DOCSLIB.ORG

(Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics 1 (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics 1. Review of Preorders Carl Pollard Linguistics 680: Formal Foundations Autumn 2010 Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics An antisymmetric preorder is called an order. The equivalence relation ≡ induced by the preorder is defined by a ≡ b iff a v b and b v a. If v is an order, then ≡ is just the identity relation on A, and correspondingly v is read as `less than or equal to'. (Pre-)Orders and Induced Equivalence A preorder on a set A is a binary relation v (`less than or equivalent to') on A which is reflexive and transitive. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics The equivalence relation ≡ induced by the preorder is defined by a ≡ b iff a v b and b v a. If v is an order, then ≡ is just the identity relation on A, and correspondingly v is read as `less than or equal to'. (Pre-)Orders and Induced Equivalence A preorder on a set A is a binary relation v (`less than or equivalent to') on A which is reflexive and transitive. An antisymmetric preorder is called an order. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics If v is an order, then ≡ is just the identity relation on A, and correspondingly v is read as `less than or equal to'. (Pre-)Orders and Induced Equivalence A preorder on a set A is a binary relation v (`less than or equivalent to') on A which is reflexive and transitive. An antisymmetric preorder is called an order. The equivalence relation ≡ induced by the preorder is defined by a ≡ b iff a v b and b v a. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics (Pre-)Orders and Induced Equivalence A preorder on a set A is a binary relation v (`less than or equivalent to') on A which is reflexive and transitive. An antisymmetric preorder is called an order. The equivalence relation ≡ induced by the preorder is defined by a ≡ b iff a v b and b v a. If v is an order, then ≡ is just the identity relation on A, and correspondingly v is read as `less than or equal to'. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics ≡ is the induced equivalence relation S ⊆ A a 2 A (not necessarily 2 S) Background Assumptions (until further notice) v is a preorder on A Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics S ⊆ A a 2 A (not necessarily 2 S) Background Assumptions (until further notice) v is a preorder on A ≡ is the induced equivalence relation Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics a 2 A (not necessarily 2 S) Background Assumptions (until further notice) v is a preorder on A ≡ is the induced equivalence relation S ⊆ A Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics Background Assumptions (until further notice) v is a preorder on A ≡ is the induced equivalence relation S ⊆ A a 2 A (not necessarily 2 S) Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics Suppose moreover that a 2 S. Then a is said to be: greatest (least) in S iff it is an upper (lower) bound of S a top (bottom) iff it is greatest (least) in A maximal (minimal) in S iff, for every b 2 S, if a v b (b v a), then a ≡ b. Note: the definition of greatest/least above is equivalent to the one in Chapter 3. More Definitions We call a an upper (lower) bound of S iff, for every b 2 S, b v a (a v b). Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics a top (bottom) iff it is greatest (least) in A maximal (minimal) in S iff, for every b 2 S, if a v b (b v a), then a ≡ b. Note: the definition of greatest/least above is equivalent to the one in Chapter 3. More Definitions We call a an upper (lower) bound of S iff, for every b 2 S, b v a (a v b). Suppose moreover that a 2 S. Then a is said to be: greatest (least) in S iff it is an upper (lower) bound of S Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics maximal (minimal) in S iff, for every b 2 S, if a v b (b v a), then a ≡ b. Note: the definition of greatest/least above is equivalent to the one in Chapter 3. More Definitions We call a an upper (lower) bound of S iff, for every b 2 S, b v a (a v b). Suppose moreover that a 2 S. Then a is said to be: greatest (least) in S iff it is an upper (lower) bound of S a top (bottom) iff it is greatest (least) in A Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics Note: the definition of greatest/least above is equivalent to the one in Chapter 3. More Definitions We call a an upper (lower) bound of S iff, for every b 2 S, b v a (a v b). Suppose moreover that a 2 S. Then a is said to be: greatest (least) in S iff it is an upper (lower) bound of S a top (bottom) iff it is greatest (least) in A maximal (minimal) in S iff, for every b 2 S, if a v b (b v a), then a ≡ b. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics More Definitions We call a an upper (lower) bound of S iff, for every b 2 S, b v a (a v b). Suppose moreover that a 2 S. Then a is said to be: greatest (least) in S iff it is an upper (lower) bound of S a top (bottom) iff it is greatest (least) in A maximal (minimal) in S iff, for every b 2 S, if a v b (b v a), then a ≡ b. Note: the definition of greatest/least above is equivalent to the one in Chapter 3. