DOCSLIB.ORG

Sets and Functions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sets and Functions Sets and functions 1 Sets The language of sets and functions pervades mathematics, and most of the important operations in mathematics turn out to be functions or to be ex- pressible in terms of functions. We will not define what a set is, but take as a basic (undefined) term the idea of a set X and of membership x 2 X (x is an element of X). The negation of x 2 X is x2 = X: x is not an element of X. Typically, the elements of a set will themselves be sets, underscoring the point that, in mathematics, everything is a set. A set can be described (i) as a list fx1; : : : ; xng or (ii) by giving a description of its elements, e.g. the set of positive real numbers is described via fx 2 R : x > 0g; where R denotes the set of all real numbers. A very important set is the empty set ;: for all x, x2 = X. Thus ; has no elements. Two sets X and Y are by definition equal if they have the same elements: X = Y if, for all x, x 2 X () x 2 Y . We can say this somewhat informally as follows: a set is uniquely specified by its elements. This implies by logic that ; is uniquely specified by the condition that, for all x, x2 = X: there is exactly one empty set. If, for every x 2 X; x 2 Y , then X is a subset of Y , written X ⊆ Y . Note that we always have X ⊆ X and ; ⊆ X. A subset A of X is called a proper subset if A 6= X. By the definition of equality of sets, X = Y () X ⊆ Y and Y ⊆ X. If X ⊆ Y and Y ⊆ Z, then X ⊆ Z; this is called the transitivity property. The notation X ⊂ Y is sometimes used to mean that X ⊆ Y but X 6= Y . A set of the form X = fx1; : : : ; xng is a finite set. If for all i; j with 1 ≤ i; j ≤ n, we have xi 6= xj then we write #(X) = n. By logic or convention, ; is finite and #(;) = 0. Conversely, if X is a (finite) set with #(X) = 0, then X = ;. A set of the form fxg has exactly one element. In particular, f;g has a single element, namely ;, and thus f;g 6= ;. Recall the standard operations on sets: 1 Definition 1.1. If X1 and X2 are two sets, then: 1. The union of X1 and X2 is the set X1 [ X2 = fx : x 2 X1 or x 2 X2g: Thus X1 ⊆ (X1 [X2) and X2 ⊆ (X1 [X2). The union of finitely many sets is defined similarly: If X1;:::;Xn are sets, then n [ Xi = fx : for some i, x 2 Xig: i=1 2. The intersection of X1 and X2 is: X1 \ X2 = fx : x 2 X1 and x 2 X2g: Thus (X1 \ X2) ⊆ X1 and (X1 \ X2) ⊆ X2. Likewise n \ Xi = fx : for all i, x 2 Xig: i=1 3. Given two sets X1 and X2, the complement of X2 in X1, written X1 − X2, is the set fx 2 X1 : x2 = X2g: Thus X2 \ (X1 − X2) = ;. If X2 ⊆ X1, then X2 [ (X1 − X2) = X1. For example, X − X = ; and X − ; = X. By logic (deMorgan's laws), Y − (X1 \ X2) = (Y − X1) [ (Y − X2) and Y − (X1 [ X2) = (Y − X1) \ (Y − X2). (For example, if x 2 Y; x2 = X1 \ X2, then either x2 = X1 or x2 = X2 and conversely.) Definition 1.2. Given X and Y , we define X ×Y , the Cartesian product of X and Y , to be the set of ordered pairs (x; y) with x 2 X and y 2 Y . Here x is the first component or first coordinate of the ordered pair (x; y) and y is the second component (or coordinate). Clearly, if A ⊆ X and B ⊆ Y , then A × B ⊆ X × Y . If X = Y , we abbreviate X × X by X2. Likewise, if we have n sets X1;:::;Xn, then X1 × · · · × Xn is the set of ordered n-tuples (x1; : : : ; xn) th with xi 2 Xi for every i, the i component (or coordinate) of (x1; : : : ; xn) n is xi, and we again abbreviate X × · · · × X (n times) by X . 2 Remark 1.3. The operative properties of an ordered pair (x; y) are: 1) For all x 2 X and y 2 Y , there exists an ordered pair (x; y) 2 X × Y , and 2) two ordered pairs (x1; y2) and (x2; y2) are equal () they have the same first components and the same second components, i.e. () x1 = x2 and y1 = y2; it is not enough to require that the sets fx1; y1g and fx2; y2g be equal. It is possible to give a formal definition of an ordered pair just using set theory. In fact, one can define (x; y) = ffxg; fx; ygg. (In other words, ordered pair does not have to be an undefined term.) However, we shall not really care what the precise definition is, but only that an ordered pair has the operative properties 1) and 2) above. Using functions, though, we can give a careful definition of an ordered n-tuple; we shall describe this later. If X and Y are finite sets, then X × Y is also finite, and #(X × Y ) = #(X)#(Y ); and similarly for the product of n finite sets X1 × · · · × Xn. In particular, this formula says that #(; × X) = #(X × ;) = 0 for every (finite) set X and hence that, if X is finite, then ; × X = X × ; = ;. Of course, it is easy to check by logic that ; × X = X × ; = ; for every set X (not necessarily finite). The set of all subsets of X is also a set, and is called the power set of X, often denoted