for any x;x0 2 w, if x ⊆ x0, then f (x) ≤ f (x0) (obviously, because f is just set size). Moreover, since f is a bijection, it has an inverse, and we can similarly show that the inverse is onto and an order embedding. (c) The lifted version of the function f in part (a) is written fˆ. What is the value of fˆ(f0/;f0/gg)? What is the value of f (f0/;f0/gg)? Note that on page ?? it is noted that when there is no ambigu- ity, fˆ may be written simply f . For this function, is there such ambiguity? Solution: fˆ(f0/;f0/gg) = f0;1g. f (f0/;f0/gg) = 2. Hence, in this case, there is definitely ambiguity, and the shorthand notation should not be used. 4 E. A. Lee, Concurrent Models of Computation 1. PARTIALLY ORDERED SETS - SOLUTIONS 4. Classify each of the following as a partial order relation, a total order relation, or neither. State whether it is a CPO. (a) The set of words A∗ over a non-empty alphabet A with a relation v defined by x v y () 9 z 2 A∗ : x:z = y; where x:z denotes concatenation. Solution: This is an order relation. It has a least element, l. It is not a CPO. The chain fa, aa, aaa, aaaa, ··· g, for some a 2 A, has no upper bound in the set. (b) The set A = fseconds, grams, meters, pounds, yardsg of units and a relation R defined by (a;a0) 2 A if a can be converted to a0 by scaling by a unitless constant. Solution: This is neither because it does not satisfy the antisymmetric property. It is not a CPO because it is not an order relation. (c) The set D of all countable (including finite) subsets of R, ordered by the subset order. Hint: It may be easier to use Definition ?? for a CPO, rather than Definition ??. Solution: This is not a CPO. The following proof is due to Eleftherios Matsikoudis: The set D of all countable subsets of reals is a directed set. It is non-empty, and for every two countable subsets of reals, there is an upper bound in D of the two subsets, namely their union. But D does not have an upper bound in D. The sets in D can contain any real number, so the only upper bound of D with respect to subset inclusion is the set of all reals, which is uncountable and therefore not in D. Thus, D is not a CPO with respect to subset inclusion. The following proof, due to Ben Lickly, uses Definition ??. Any such proof appears to require the axiom of choice or some equivalent statement. One statement equivalent to the axiom of choice is Zorn’s lemma, which states that a poset (A;≤) for which every chain has an upper bound has a maximal element. A maximal element is an a 2 A where there is no a0 2 A such that a < a0. Lickly’s proof assumes that D is a CPO and then reaches a contradiction. If D is a CPO, then by Definition ??, every chain has an upper bound, so Zorn’s lemma applies. But D does not have a maximal element. Given any countable subset of the reals, one can always add one more real number to the set and the resulting set is still countable. So D has no maximal element, and hence D must not be a CPO. (d) The set f1=n j n 2 Ng [ f0g, ordered by the natural numeric order (where 1=0 is interpreted as ¥). Solution: This is a total order and a CPO. It clearly has a bottom element, and every chain has a LUB in the set. (e) The set f1=n j n 2 Ng, ordered by the reverse numeric order (where again 1=0 is interpreted as ¥). E. A. Lee, Concurrent Models of Computation 5 1. PARTIALLY ORDERED SETS - SOLUTIONS Solution: This is a total order, but not a CPO because the set itself has no least upper bound in the set. 6 E. A. Lee, Concurrent Models of Computation 5 Synchronous-Reactive Models Solutions 1. This exercise studies the use of absent events in SR. (a) As a warmup, use Sequence and When to construct an SR model that generates a sequence of values true interspersed with absent. For example, produce the sequence (true; absent; absent; true; absent; true; true; true; absent) : Make sure