DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 4 Sets, Combinatorics, and Probability Section

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter 4 Sets, Combinatorics, and Probability Section 4.1: Sets CS 130 – Discrete Structures Set Theory • A set is a collection of elements or objects, and an element is a member of a set – Traditionally, sets are described by capital letters, and elements by lower case letters • The symbol means belongs to: – Used to represent the fact that an element belongs to a particular set. – aA means that element a belongs to set A – bA implies that b is not an element of A • Braces {} are used to indicate a set • Example: A = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10} – 3A and 2A CS 130 – Discrete Structures 2 Continue on Sets • Ordering is not imposed on the set elements and listing elements twice or more is redundant • Two sets are equal if and only if they contain the same elements – A = B means (x)[(xA xB) Λ (xB xA)] • Finite and infinite set: described by number of elements – Members of infinite sets cannot be listed but a pattern for listing elements could be indicated CS 130 – Discrete Structures 3 Various Ways To Describe A Set • The set S of all positive even integers: – List (or partially list) its elements: • S = {2, 4, 6, 8, …} – Use recursion to describe how to generate the set elements: • 2 S, if n S, then (n+2) S – Describe a property P that characterizes the set elements • in words: S = {x | x is a positive even integer} • Use predicates: S = {x P(x)} means (x)[(xS P(x)) Λ (P(x) xS)] where P is the unary predicate. • Hence, every element of S has the property P and everything that has a property P is an element of S. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 4 Examples • Describe each of the following sets by listing the elements: – {x | x is a month with exactly thirty days} – {x | x is an integer and 4<x<9} • What is the predicate/property for each of the following sets: – {1, 4, 9, 16, …..} – {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, ….} CS 130 – Discrete Structures 5 Standard Sets • Some notations used for convenience of defining sets – N = set of all nonnegative integers • remember that 0 N – Z = set of all integers – Q = set of all rational numbers – R = set of all real numbers • A set that has no members is called a null or empty set and is represented by – S = {x | x N and x < 0} – Note that is not the same as {} CS 130 – Discrete Structures 6 Examples • What are the elements in the following sets? – A = {x| (y)(y {0,1,2} and x = y2} – B = {x| x N and (y) (y N and x <= y)} – C = {x| x N and (y) (y N x <= y)} – D = {x| (y)(z)(y{1,2} and z{2,3} and x=z–y)} CS 130 – Discrete Structures 7 Open and Closed Interval • {x R | -2 < x < 3} – denotes the set containing all real numbers between -2 and 3. This is an open interval, meaning that the endpoints -2 and 3 are not included. By all real numbers, we mean everything; 1.05, -3/4, and every other real number within that interval. • {x R | -2 x 3} – is a closed interval -- it includes all the numbers in the open interval described above, plus the endpoints. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 8 Relationships Between Sets: Subsets • Say S is the set of all people, M is the set of all male humans, and C is the set of all computer science students: – M and C are both subsets of S, because all elements of M and C are also elements of S. – M is not a subset of C, however, since there are elements of M which are not in C (specifically, all males who are not studying computer science). – For sets S and M, M is a subset of S if and only if, every element in M is also an element of S. – Symbolically: M S (x) (x M x S). – If M S and M S, then there is at least one element of S that is not an element of M, then M is a proper subset of S denoted by M S CS 130 – Discrete Structures 9 More Relationships • A superset is the opposite of subset. If M is a subset of S, then S is a superset of M, denoted S M. Likewise, if M is a proper subset of S, then S is a proper superset of M, denoted S M. • The cardinality of a set is simply the number of elements within the set; the cardinality of S is denoted by |S|. Then by the above definition of subset, it is clear that set M must have fewer members than S, which yields the following symbolic representation: – M S |M| < |S| – M S |M| <= |S| CS 130 – Discrete Structures 10 Exercises A = {x| x N and x 5} B = {10, 12, 16, 20} C = {x | (y)(y N and x = 2y)} What statements are true? • B C B A • A C 26 C • {11, 12, 13} A {11, 12, 13} C • {12} B {12} B • {x | x N and x < 20} B 5 A • {} B A For the following sets, prove A B • A = { x | x R such that x2 – 4x + 3 = 0} • B = { x | x N and 1 x 4} CS 130 – Discrete Structures 11 Set of Sets • From every set, many subsets can be generated. A set whose elements are all such subsets is called the power set. • For a set S, (S) is termed as the power set. • For a set S = {1, 2, 3} ; – (S) = { ,{1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}} • For a set with n elements, the power set has 2n elements. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 12 Set Operations • Binary and unary operators – Binary acts on two elements – Unary acts on a single element • An ordered pair of elements is written as (x,y) and is different from (y,x) • Two ordered pairs (a,b) and (c,d) are equal if and only if a = c and b = d • If S = {2,3}, the ordered pairs of this set are (2,2), (2,3), (3,2), (3,3) CS 130 – Discrete Structures 13 Binary Operations • Binary operation on a set defined as follows: – is a binary operation if for every ordered pair (x,y) of elements of S, x y exists, and is unique, and is a member of S. – The fact that x y exists and is unique is the same as saying that the binary operation is well-defined. – The fact that x y always belongs to S means that S is closed under the operation • The operator is just a placeholder for the real operator like +, -, *, etc. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 14 Examples • Example: +, - and * are all binary operators on Z • How about division(/)? Is it a binary operation on Z and why? • Is subtraction a binary operation on N? • Let x^ = -x, so that x^ is the negative of x. – Is ^ a unary operation on Z? – Is ^ a unary operation on N? CS 130 – Discrete Structures 15 More Examples • Which of the following are neither binary nor unary operations on the given sets? • Why? x y = x/y; S = set of all positive integers x y = x/y; S = set of all positive rational numbers y x y = x ; S = R x y = maximum of x and y; S = N x y = x + y; S = set of Fibonacci numbers CS 130 – Discrete Structures 16 Operations On Sets • New sets can be formed in a variety of ways, and can be described using: – Set builder notation (union, intersection, complement, etc.), and – Venn diagrams. • A rectangle marked by U is used to represent the universal set. CS 130 – Discrete Structures 17 Union and Intersection • The union of set A and B is the set which contains all elements in either set A or set B. – A B = {x | x A or x B } • The intersection of set A and B is the set which contains all elements both in set A and in set B. – A B = {x | x A and x B } • Example – A = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9} – B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} CS 130 – Discrete Structures 18 Disjoint, Universal and Difference Sets • Given set A and set B, if A B = , then A and B are disjoint sets. In other words, there are no elements in A which are also in B. • The complement of set A, denoted as ~A or A, is the set of all elements that are not in A. – A = {x | x A } • The difference of A-B, is the set of elements in A which are not in B. This is also known as the complement of B relative to A. – A - B = {x | x A and x B } – Note that A – B = A B B – A CS 130 – Discrete Structures 19 Exercise Let A = {1, 2, 3, 5, 10} B = {2, 4, 7, 8, 9} C = {5, 8, 10} be subsets of S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}. Find – A B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10} – A – C = {1, 2, 3} – B (A C) = {1, 3, 5, 6, 10} {1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10} = {1, 3, 5, 10} – A B C = {} – (A B) C = {1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9} CS 130 – Discrete Structures 20 Cartesian Product • If A and B are subsets of S, then the Cartesian product or cross product of A and B denoted symbolically by A B is defined by: – A B = {(x,y) | x A and y B } • The Cartesian product of 2 sets is the set of all combinations of ordered pairs • For example, given 2 sets A and B, where A = {a, b, c} and B = {1, 2, 3}, the Cartesian product of A and B can be represented as: – A B = {(a, 1), (a, 2), (a, 3), (b, 1), (b, 2), (b, 3), (c, 1), (c, 2), (c, 3)} – Is A B = B A ? CS 130 – Discrete Structures 21 Continue On Cartesian Product • Cross-product of a set with itself is represented as A A or A2 n • A represents the set of all n-tuples (x1, x2, …, xn) of elements of A.
Recommended publications
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory