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics All greatest (least) members of S are equivalent. And so all tops (bottoms) of A are equivalent. And so if v is an order, S has at most one greatest (least) member, and A has at most one top (bottom). Observations If a is greatest (least) in S, it is maximal (minimal) in S. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics And so all tops (bottoms) of A are equivalent. And so if v is an order, S has at most one greatest (least) member, and A has at most one top (bottom). Observations If a is greatest (least) in S, it is maximal (minimal) in S. All greatest (least) members of S are equivalent. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics And so if v is an order, S has at most one greatest (least) member, and A has at most one top (bottom). Observations If a is greatest (least) in S, it is maximal (minimal) in S. All greatest (least) members of S are equivalent. And so all tops (bottoms) of A are equivalent. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics Observations If a is greatest (least) in S, it is maximal (minimal) in S. All greatest (least) members of S are equivalent. And so all tops (bottoms) of A are equivalent. And so if v is an order, S has at most one greatest (least) member, and A has at most one top (bottom). Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics A greatest member of LB(S) is called a greatest lower bound (glb) of S. LUBs and GLBs Let UB(S) (LB(S)) be the set of upper (lower) bounds of S. A least member of UB(S) is called a least upper bound (lub) of S. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics LUBs and GLBs Let UB(S) (LB(S)) be the set of upper (lower) bounds of S. A least member of UB(S) is called a least upper bound (lub) of S. A greatest member of LB(S) is called a greatest lower bound (glb) of S. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics All lubs (glbs) of S are equivalent. If v is an order, then S has at most one lub (glb). A lub (glb) of A is the same thing as a top (bottom). A lub (glb) of ; is the same thing as a bottom (top). More about LUBs and GLBs Any greatest (least) member of S is a lub (glb) of S. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics If v is an order, then S has at most one lub (glb). A lub (glb) of A is the same thing as a top (bottom). A lub (glb) of ; is the same thing as a bottom (top). More about LUBs and GLBs Any greatest (least) member of S is a lub (glb) of S. All lubs (glbs) of S are equivalent. Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics A lub (glb) of A is the same thing as a top (bottom). A lub (glb) of ; is the same thing as a bottom (top). More about LUBs and GLBs Any greatest (least) member of S is a lub (glb) of S. All lubs (glbs) of S are equivalent. If v is an order, then S has at most one lub (glb). Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics A lub (glb) of ; is the same thing as a bottom (top). More about LUBs and GLBs Any greatest (least) member of S is a lub (glb) of S. All lubs (glbs) of S are equivalent. If v is an order, then S has at most one lub (glb). A lub (glb) of A is the same thing as a top (bottom). Carl Pollard (Pre-)Algebras for Linguistics More about LUBs and GLBs Any greatest (least) member of S is a lub (glb) of S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A “Three-Sentence Proof” of Hansson's Theorem
    Econ Theory Bull (2018) 6:111–114 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40505-017-0127-2 RESEARCH ARTICLE A “three-sentence proof” of Hansson’s theorem Henrik Petri1 Received: 18 July 2017 / Accepted: 28 August 2017 / Published online: 5 September 2017 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract We provide a new proof of Hansson’s theorem: every preorder has a com- plete preorder extending it. The proof boils down to showing that the lexicographic order extends the Pareto order. Keywords Ordering extension theorem · Lexicographic order · Pareto order · Preferences JEL Classification C65 · D01 1 Introduction Two extensively studied binary relations in economics are the Pareto order and the lexicographic order. It is a well-known fact that the latter relation is an ordering exten- sion of the former. For instance, in Petri and Voorneveld (2016), an essential ingredient is Lemma 3.1, which roughly speaking requires the order under consideration to be an extension of the Pareto order. The main message of this short note is that some fundamental order extension theorems can be reduced to this basic fact. An advantage of the approach is that it seems less abstract than conventional proofs and hence may offer a pedagogical advantage in terms of exposition. Mandler (2015) gives an elegant proof of Spzilrajn’s theorem (1930) that stresses the importance of the lexicographic I thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments. Financial support by the Wallander–Hedelius Foundation under Grant P2014-0189:1 is gratefully acknowledged. B Henrik Petri [email protected] 1 Department of Finance, Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501, 113 83 Stockholm, Sweden 123 112 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Linear Rewriting Systems: Link with Parallel Rewriting And