P(X): P(X) = fA : A ⊆ Xg: By the transitivity property, if Y ⊆ X, then P(Y ) is a subset of P(X). Note that X 2 P(X) and that ; 2 P(X). If X 6= ; and x 2 X, then fxg 2 P(X). Examples: P(;) = f;g. In particular, P(;) 6= ;; in fact, P(;) contains the unique element ;, and thus #(P(;)) = 1. Likewise, P(P(;)) = P(f;g) = f;; f;gg. In particular, #(P(P(;))) = 2. Likewise, P(f;; f;gg) = f;; f;g; ff;gg; f;; f;ggg; and hence #(P(f;; f;gg)) = 4: More generally, we shall see that, if X is a finite set and #(X) = n, then #(P(X)) = 2n. 2 Functions Next we define a function f : X ! Y . Although we can think of a function as a \rule" which assigns to every x 2 X a unique y 2 Y , it is easier to make 3 this concept precise by identifying the function f with its graph in X × Y (as we were taught not to do in calculus). Thus a function f is the same thing as a subset Gf of X × Y with the following property: for all x 2 X, there is a unique y 2 Y such that (x; y) 2 Gf and we set y = f(x). To say that there is a unique y 2 Y says that f(x) is uniquely determined by x, and to say that for every x 2 X there exists an (x; y) 2 Gf says that in fact f(x) is defined for all x 2 X. This is the so-called vertical line test: for each x 2 X, we have the subset fxg × Y of X × Y . (In case X = Y = R, such subsets are exactly the vertical lines.) Then G is the graph of a function f if and only if, for every x 2 X,(fxg × Y ) \ G consists of exactly one point, necessarily of the form (x; y) for some y 2 Y . The unique such y is then f(x). In the above notation, we call X the domain of f and Y the range. Thus the domain and range are a part of the information of a function. Note that a function must be defined at all elements of its domain; thus for example the function f(x) = 1=x cannot have domain R without assigning some value to f(0). (This is in contrast to the practice in some calculus courses where f is allowed to be not everywhere defined.) Two functions f1 and f2 are equal if and only if their graphs are equal, if and only if, for all x 2 X, f1(x) = f2(x). Thus, just as a set is specified by its elements, a function is uniquely specified by its values. We emphasize, though, that for two functions f1 and f2 to be equal, they must have the same domain and range. We shall use the word map or mapping as a synonym for function; typically maps are functions in some kind of geometric setting. Definition 2.1. Let f : X ! Y be a function. The set fy 2 Y : there exists x 2 X such that f(x) = yg is called the image of f and is sometimes written f(X). (Sometimes people call the range the codomain and define the range to be the image.) More generally, if A is a subset of X, then we set f(A) = fy 2 Y : there exists an x 2 A such that f(x) = yg: We say that f is surjective or onto if f(X) = Y , in other words if the image of f is Y . In general the image of a function f(x) will be a subset of the range, but need not equal the range.
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]
  • 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]
  • The Matrix Calculus You Need for Deep Learning
    The Matrix Calculus You Need For Deep Learning Terence Parr and Jeremy Howard July 3, 2018 (We teach in University of San Francisco's MS in Data Science program and have other nefarious projects underway. You might know Terence as the creator of the ANTLR parser generator. For more material, see Jeremy's fast.ai courses and University of San Francisco's Data Institute in- person version of the deep learning course.) HTML version (The PDF and HTML were generated from markup using bookish) Abstract This paper is an attempt to explain all the matrix calculus you need in order to understand the training of deep neural networks. We assume no math knowledge beyond what you learned in calculus 1, and provide links to help you refresh the necessary math where needed. Note that you do not need to understand this material before you start learning to train and use deep learning in practice; rather, this material is for those who are already familiar with the basics of neural networks, and wish to deepen their understanding of the underlying math. Don't worry if you get stuck at some point along the way|just go back and reread the previous section, and try writing down and working through some examples. And if you're still stuck, we're happy to answer your questions in the Theory category at forums.fast.ai. Note: There is a reference section at the end of the paper summarizing all the key matrix calculus rules and terminology discussed here. arXiv:1802.01528v3 [cs.LG] 2 Jul 2018 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Review: Scalar derivative rules4 3 Introduction to vector calculus and partial derivatives5 4 Matrix calculus 6 4.1 Generalization of the Jacobian .