your model adequately displays the output. In particular, absent should be visible in the display.1 Solution: The following model will do the job: where the InstanceOfTickDisplay is the composite actor shown below, created to format the output: 1Note that you could use TrueGate to implement this more simply, but part of the goal of this exercise is to fully understand When. 17 5. SYNCHRONOUS-REACTIVE MODELS - SOLUTIONS The output is: Tick 0 : true Tick 1 : Tick 2 : Tick 3 : true Tick 4 : Tick 5 : true Tick 6 : true Tick 7 : true Tick 8 : (b) Use Default, When, and Const to create a composite actor IsAbsent that given any input se- quence, produces an output true at every tick when the input is absent, and otherwise produces the output absent.2 Solution: The following model will do the job: (c) Create a composite actor that can recognize the difference between single and double mouse clicks. Your actor should have an input port named click, and two output ports, singleClick and doubleClick. When a true input at click is followed by N absents, your actor should produce output true on singleClick, where N is a parameter of your actor. If instead a second true input occurs within N ticks of the first, then your actor should output a true on doubleClick. How does your model behave if given three values true within N ticks on input port click? Solution: The following model will do the job: 2Again, a simpler implementation is available using IsPresent, but the goal of this exercise is to fully under Default. 18 Ptolemaeus, System Design, Modeling, and Simulation: Solutions 5. SYNCHRONOUS-REACTIVE MODELS - SOLUTIONS (d) Extra credit: Redo (a)-(c) by writing a custom a Java actor for each of the three functions above. How does this design compare with the design implemented using primitive SR actors? Is it more or less understandable? Complex? http://Ptolemy.org/systems 19 2 Synchronous Systems Solutions 1. Suppose A = f?g [ N is a flat CPO with ? at the bottom and each element of N immediately above ?. Each element of N is incomparable with all other elements of N. Consider a function f : A2 ! A given by, for all a1;a2 2 A, 8 a a < ? if 1 = 2 = ? f (a1;a2) = a1 if a1 2 N : a2 + 1 otherwise (a) Is this function strict? Solution: The function is not strict. Even without knowing anything about the second argu- ment, if it knows the first, it may be able to assert the output. (b) Suppose this function is used in the following SR model: where d = 1 is produced on every tick by the left actor. Find all possible outputs of f . Is there a least fixed point? Solution: The output of f can be any n 2 N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 4. Homomorphisms and Isomorphisms of Groups
    Chapter 4. Homomorphisms and Isomorphisms of Groups 4.1 Note: We recall the following terminology. Let X and Y be sets. When we say that f is a function or a map from X to Y , written f : X ! Y , we mean that for every x 2 X there exists a unique corresponding element y = f(x) 2 Y . The set X is called the domain of f and the range or image of f is the set Image(f) = f(X) = f(x) x 2 X . For a set A ⊆ X, the image of A under f is the set f(A) = f(a) a 2 A and for a set −1 B ⊆ Y , the inverse image of B under f is the set f (B) = x 2 X f(x) 2 B . For a function f : X ! Y , we say f is one-to-one (written 1 : 1) or injective when for every y 2 Y there exists at most one x 2 X such that y = f(x), we say f is onto or surjective when for every y 2 Y there exists at least one x 2 X such that y = f(x), and we say f is invertible or bijective when f is 1:1 and onto, that is for every y 2 Y there exists a unique x 2 X such that y = f(x). When f is invertible, the inverse of f is the function f −1 : Y ! X defined by f −1(y) = x () y = f(x). For f : X ! Y and g : Y ! Z, the composite g ◦ f : X ! Z is given by (g ◦ f)(x) = g(f(x)).