    Strategies for linear rewriting systems: link with parallel rewriting and involutive divisions Cyrille Chenavier∗ Maxime Lucas† Abstract We study rewriting systems whose underlying set of terms is equipped with a vector space structure over a given field. We introduce parallel rewriting relations, which are rewriting relations compatible with the vector space structure, as well as rewriting strategies, which consist in choosing one rewriting step for each reducible basis element of the vector space. Using these notions, we introduce the S-confluence property and show that it implies confluence. We deduce a proof of the diamond lemma, based on strategies. We illustrate our general framework with rewriting systems over rational Weyl algebras, that are vector spaces over a field of rational functions. In particular, we show that involutive divisions induce rewriting strategies over rational Weyl algebras, and using the S-confluence property, we show that involutive sets induce confluent rewriting systems over rational Weyl algebras. Keywords: confluence, parallel rewriting, rewriting strategies, involutive divisions. M.S.C 2010 - Primary: 13N10, 68Q42. Secondary: 12H05, 35A25. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Rewriting strategies over vector spaces 4 2.1 Confluence relative to a strategy . .......... 4 2.2 Strategies for traditional rewriting relations . .................. 7 3 Rewriting strategies over rational Weyl algebras 10 3.1 Rewriting systems over rational Weyl algebras . ............... 10 3.2 Involutive divisions and strategies . .............. 12 arXiv:2005.05764v2 [cs.LO] 7 Jul 2020 4 Conclusion and perspectives 15 1 Introduction Rewriting systems are computational models given by a set of syntactic expressions and transformation rules used to simplify expressions into equivalent ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Bijective Link Between Chapoton's New Intervals and Bipartite Planar Maps
    Bijective link between Chapoton’s new intervals and bipartite planar maps Wenjie Fang* LIGM, Univ. Gustave Eiffel, CNRS, ESIEE Paris F-77454 Marne-la-Vallée, France June 18, 2021 Abstract In 2006, Chapoton defined a class of Tamari intervals called “new intervals” in his enumeration of Tamari intervals, and he found that these new intervals are equi- enumerated with bipartite planar maps. We present here a direct bijection between these two classes of objects using a new object called “degree tree”. Our bijection also gives an intuitive proof of an unpublished equi-distribution result of some statistics on new intervals given by Chapoton and Fusy. 1 Introduction On classical Catalan objects, such as Dyck paths and binary trees, we can define the famous Tamari lattice, first proposed by Dov Tamari [Tam62]. This partial order was later found woven into the fabric of other more sophisticated objects. A no- table example is diagonal coinvariant spaces [BPR12, BCP], which have led to several generalizations of the Tamari lattice [BPR12, PRV17], and also incited the interest in intervals in such Tamari-like lattices. Recently, there is a surge of interest in the enu- arXiv:2001.04723v2 [math.CO] 16 Jun 2021 meration [Cha06, BMFPR11, CP15, FPR17] and the structure [BB09, Fan17, Cha18] of different families of Tamari-like intervals. In particular, several bijective rela- tions were found between various families of Tamari-like intervals and planar maps [BB09, FPR17, Fan18]. The current work is a natural extension of this line of research. In [Cha06], other than counting Tamari intervals, Chapoton also introduced a subclass of Tamari intervals called new intervals, which are irreducible elements in a grafting construction of intervals.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordered Sets
    Ordered Sets Motivation When we build theories in political science, we assume that political agents seek the best element in an appropriate set of feasible alternatives. Voters choose their favorite candidate from those listed on the ballot. Citizens may choose between exit and voice when unsatisfied with their government. Consequently, political science theory requires that we can rank alternatives and identify the best element in various sets of choices. Sets whose elements can be ranked are called ordered sets. They are the subject of this lecture. Relations Given two sets A and B, a binary relation is a subset R ⊂ A × B. We use the notation (a; b) 2 R or more often aRb to denote the relation R holding for an ordered pair (a; b). This is read \a is in the relation R to b." If R ⊂ A × A, we say that R is a relation on A. Example. Let A = fAustin, Des Moines, Harrisburgg and let B = fTexas, Iowa, Pennsylvaniag. Then the relation R = f(Austin, Texas), (Des Moines, Iowa), (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)g expresses the relation \is the capital of." Example. Let A = fa; b; cg. The relation R = f(a; b); (a; c); (b; c)g expresses the relation \occurs earlier in the alphabet than." We read aRb as \a occurs earlier in the alphabet than b." 1 Properties of Binary Relations A relation R on a nonempty set X is reflexive if xRx for each x 2 X complete if xRy or yRx for all x; y 2 X symmetric if for any x; y 2 X, xRy implies yRx antisymmetric if for any x; y 2 X, xRy and yRx imply x = y transitive if xRy and yRz imply xRz for any x; y; z 2 X Any relation which is reflexive and transitive is called a preorder.