    [Show full text]
  • IVC Factsheet Functions Comp Inverse
    Imperial Valley College Math Lab Functions: Composition and Inverse Functions FUNCTION COMPOSITION In order to perform a composition of functions, it is essential to be familiar with function notation. If you see something of the form “푓(푥) = [expression in terms of x]”, this means that whatever you see in the parentheses following f should be substituted for x in the expression. This can include numbers, variables, other expressions, and even other functions. EXAMPLE: 푓(푥) = 4푥2 − 13푥 푓(2) = 4 ∙ 22 − 13(2) 푓(−9) = 4(−9)2 − 13(−9) 푓(푎) = 4푎2 − 13푎 푓(푐3) = 4(푐3)2 − 13푐3 푓(ℎ + 5) = 4(ℎ + 5)2 − 13(ℎ + 5) Etc. A composition of functions occurs when one function is “plugged into” another function. The notation (푓 ○푔)(푥) is pronounced “푓 of 푔 of 푥”, and it literally means 푓(푔(푥)). In other words, you “plug” the 푔(푥) function into the 푓(푥) function. Similarly, (푔 ○푓)(푥) is pronounced “푔 of 푓 of 푥”, and it literally means 푔(푓(푥)). In other words, you “plug” the 푓(푥) function into the 푔(푥) function. WARNING: Be careful not to confuse (푓 ○푔)(푥) with (푓 ∙ 푔)(푥), which means 푓(푥) ∙ 푔(푥) . EXAMPLES: 푓(푥) = 4푥2 − 13푥 푔(푥) = 2푥 + 1 a. (푓 ○푔)(푥) = 푓(푔(푥)) = 4[푔(푥)]2 − 13 ∙ 푔(푥) = 4(2푥 + 1)2 − 13(2푥 + 1) = [푠푚푝푙푓푦] … = 16푥2 − 10푥 − 9 b. (푔 ○푓)(푥) = 푔(푓(푥)) = 2 ∙ 푓(푥) + 1 = 2(4푥2 − 13푥) + 1 = 8푥2 − 26푥 + 1 A function can even be “composed” with itself: c.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • The Logic of Recursive Equations Author(S): A
    The Logic of Recursive Equations Author(s): A. J. C. Hurkens, Monica McArthur, Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Lawrence S. Moss, Glen T. Whitney Source: The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 451-478 Published by: Association for Symbolic Logic Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2586843 . Accessed: 19/09/2011 22:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Association for Symbolic Logic is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Symbolic Logic. http://www.jstor.org THE JOURNAL OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC Volume 63, Number 2, June 1998 THE LOGIC OF RECURSIVE EQUATIONS A. J. C. HURKENS, MONICA McARTHUR, YIANNIS N. MOSCHOVAKIS, LAWRENCE S. MOSS, AND GLEN T. WHITNEY Abstract. We study logical systems for reasoning about equations involving recursive definitions. In particular, we are interested in "propositional" fragments of the functional language of recursion FLR [18, 17], i.e., without the value passing or abstraction allowed in FLR. The 'pure," propositional fragment FLRo turns out to coincide with the iteration theories of [1]. Our main focus here concerns the sharp contrast between the simple class of valid identities and the very complex consequence relation over several natural classes of models.