    [Show full text]
  • Scott Spaces and the Dcpo Category
    SCOTT SPACES AND THE DCPO CATEGORY JORDAN BROWN Abstract. Directed-complete partial orders (dcpo’s) arise often in the study of λ-calculus. Here we investigate certain properties of dcpo’s and the Scott spaces they induce. We introduce a new construction which allows for the canonical extension of a partial order to a dcpo and give a proof that the dcpo introduced by Zhao, Xi, and Chen is well-filtered. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. General Definitions and the Finite Case 2 3. Connectedness of Scott Spaces 5 4. The Categorical Structure of DCPO 6 5. Suprema and the Waybelow Relation 7 6. Hofmann-Mislove Theorem 9 7. Ordinal-Based DCPOs 11 8. Acknowledgments 13 References 13 1. Introduction Directed-complete partially ordered sets (dcpo’s) often arise in the study of λ-calculus. Namely, they are often used to construct models for λ theories. There are several versions of the λ-calculus, all of which attempt to describe the ‘computable’ functions. The first robust descriptions of λ-calculus appeared around the same time as the definition of Turing machines, and Turing’s paper introducing computing machines includes a proof that his computable functions are precisely the λ-definable ones [5] [8]. Though we do not address the λ-calculus directly here, an exposition of certain λ theories and the construction of Scott space models for them can be found in [1]. In these models, computable functions correspond to continuous functions with respect to the Scott topology. It is thus with an eye to the application of topological tools in the study of computability that we investigate the Scott topology.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8.6 What Is a Partial Order?
    Announcements ICS 6B } Regrades for Quiz #3 and Homeworks #4 & Boolean Algebra & Logic 5 are due Today Lecture Notes for Summer Quarter, 2008 Michele Rousseau Set 8 – Ch. 8.6, 11.6 Lecture Set 8 - Chpts 8.6, 11.1 2 Today’s Lecture } Chapter 8 8.6, Chapter 11 11.1 ● Partial Orderings 8.6 Chapter 8: Section 8.6 ● Boolean Functions 11.1 Partial Orderings (Continued) Lecture Set 8 - Chpts 8.6, 11.1 3 What is a Partial Order? Some more defintions Let R be a relation on A. The R is a partial order iff R is: } If A,R is a poset and a,b are A, reflexive, antisymmetric, & transitive we say that: } A,R is called a partially ordered set or “poset” ● “a and b are comparable” if ab or ba } Notation: ◘ i.e. if a,bR and b,aR ● If A, R is a poset and a and b are 2 elements of A ● “a and b are incomparable” if neither ab nor ba such that a,bR, we write a b instead of aRb ◘ i.e if a,bR and b,aR } If two objects are always related in a poset it is called a total order, linear order or simple order. NOTE: it is not required that two things be related under a partial order. ● In this case A,R is called a chain. ● i.e if any two elements of A are comparable ● That’s the “partial” of it. ● So for all a,b A, it is true that a,bR or b,aR 5 Lecture Set 8 - Chpts 8.6, 11.1 6 1 Now onto more examples… More Examples Let Aa,b,c,d and let R be the relation Let A0,1,2,3 and on A represented by the diagraph Let R0,01,1, 2,0,2,2,2,33,3 The R is reflexive, but We draw the associated digraph: a b not antisymmetric a,c &c,a It is easy to check that R is 0 and not 1 c d transitive d,cc,a, but not d,a Refl.
    [Show full text]
  • [Math.NT] 1 Nov 2006
    ADJOINING IDENTITIES AND ZEROS TO SEMIGROUPS MELVYN B. NATHANSON Abstract. This note shows how iteration of the standard process of adjoining identities and zeros to semigroups gives rise naturally to the lexicographical ordering on the additive semigroups of n-tuples of nonnegative integers and n-tuples of integers. 1. Semigroups with identities and zeros A binary operation ∗ on a set S is associative if (a ∗ b) ∗ c = a ∗ (b ∗ c) for all a,b,c ∈ S. A semigroup is a nonempty set with an associative binary operation ∗. The semigroup is abelian if a ∗ b = b ∗ a for all a,b ∈ S. The trivial semigroup S0 consists of a single element s0 such that s0 ∗ s0 = s0. Theorems about abstract semigroups are, in a sense, theorems about the pure process of multiplication. An element u in a semigroup S is an identity if u ∗ a = a ∗ u = a for all a ∈ S. If u and u′ are identities in a semigroup, then u = u ∗ u′ = u′ and so a semigroup contains at most one identity. A semigroup with an identity is called a monoid. If S is a semigroup that is not a monoid, that is, if S does not contain an identity element, there is a simple process to adjoin an identity to S. Let u be an element not in S and let I(S,u)= S ∪{u}. We extend the binary operation ∗ from S to I(S,u) by defining u ∗ a = a ∗ u = a for all a ∈ S, and u ∗ u = u. Then I(S,u) is a monoid with identity u.