    [Show full text]
  • TAXOTOPY THEORY of POSETS I: VAN KAMPEN THEOREMS 3 of the Category Are Unique
    TAXOTOPY THEORY OF POSETS I: VAN KAMPEN THEOREMS AMIT KUBER AND DAVID WILDING Abstract. Given functors F,G ∶C→D between small categories, when is it possible to say that F can be “continuously deformed” into G in a manner that is not necessarily reversible? In an attempt to answer this question in purely category-theoretic language, we use adjunctions to define a ‘taxotopy’ preorder ⪯ on the set of functors C →D, and combine this data into a ‘fundamental poset’ (Λ(C, D), ⪯). The main objects of study in this paper are the fundamental posets Λ(1,P ) and Λ(Z,P ) for a poset P , where 1 is the singleton poset and Z is the ordered set of integers; they encode the data about taxotopy of points and chains of P respectively. Borrowing intuition from homotopy theory, we show that a suitable cone construction produces ‘null-taxotopic’ posets and prove two forms of van Kampen theorem for computing fundamental posets via covers of posets. 1. Introduction and Motivation Let Cat, Pos and Pre denote the categories of small categories and functors, posets and monotone maps, and preorders and monotone maps respectively. Also let Top, SimpComp denote the category of topological spaces and continuous func- tions, simplicial complexes and simplicial maps respectively. One can think of a small category as a topological space via the classifying space functor B ∶ Cat → Top (see [15, §IV.3]), and thus adjectives like connected, homotopy equivalent etc., attributed to topological spaces can also be used for categories. For the full subcategory Pos of Cat, this classifying space functor factors through SimpComp, for given P ∈ Pos, the space BP is the geometric realization of the order complex, ∆(P ), which is a simplicial complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1111.1390V1
    On extension of partial orders to total preorders with prescribed symmetric part1 Dmitry V. Akopian and Valentin V. Gorokhovik Institute of Mathematics, The National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Surganova st., 11, Minsk 220072, Belarus e-mail: [email protected] Abstract For a partial order on a set X and an equivalency relation S defined on the same set X we derive a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a total preorder on X whose asymmetric part contains the asymmetric part of the given partial order and whose symmetric part coincides with the given equivalence relation S. This result generalizes the classical Szpilrajn theorem on extension of a partial order to a perfect (linear) order. Key words partial order, preorder, extension, Szpilrajn theorem, Dushnik-Miller theorem. MSC 2010 Primary: 06A06 Secondary: 06A05, 91B08 Let X be an arbitrary nonempty set and let G ⊂ X × X be a binary relation on X. A binary relation G ⊂ X × X is called a preorder if it is reflexive ( (x, x) ∈ G ∀ x ∈ X ) and transitive ( (x, y) ∈ G, (y, z) ∈ G ⇒ (x, z) ∈ G ∀ x,y,z ∈ X ). If in addition a preorder G ∈ X × X is antisymmetric ( (x, y) ∈ G, (y, x) ∈ G ⇒ x = y ∀ x,y ∈ X ), then it is called a partial order. A total partial order is called a perfect (or linear) order. (A binary relation G ⊂ X × X is total if for any x, y ∈ X either (x, y) ∈ G or (y, x) ∈ G holds.) In the sequel, a preorder will be preferably denoted by the symbol - whereas a partial order as well as a perfect order by the symbol .