    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).
  • Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version

    Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version

    MATHEMATICS 144 SET THEORY FALL 2012 VERSION Table of Contents I. General considerations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1. Overview of the course…………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Historical background and motivation………………………………………………………….………………4 3. Selected problems………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 I I. Basic concepts. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 1. Topics from logic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2. Notation and first steps………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3. Simple examples…………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 I I I. Constructions in set theory.………………………………………………………………………………..……….34 1. Boolean algebra operations.……………………………………………………………………………………….34 2. Ordered pairs and Cartesian products……………………………………………………………………… ….40 3. Larger constructions………………………………………………………………………………………………..….42 4. A convenient assumption………………………………………………………………………………………… ….45 I V. Relations and functions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….49 1.Binary relations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….49 2. Partial and linear orderings……………………………..………………………………………………… ………… 56 3. Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….…….. 61 4. Composite and inverse function.…………………………………………………………………………… …….. 70 5. Constructions involving functions ………………………………………………………………………… ……… 77 6. Order types……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………… 80 i V. Number systems and set theory …………………………………………………………………………………. 84 1. The Natural Numbers and Integers…………………………………………………………………………….83 2. Finite induction
  • TOPOLOGY and ITS APPLICATIONS the Number of Complements in The

    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.
  • Determinacy in Linear Rational Expectations Models