    [Show full text]
  • The General Linear Group
    18.704 Gabe Cunningham 2/18/05 [email protected] The General Linear Group Definition: Let F be a field. Then the general linear group GLn(F ) is the group of invert- ible n × n matrices with entries in F under matrix multiplication. It is easy to see that GLn(F ) is, in fact, a group: matrix multiplication is associative; the identity element is In, the n × n matrix with 1’s along the main diagonal and 0’s everywhere else; and the matrices are invertible by choice. It’s not immediately clear whether GLn(F ) has infinitely many elements when F does. However, such is the case. Let a ∈ F , a 6= 0. −1 Then a · In is an invertible n × n matrix with inverse a · In. In fact, the set of all such × matrices forms a subgroup of GLn(F ) that is isomorphic to F = F \{0}. It is clear that if F is a finite field, then GLn(F ) has only finitely many elements. An interesting question to ask is how many elements it has. Before addressing that question fully, let’s look at some examples. ∼ × Example 1: Let n = 1. Then GLn(Fq) = Fq , which has q − 1 elements. a b Example 2: Let n = 2; let M = ( c d ). Then for M to be invertible, it is necessary and sufficient that ad 6= bc. If a, b, c, and d are all nonzero, then we can fix a, b, and c arbitrarily, and d can be anything but a−1bc. This gives us (q − 1)3(q − 2) matrices.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations I∗
    Lecture 2: Categories, functors, and natural transformations I∗ Nilay Kumar June 4, 2014 (Meta)categories We begin, for the moment, with rather loose definitions, free from the technicalities of set theory. Definition 1. A metagraph consists of objects a; b; c; : : :, arrows f; g; h; : : :, and two operations, as follows. The first is the domain, which assigns to each arrow f an object a = dom f, and the second is the codomain, which assigns to each arrow f an object b = cod f. This is visually indicated by f : a ! b. Definition 2. A metacategory is a metagraph with two additional operations. The first is the identity, which assigns to each object a an arrow Ida = 1a : a ! a. The second is the composition, which assigns to each pair g; f of arrows with dom g = cod f an arrow g ◦ f called their composition, with g ◦ f : dom f ! cod g. This operation may be pictured as b f g a c g◦f We require further that: composition is associative, k ◦ (g ◦ f) = (k ◦ g) ◦ f; (whenever this composition makese sense) or diagrammatically that the diagram k◦(g◦f)=(k◦g)◦f a d k◦g f k g◦f b g c commutes, and that for all arrows f : a ! b and g : b ! c, we have 1b ◦ f = f and g ◦ 1b = g; or diagrammatically that the diagram f a b f g 1b g b c commutes. ∗This talk follows [1] I.1-4 very closely. 1 Recall that a diagram is commutative when, for each pair of vertices c and c0, any two paths formed from direct edges leading from c to c0 yield, by composition of labels, equal arrows from c to c0.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreducible Representations of Finite Monoids
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2019:11 Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Mars 2019 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Contents Introduction 2 Theory 3 Finite monoids and their structure . .3 Introductory notions . .3 Cyclic semigroups . .6 Green’s relations . .7 von Neumann regularity . 10 The theory of an idempotent . 11 The five functors Inde, Coinde, Rese,Te and Ne ..................... 11 Idempotents and simple modules . 14 Irreducible representations of a finite monoid . 17 Monoid algebras . 17 Clifford-Munn-Ponizovski˘ıtheory . 20 Application 24 The symmetric inverse monoid . 24 Calculating the irreducible representations of I3 ........................ 25 Appendix: Prerequisite theory 37 Basic definitions . 37 Finite dimensional algebras . 41 Semisimple modules and algebras . 41 Indecomposable modules . 42 An introduction to idempotents . 