    [Show full text]
  • A Non-Topological View of Dcpos As Convergence Spaces
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Theoretical Computer Science 305 (2003) 159–186 www.elsevier.com/locate/tcs A non-topological view of dcpos as convergence spaces Reinhold Heckmann∗;1 AbsInt Angewandte Informatik GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 69, D-66123Saarbr ucken,! Germany Abstract The category TOP of topological spaces is not cartesian closed, but can be embedded into the cartesian closed category CONV of convergence spaces. It is well known that the category DCPO of dcpos and Scott continuous functions can be embedded into TOP, and so into CONV, by considering the Scott topology. We propose a di3erent, “cotopological” embedding of DCPO into CONV, which, in contrast to the topological embedding, preserves products. If X is a cotopological dcpo, i.e. a dcpo with the cotopological CONV-structure, and Y is a topological space, then [X → Y ] is again topological, and conversely, if X is a topological space, and Y a cotopological complete lattice, then [X → Y ] is again a cotopological complete lattice. For a dcpo D, the topological and the cotopological convergence structures coincide if and only if D is a continuous dcpo. Moreover, cotopological dcpos still enjoy some of the properties which characterise continuous dcpos. For instance, all cotopological complete lattices are injective spaces (in CONV) w.r.t. topological subspace embeddings. c 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Domains; Topology; Convergence spaces; Function spaces 1. Introduction It is well known that the category DCPO of dcpos and Scott continuous functions can be embedded into TOP, the category of topological spaces and continuous functions, by endowing each dcpo D with its Scott topology, leading to the topological space Ds.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Orders and Ω1
    10. Orders and !1 Contents 1 Motivation 2 2 Partial orders2 3 Some terminology4 4 Linear orders 5 5 Well-orders 9 6 !1 11 7 !1 + 1 14 c 2018{ Ivan Khatchatourian 1 10. Orders and !1 10.2. Partial orders 1 Motivation The primary reason we introduce this topic is to define order topologies, and in particular the order topology on some new objects: !1 and !1 + 1. These spaces provide the best natural (i.e., not contrived) examples of topological spaces with certain combinations of properties. In particular, we will see that !1+1 is a non-first countable space that is also very separative (unlike Rco-countable and Rco-finite, our current go-to examples of non-first countable spaces, neither of which are even Hausdorff). !1 is a tricky object to understand, and the sections about it below will contain more detailed proofs than usual. An optimal approach to defining it would involve defining ordinals from the ground up, along with other material that, while interesting, is best left to a set theory course. Instead we will take some shortcuts in order to begin working with !1 as quickly as possible. All of that said, we will still develop the more general notion of a partial order, which is of independent interest. They crop up in many places in mathematics so it will be useful for you to see a detailed introduction to them, but in particular we will need them to define and use Zorn's Lemma during some important proofs later in the course.
    [Show full text]
  • Query Rewriting for Existential Rules with Compiled Preorder
    Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015) Query Rewriting for Existential Rules with Compiled Preorder Melanie´ Konig,¨ Michel Leclere,` Marie-Laure Mugnier University of Montpellier, Inria, CNRS Montpellier, France Abstract DLs by allowing for non-tree structures as well as unbounded predicate arity. We consider here the basic database queries, We address the issue of Ontology-Based Query An- i.e., conjunctive queries (CQs). swering (OBQA), which seeks to exploit knowl- edge expressed in ontologies when querying data. There are two main approaches to query answering in pres- Ontologies are represented in the framework of ex- ence of existential rules and Horn DLs. The first approach is istential rules (aka Datalog±). A commonly used related to forward chaining: it triggers the rules to build a fi- technique consists in rewriting queries into unions nite representation of inferred data such that the answers can of conjunctive queries (UCQs). However, the ob- be computed by evaluating the query against this representa- tained queries can be prohibitively large in prac- tion, e.g., [Cal`ı et al., 2008; Thomazo et al., 2012]. The sec- tice. A well-known source of combinatorial ex- ond approach, initiated by DL-Lite [Calvanese et al., 2005], plosion are very simple rules, typically expressing is related to backward chaining: it rewrites the query using taxonomies and relation signatures. We propose the rules such that the answers can be computed by evaluat- a rewriting technique, which consists in compil- ing the rewritten query against the data, e.g., [Baget et al., ing these rules into a preorder on atoms and em- 2009; Gottlob et al., 2011] on existential rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Quasi-Orders for Algorithms MPRI Course 2.9.1 – 2017/2018