    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.
  • A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers

    A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers

    Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. A taste of set theory for philosophers Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ ∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Helsinki and Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam November 17, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Elementary set theory 2 3 Cardinal and ordinal numbers 3 3.1 Equipollence . 4 3.2 Countable sets . 6 3.3 Ordinals . 7 3.4 Cardinals . 8 4 Axiomatic set theory 9 5 Axiom of Choice 12 6 Independence results 13 7 Some recent work 14 7.1 Descriptive Set Theory . 14 7.2 Non well-founded set theory . 14 7.3 Constructive set theory . 15 8 Historical Remarks and Further Reading 15 ∗Research partially supported by grant 40734 of the Academy of Finland and by the EUROCORES LogICCC LINT programme. I Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. 1 Introduction Originally set theory was a theory of infinity, an attempt to understand infinity in ex- act terms. Later it became a universal language for mathematics and an attempt to give a foundation for all of mathematics, and thereby to all sciences that are based on mathematics.
  • 180: Counting Techniques

    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.
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
  • Surviving Set Theory: a Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory

    Surviving Set Theory: a Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory

    Surviving Set Theory: A Pedagogical Game and Cooperative Learning Approach to Undergraduate Post-Tonal Music Theory DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Angela N. Ripley, M.M. Graduate Program in Music The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: David Clampitt, Advisor Anna Gawboy Johanna Devaney Copyright by Angela N. Ripley 2015 Abstract Undergraduate music students often experience a high learning curve when they first encounter pitch-class set theory, an analytical system very different from those they have studied previously. Students sometimes find the abstractions of integer notation and the mathematical orientation of set theory foreign or even frightening (Kleppinger 2010), and the dissonance of the atonal repertoire studied often engenders their resistance (Root 2010). Pedagogical games can help mitigate student resistance and trepidation. Table games like Bingo (Gillespie 2000) and Poker (Gingerich 1991) have been adapted to suit college-level classes in music theory. Familiar television shows provide another source of pedagogical games; for example, Berry (2008; 2015) adapts the show Survivor to frame a unit on theory fundamentals. However, none of these pedagogical games engage pitch- class set theory during a multi-week unit of study. In my dissertation, I adapt the show Survivor to frame a four-week unit on pitch- class set theory (introducing topics ranging from pitch-class sets to twelve-tone rows) during a sophomore-level theory course. As on the show, students of different achievement levels work together in small groups, or “tribes,” to complete worksheets called “challenges”; however, in an important modification to the structure of the show, no students are voted out of their tribes.
  • A Logical Approach to Asymptotic Combinatorics I. First Order Properties

    A Logical Approach to Asymptotic Combinatorics I. First Order Properties

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector ADVANCES IN MATI-EMATlCS 65, 65-96 (1987) A Logical Approach to Asymptotic Combinatorics I. First Order Properties KEVIN J. COMPTON ’ Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut 06457 INTRODUCTION We shall present a general framework for dealing with an extensive set of problems from asymptotic combinatorics; this framework provides methods for determining the probability that a large, finite structure, ran- domly chosen from a given class, will have a given property. Our main concern is the asymptotic probability: the limiting value as the size of the structure increases. For example, a common problem in elementary probability texts is to show that the asymptotic probabity that a per- mutation will have no fixed point is l/e. We shall say nothing about the closely related problem of determining rates of convergence, although the methods presented here may extend to such problems. To develop a general approach we must fix a language for specifying properties of structures. Thus, our approach is logical; logic is the branch of mathematics that deals with problems of language. In this paper we con- sider properties expressible in the language of first order logic and speak of probabilities of first order sentences rather than properties. In the sequel to this paper we consider properties expressible in the more general language of monadic second order logic. Clearly, we must restrict the classes of structures we consider in order for questions about asymptotic probabilities to be meaningful and significant. Therefore, we choose to consider only classes closed under disjoint unions and components (see Sect.
  • Operations Per Se, to See If the Proposed Chi Is Indeed Fruitful