42 1 Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Introduction This paper is a literature study of the 2016 book Representation Theory of Finite Monoids by Benjamin Steinberg [3]. As this book contains too much interesting material for a simple master thesis, we have narrowed our attention to chapters 1, 4 and 5. This thesis is divided into three main parts: Theory, Application and Appendix. Within the Theory chapter, we (as the name might suggest) develop the necessary theory to assist with finding irreducible representations of finite monoids. Finite monoids and their structure gives elementary definitions as regards to finite monoids, and expands on the basic theory of their structure. This part corresponds to chapter 1 in [3]. The theory of an idempotent develops just enough theory regarding idempotents to enable us to state a key result, from which the principal result later follows almost immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1
    Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1: A directed set I is a set with a partial order ≤ such that for every i; j 2 I there is k 2 I such that i ≤ k and j ≤ k. Let R be a ring. A directed system of R-modules indexed by I is a collection of R modules fMi j i 2 Ig with a R module homomorphisms µi;j : Mi ! Mj for each pair i; j 2 I where i ≤ j, such that (i) for any i 2 I, µi;i = IdMi and (ii) for any i ≤ j ≤ k in I, µi;j ◦ µj;k = µi;k. We shall denote a directed system by a tuple (Mi; µi;j). The direct limit of a directed system is defined using a universal property. It exists and is unique up to a unique isomorphism. Theorem 2 (Direct limits). Let fMi j i 2 Ig be a directed system of R modules then there exists an R module M with the following properties: (i) There are R module homomorphisms µi : Mi ! M for each i 2 I, satisfying µi = µj ◦ µi;j whenever i < j. (ii) If there is an R module N such that there are R module homomorphisms νi : Mi ! N for each i and νi = νj ◦µi;j whenever i < j; then there exists a unique R module homomorphism ν : M ! N, such that νi = ν ◦ µi. The module M is unique in the sense that if there is any other R module M 0 satisfying properties (i) and (ii) then there is a unique R module isomorphism µ0 : M ! M 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1811.03543V1 [Math.LO]
    PREDICATIVE WELL-ORDERING NIK WEAVER Abstract. Confusion over the predicativist conception of well-ordering per- vades the literature and is responsible for widespread fundamental miscon- ceptions about the nature of predicative reasoning. This short note aims to explain the core fallacy, first noted in [9], and some of its consequences. 1. Predicativism Predicativism arose in the early 20th century as a response to the foundational crisis which resulted from the discovery of the classical paradoxes of naive set theory. It was initially developed in the writings of Poincar´e, Russell, and Weyl. Their central concern had to do with the avoidance of definitions they considered to be circular. Most importantly, they forbade any definition of a real number which involves quantification over all real numbers. This version of predicativism is sometimes called “predicativism given the nat- ural numbers” because there is no similar prohibition against defining a natural number by means of a condition which quantifies over all natural numbers. That is, one accepts N as being “already there” in some sense which is sufficient to void any danger of vicious circularity. In effect, predicativists of this type consider un- countable collections to be proper classes. On the other hand, they regard countable sets and constructions as unproblematic. 2. Second order arithmetic Second order arithmetic, in which one has distinct types of variables for natural numbers (a, b, ...) and for sets of natural numbers (A, B, ...), is thus a good setting for predicative reasoning — predicative given the natural numbers, but I will not keep repeating this. Here it becomes easier to frame the restriction mentioned above in terms of P(N), the power set of N, rather than in terms of R.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Binary Relations and Total Orders