    [Show full text]
  • Enumeration of Finite Automata 1 Z(A) = 1
    INFOI~MATION AND CONTROL 10, 499-508 (1967) Enumeration of Finite Automata 1 FRANK HARARY AND ED PALMER Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Harary ( 1960, 1964), in a survey of 27 unsolved problems in graphical enumeration, asked for the number of different finite automata. Re- cently, Harrison (1965) solved this problem, but without considering automata with initial and final states. With the aid of the Power Group Enumeration Theorem (Harary and Palmer, 1965, 1966) the entire problem can be handled routinely. The method involves a confrontation of several different operations on permutation groups. To set the stage, we enumerate ordered pairs of functions with respect to the product of two power groups. Finite automata are then concisely defined as certain ordered pah's of functions. We review the enumeration of automata in the natural setting of the power group, and then extend this result to enumerate automata with initial and terminal states. I. ENUMERATION THEOREM For completeness we require a number of definitions, which are now given. Let A be a permutation group of order m = ]A I and degree d acting on the set X = Ix1, x~, -.. , xa}. The cycle index of A, denoted Z(A), is defined as follows. Let jk(a) be the number of cycles of length k in the disjoint cycle decomposition of any permutation a in A. Let al, a2, ... , aa be variables. Then the cycle index, which is a poly- nomial in the variables a~, is given by d Z(A) = 1_ ~ H ~,~(°~ . (1) ~$ a EA k=l We sometimes write Z(A; al, as, ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications
    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS KEVIN BARNUM Abstract. In this paper we will look at the Axiom of Choice and some of the various implications it has. These implications include a number of equivalent statements, and also some less accepted ideas. The proofs discussed will give us an idea of why the Axiom of Choice is so powerful, but also so controversial. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The Axiom of Choice and Its Equivalents 1 2.1. The Axiom of Choice and its Well-known Equivalents 1 2.2. Some Other Less Well-known Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice 3 3. Applications of the Axiom of Choice 5 3.1. Equivalence Between The Axiom of Choice and the Claim that Every Vector Space has a Basis 5 3.2. Some More Applications of the Axiom of Choice 6 4. Controversial Results 10 Acknowledgments 11 References 11 1. Introduction The Axiom of Choice states that for any family of nonempty disjoint sets, there exists a set that consists of exactly one element from each element of the family. It seems strange at first that such an innocuous sounding idea can be so powerful and controversial, but it certainly is both. To understand why, we will start by looking at some statements that are equivalent to the axiom of choice. Many of these equivalences are very useful, and we devote much time to one, namely, that every vector space has a basis. We go on from there to see a few more applications of the Axiom of Choice and its equivalents, and finish by looking at some of the reasons why the Axiom of Choice is so controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 Axiom of Choice
    Math 361 Axiom of Choice 17 Axiom of Choice De¯nition 17.1. Let be a nonempty set of nonempty sets. Then a choice function for is a function f sucFh that f(S) S for all S . F 2 2 F Example 17.2. Let = (N)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f by F P f;g f(S) = the least element of S: Example 17.3. Let = (Z)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f by F P f;g f(S) = ²n where n = min z z S and, if n = 0, ² = min z= z z = n; z S . fj j j 2 g 6 f j j j j j 2 g Example 17.4. Let = (Q)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f as follows. F P f;g Let g : Q N be an injection. Then ! f(S) = q where g(q) = min g(r) r S . f j 2 g Example 17.5. Let = (R)r . Then it is impossible to explicitly de¯ne a choice function for . F P f;g F Axiom 17.6 (Axiom of Choice (AC)). For every set of nonempty sets, there exists a function f such that f(S) S for all S . F 2 2 F We say that f is a choice function for . F Theorem 17.7 (AC). If A; B are non-empty sets, then the following are equivalent: (a) A B ¹ (b) There exists a surjection g : B A. ! Proof. (a) (b) Suppose that A B.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Construction of a Set Theory in Coq
    Saarland University Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology I Department of Computer Science Masters Thesis Formal Construction of a Set Theory in Coq submitted by Jonas Kaiser on November 23, 2012 Supervisor Prof. Dr. Gert Smolka Advisor Dr. Chad E. Brown Reviewers Prof. Dr. Gert Smolka Dr. Chad E. Brown Eidesstattliche Erklarung¨ Ich erklare¨ hiermit an Eides Statt, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbststandig¨ verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Statement in Lieu of an Oath I hereby confirm that I have written this thesis on my own and that I have not used any other media or materials than the ones referred to in this thesis. Einverstandniserkl¨ arung¨ Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass meine (bestandene) Arbeit in beiden Versionen in die Bibliothek der Informatik aufgenommen und damit vero¨ffentlicht wird. Declaration of Consent I agree to make both versions of my thesis (with a passing grade) accessible to the public by having them added to the library of the Computer Science Department. Saarbrucken,¨ (Datum/Date) (Unterschrift/Signature) iii Acknowledgements First of all I would like to express my sincerest gratitude towards my advisor, Chad Brown, who supported me throughout this work. His extensive knowledge and insights opened my eyes to the beauty of axiomatic set theory and foundational mathematics. We spent many hours discussing the minute details of the various constructions and he taught me the importance of mathematical rigour. Equally important was the support of my supervisor, Prof. Smolka, who first introduced me to the topic and was there whenever a question arose.
    [Show full text]