    Operations Per Se, to See If the Proposed Chi Is Indeed Fruitful

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 204 124 SE 035 176 AUTHOR Weaver, J. F. TTTLE "Addition," "Subtraction" and Mathematical Operations. 7NSTITOTION. Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Research and Development Center for Individualized Schooling. SPONS AGENCY Neional Inst. 1pf Education (ED), Washington. D.C. REPORT NO WIOCIS-PP-79-7 PUB DATE Nov 79 GRANT OS-NIE-G-91-0009 NOTE 98p.: Report from the Mathematics Work Group. Paper prepared for the'Seminar on the Initial Learning of Addition and' Subtraction. Skills (Racine, WI, November 26-29, 1979). Contains occasional light and broken type. Not available in hard copy due to copyright restrictions.. EDPS PRICE MF01 Plum Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DEseR.TPT00S *Addition: Behavioral Obiectives: Cognitive Oblectives: Cognitive Processes: *Elementary School Mathematics: Elementary Secondary Education: Learning Theories: Mathematical Concepts: Mathematics Curriculum: *Mathematics Education: *Mathematics Instruction: Number Concepts: *Subtraction: Teaching Methods IDENTIFIERS *Mathematics Education ResearCh: *Number 4 Operations ABSTRACT This-report opens by asking how operations in general, and addition and subtraction in particular, ante characterized for 'elementary school students, and examines the "standard" Instruction of these topics through secondary. schooling. Some common errors and/or "sloppiness" in the typical textbook presentations are noted, and suggestions are made that these probleks could lend to pupil difficulties in understanding mathematics. The ambiguity of interpretation .of number sentences of the VW's "a+b=c". and "a-b=c" leads into a comparison of the familiar use of binary operations with a unary-operator interpretation of such sentences. The second half of this document focuses on points of vier that promote .varying approaches to the development of mathematical skills and abilities within young children.
  • Interactions of Computational Complexity Theory and Mathematics

    Interactions of Computational Complexity Theory and Mathematics

    Interactions of Computational Complexity Theory and Mathematics Avi Wigderson October 22, 2017 Abstract [This paper is a (self contained) chapter in a new book on computational complexity theory, called Mathematics and Computation, whose draft is available at https://www.math.ias.edu/avi/book]. We survey some concrete interaction areas between computational complexity theory and different fields of mathematics. We hope to demonstrate here that hardly any area of modern mathematics is untouched by the computational connection (which in some cases is completely natural and in others may seem quite surprising). In my view, the breadth, depth, beauty and novelty of these connections is inspiring, and speaks to a great potential of future interactions (which indeed, are quickly expanding). We aim for variety. We give short, simple descriptions (without proofs or much technical detail) of ideas, motivations, results and connections; this will hopefully entice the reader to dig deeper. Each vignette focuses only on a single topic within a large mathematical filed. We cover the following: • Number Theory: Primality testing • Combinatorial Geometry: Point-line incidences • Operator Theory: The Kadison-Singer problem • Metric Geometry: Distortion of embeddings • Group Theory: Generation and random generation • Statistical Physics: Monte-Carlo Markov chains • Analysis and Probability: Noise stability • Lattice Theory: Short vectors • Invariant Theory: Actions on matrix tuples 1 1 introduction The Theory of Computation (ToC) lays out the mathematical foundations of computer science. I am often asked if ToC is a branch of Mathematics, or of Computer Science. The answer is easy: it is clearly both (and in fact, much more). Ever since Turing's 1936 definition of the Turing machine, we have had a formal mathematical model of computation that enables the rigorous mathematical study of computational tasks, algorithms to solve them, and the resources these require.
  • Hyperoperations and Nopt Structures

    Hyperoperations and Nopt Structures

    Hyperoperations and Nopt Structures Alister Wilson Abstract (Beta version) The concept of formal power towers by analogy to formal power series is introduced. Bracketing patterns for combining hyperoperations are pictured. Nopt structures are introduced by reference to Nept structures. Briefly speaking, Nept structures are a notation that help picturing the seed(m)-Ackermann number sequence by reference to exponential function and multitudinous nestings thereof. A systematic structure is observed and described. Keywords: Large numbers, formal power towers, Nopt structures. 1 Contents i Acknowledgements 3 ii List of Figures and Tables 3 I Introduction 4 II Philosophical Considerations 5 III Bracketing patterns and hyperoperations 8 3.1 Some Examples 8 3.2 Top-down versus bottom-up 9 3.3 Bracketing patterns and binary operations 10 3.4 Bracketing patterns with exponentiation and tetration 12 3.5 Bracketing and 4 consecutive hyperoperations 15 3.6 A quick look at the start of the Grzegorczyk hierarchy 17 3.7 Reconsidering top-down and bottom-up 18 IV Nopt Structures 20 4.1 Introduction to Nept and Nopt structures 20 4.2 Defining Nopts from Nepts 21 4.3 Seed Values: “n” and “theta ) n” 24 4.4 A method for generating Nopt structures 25 4.5 Magnitude inequalities inside Nopt structures 32 V Applying Nopt Structures 33 5.1 The gi-sequence and g-subscript towers 33 5.2 Nopt structures and Conway chained arrows 35 VI Glossary 39 VII Further Reading and Weblinks 42 2 i Acknowledgements I’d like to express my gratitude to Wikipedia for supplying an enormous range of high quality mathematics articles.