    Learning Binary Relations and Total Orders Sally A Goldman Ronald L Rivest Department of Computer Science MIT Lab oratory for Computer Science Washington University Cambridge MA St Louis MO rivesttheorylcsmitedu sgcswustledu Rob ert E Schapire ATT Bell Lab oratories Murray Hill NJ schapireresearchattcom Abstract We study the problem of learning a binary relation b etween two sets of ob jects or b etween a set and itself We represent a binary relation b etween a set of size n and a set of size m as an n m matrix of bits whose i j entry is if and only if the relation holds b etween the corresp onding elements of the twosetsWe present p olynomial prediction algorithms for learning binary relations in an extended online learning mo del where the examples are drawn by the learner by a helpful teacher by an adversary or according to a uniform probability distribution on the instance space In the rst part of this pap er we present results for the case that the matrix of the relation has at most k rowtyp es We present upp er and lower b ounds on the number of prediction mistakes any prediction algorithm makes when learning such a matrix under the extended online learning mo del Furthermore we describ e a technique that simplies the pro of of exp ected mistake b ounds against a randomly chosen query sequence In the second part of this pap er we consider the problem of learning a binary re lation that is a total order on a set We describ e a general technique using a fully p olynomial randomized approximation scheme fpras to implement a randomized
    [Show full text]
  • Steps in the Representation of Concept Lattices and Median Graphs Alain Gély, Miguel Couceiro, Laurent Miclet, Amedeo Napoli
    Steps in the Representation of Concept Lattices and Median Graphs Alain Gély, Miguel Couceiro, Laurent Miclet, Amedeo Napoli To cite this version: Alain Gély, Miguel Couceiro, Laurent Miclet, Amedeo Napoli. Steps in the Representation of Concept Lattices and Median Graphs. CLA 2020 - 15th International Conference on Concept Lattices and Their Applications, Sadok Ben Yahia; Francisco José Valverde Albacete; Martin Trnecka, Jun 2020, Tallinn, Estonia. pp.1-11. hal-02912312 HAL Id: hal-02912312 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-02912312 Submitted on 5 Aug 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Steps in the Representation of Concept Lattices and Median Graphs Alain Gély1, Miguel Couceiro2, Laurent Miclet3, and Amedeo Napoli2 1 Université de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, F-57000 Metz, France 2 Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Inria, LORIA, F-54000 Nancy, France 3 Univ Rennes, CNRS, IRISA, Rue de Kérampont, 22300 Lannion, France {alain.gely,miguel.couceiro,amedeo.napoli}@loria.fr Abstract. Median semilattices have been shown to be useful for deal- ing with phylogenetic classication problems since they subsume me- dian graphs, distributive lattices as well as other tree based classica- tion structures. Median semilattices can be thought of as distributive _-semilattices that satisfy the following property (TRI): for every triple x; y; z, if x ^ y, y ^ z and x ^ z exist, then x ^ y ^ z also exists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Embedding Orders Into Small Products of Chains Olivier Raynaud, Eric Thierry
    The complexity of embedding orders into small products of chains Olivier Raynaud, Eric Thierry To cite this version: Olivier Raynaud, Eric Thierry. The complexity of embedding orders into small products of chains. 2008. hal-00261826 HAL Id: hal-00261826 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00261826 Preprint submitted on 10 Mar 2008 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THE COMPLEXITY OF EMBEDDING ORDERS INTO SMALL PRODUCTS OF CHAINS. 1 2 O. RAYNAUD AND E. THIERRY 1 LIMOS, Universit´e Blaise Pascal, Campus des C´ezeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, France. E-mail address: [email protected] 2 LIAFA, Universit´e Paris 7 & LIP, ENS Lyon, France. E-mail address: [email protected] Abstract. Embedding a partially ordered set into a product of chains is a classical way to encode it. Such encodings have been used in various fields such as object oriented programming or distributed computing. The embedding associates with each element a sequence of integers which is used to perform comparisons between elements. A critical measure is the space required by the encoding, and several authors have investigated ways to minimize it, which comes to embedding partially ordered sets into small products of chains.
    [Show full text]