    Well-Quasi-Orders for Algorithms MPRI Course 2.9.1 – 2017/2018 S. Demri, A. Finkel, J. Goubault-Larrecq, S. Schmitz, and Ph. Schnoebelen LSV, ENS Cachan, CNRS, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, 94235 Cachan, France Lecture Notes Work supported in part by ANR ReacHard. CONTENTS 1 Basics of WQOs and Applications 1 1.1 Well Quasi Orderings ............................. 1 1.2 An algebra of well quasi-ordered domains ................. 5 1.3 Finite products, Dickson’s Lemma ...................... 6 1.4 Finite words, and Higman’s Lemma ..................... 6 1.5 Finite multisets, finite sets .......................... 8 1.6 Kruskal’s Tree Theorem ............................ 10 1.7 Graphs ..................................... 12 1.8 Ideals, and completions ............................ 13 1.9 Well-Structured Transition Systems ..................... 15 1.9.1 Termination .............................. 16 1.9.2 Coverability .............................. 17 1.10 Examples of Applications ........................... 18 1.10.1 Program Termination ......................... 18 1.10.2 Relevance Logic ............................ 21 1.10.3 Karp & Miller Trees .......................... 24 1.10.4 Termination of rewrite systems ................... 26 1.10.5 Van Der Meyden’s algorithm, and Ogawa’s improvement .... 27 1.10.6 A short word on parameterized complexity ............ 29 1.10.7 Dickson’s 1913 theorem on odd perfect numbers ......... 29 1.10.8 Polynomial ideals, and Hilbert’s Basis Theorem .......... 30 1.10.9 Buchberger’s algorithm ....................... 32 1.11 Beyond Wqos ................................. 33 1.11.1 Noetherian Spaces .......................... 33 1.11.2 Better quasi-orderings ........................ 35 Exercises ....................................... 36 Bibliographic Notes .................................. 42 2 Complexity Upper Bounds 45 2.1 The Length of Controlled Bad Sequences .................. 47 2.1.1 Controlled Sequences ........................ 47 2.1.2 Polynomial nwqos .........................
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Well-Quasi Orders on Trees
    A Comparison of Well-Quasi Orders on Trees Torben Æ. Mogensen DIKU, University of Copenhagen [email protected] Well-quasi orders such as homeomorphic embedding are commonly used to ensure termination of program analysis and program transformation, in particular supercompilation. We compare eight well-quasi orders on how discriminative they are and their computational complexity. The studied well-quasi orders comprise two very simple examples, two examples from literature on supercompilation and four new proposed by the author. We also discuss combining several well-quasi orders to get well-quasi orders of higher discrimi- native power. This adds 19 more well-quasi orders to the list. 1 Introduction A quasi order (S, ≤) is a set S with a reflexive and transitive binary relation ≤ on S × S. A well-quasi order (S, ✂) is a quasi order such that for any infinite sequence of elements s0,s1,... where ∀i ∈ N : si ∈ S, there exists i, j ∈ N such that i < j and si ✂s j. We abbreviate “well-quasi order” to WQO. When the set S is clear from the context, we will sometimes refer to a WQO only by the relation ✂. Well-quasi orders are often used to ensure termination of program analyses and program transforma- tions (such as partial evaluation and supercompilation). The idea is that when a sequence of values is produced, production of a new value s j is seen as “safe” if there is no previous si, i < j such that si ✂ s j. If a value is found so si ✂ s j, si is replaced by a combination of si and s j in a process called widening or generalisation and the sequence is recomputed from this point in the hope that the sequence will be regular (i.e, that it can “loop back” to create a finite cycle).
    [Show full text]
  • Monoid Congruences, Binomial Ideals, and Their Decompositions
    Monoid Congruences, Binomial Ideals, and Their Decompositions by Christopher O'Neill Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Paul Aspinwall Leslie Saper Patricia Hersh Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2014 Abstract Monoid Congruences, Binomial Ideals, and Their Decompositions by Christopher O'Neill Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Paul Aspinwall Leslie Saper Patricia Hersh An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2014 Copyright c 2014 by Christopher O'Neill All rights reserved except the rights granted by the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Licence Abstract This dissertation refines and extends the theory of mesoprimary decomposition, as introduced by Kahle and Miller. The overview of the existing theory of mesoprimary decomposition for both monoid congruences and binomial ideals states all definitions and results that are relevant for subsequent chapters. We classify mesoprimary components in both the monoid and binomial settings. Kahle and Miller give a class of redundant components in each setting that are re- dundant in every mesoprimary decomposition. After identifying a further class of redundant components at the level of congruences, we give a condition on the associ- ated monoid primes that guarantees the existence of unique irredundant mesoprimary decompositions in both settings. We introduce soccular congruences as combinatorial approximations of irreducible binomial quotients and use the theory of mesoprimary decomposition to give a com- binatorial method of constructing irreducible decompositions of binomial ideals.
    [Show full text]