DOCSLIB.ORG

N-Tuple Method

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
N-Tuple Method N-Tuple Method Robert M. Haralick Computer Science, Graduate Center City University of New York Outline N-Tuple Method Developed For Printed Character Recognition (1959) Each character is contained in an image of M × N pixels Each pixel is a binary 1 or a binary 0 Designed for table lookup hardware N-Tuple Method L randomly chosen pixel positions N-Tuple Method A small number of pixel positions are randomly selected Have multiple sets of such randomly selected pixel positions Each of the pixel positions has been thresholded and contains a binary 0 or a binary 1 Concatenate all the binary values to form a binary number Use this number to access an address in a memory array For each character class Have as many memory arrays as there are different randomly selected position sets N-Tuple Method M pattern sets of L randomly selected pixel positions A printed character produces M L-digit binary numbers b1;:::; bM K character classes Tmk lookup table for pattern set m and class k Tmk (bm) holds the fraction of times a character in the th training set of class k has the binary number bm for the m pattern set Compute M fk = minm=1 Tmk (bm) PM fk = m=1 Tmk (bm) Assign the character to unique class ck , if there is one, for which fk > 0 is highest Otherwise reserve decision N-Tuple Method Recast M pattern sets of L randomly selected pixel positions A printed character produces M binary numbers b1;:::; bM K character classes Tm lookup table for pattern set m Tm(bm) holds the set of classes associated with the binary th number bm for the m pattern set Compute \M f = m=1Tm(bm) Assign the character to unique class ck , if there is one, where ck 2 f and jf j = 1 Otherwise reserve decision Relations Each of the possible pixel positions is a variable Let X1;:::; XN be the N variables Let Ln be the possible values variable Xn can take Let R be the training set for one class N R ⊆ Ln n=1 Index Sets Definition I = fi1;:::; iK g is an index set if and only if for a given partial ordering ≤ on I, i1 < i2 < ··· < iK . Definition If I = fi1;:::; iK g is an index set, we define the Cartesian product K Li = Lik = Li1 × Li2 × · · · × LiK i2I k=1 We adopt a convention that if the index set I = ;, then i2I Li = ;. N-ary Relation Definition If I is an index set with jIj = N and R ⊆ i2I Li , then we say (I; R) is an Indexed N-ary Relation on the range sets indexed by I. We also say that (I; R) has dimension N. We can perform the usual set operations of union and intersection with the structures (I; R) and (J; S) and when I = J: (I; R) [ (I; S) = (I; R [ S) (I; R) \ (I; S) = (I; R \ S) Subset The subset relation also has the usual meaning. If R ⊆ i2I Li and S ⊆ i2I Li , then R ⊆ S if and only if (I; R) ⊆ (I; S) Index Function Definition Let J and M be index sets with J = fj1;:::; jjJjg M = fm1;:::; mjMjg J ⊂ M The index function fJM : J ! [jMj] is defined by fJM (j) = k where mk = j fJM operates on an index j from the smaller index set and specifies where – place k – in the larger index set that the index j can be found; thus mk = j. Index Function Example J = f2; 5; 8g M = f2; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9g = fm1; m2; m3; m4; m5; m6; m7g Index function fJM fJM operates on an index j from the smaller index set and specifies where – place k – in the larger index set that the index j can be found; thus mk = j. j fJM (j) 2 1 5 3 8 6 Projection Definition Let I and J be index sets with I ⊂ J. The projection operator projecting a relation on the range sets indexed by J onto the range sets indexed by I is defined by πI (J; R) = (I; S) where S = f(x1;:::; xjIj) 2 Li j 9(a1;:::; ajJj) 2 R; afIJ (i) = xi ; i 2 Ig i2I We overload the definition of the projection operator so that it can operate on tuples as well as sets. πI(J; (a1;:::; ajJj)) = (I; (x1;:::; xjIj); where (x1;:::; xjIj) = (afIJ (1);:::; afIJ (jIj)) = (I; (afIJ (1);:::; afIJ (jIj))) Projection X2 πf2g(f1; 2g; R) R X1 πf1g(f1; 2g; R) Projections Proposition Let I and J be an index sets with I ⊆ J. If (J; A) ⊆ (J; B), then πI(J; A) ⊆ πI(J; B). Projections of Unions Proposition Let A and B be relations on the range sets indexed by index set J. Let I ⊂ J. Then πI(J; A [ B) = πI(J; A) [ πI(J; B) Projections of Intersections Proposition Let A and B be relations on the range sets indexed by index set J. Let I ⊂ J. Then πI(J; A \ B) ⊆ πI(J; A) \ πI(J; B) The following example shows that this proposition cannot be made stronger. J = f1; 2g,I = f1g A = f(a; α); (b; β)g, B = f(a; γ); (b; δ)g Then A \ B = ; so that πI(J; A \ B) = ;. But πI(J; A) = fa; bg and πI(J; B) = fa; bg so that πI(J; A) \ πI(J; B) = fa; bg. Inverse Projection X2 −1 f g \ −1 f g T2 πf1;2g( 1 ; T1) πf1;2g( 2 ; T2) X1 T1 f g × −1 f g \ −1 f g ( 1; 2 ; T1 T2) = πf1;2g( 1 ; T1) πf1;2g( 2 ; T2) Inverse Projection Definition Let I and J be index sets with I ⊂ J R ⊆ i2I Li The Inverse Projection of (I; R) with respect to index set J is defined by −1 πIJ (I; R) = f(J; (a1;:::; ajJj)) 2 (J; Lj ) j πI (J; (a1;:::; ajJj)) 2 (I; R)g j2J Inverse Projections Proposition Let I and J be index sets with I ⊆ J. Suppose (I; R) ⊆ (I; S). Then, −1 −1 πIJ (I; R) ⊆ πIJ (I; S) Projection and Inverse Projections Proposition Let I; J be index sets with I ⊆ J. Then −1 πI(πIJ (I; R)) = (I; R) −1 πIJ (πI(J; R)) ⊇ (J; R) Projection X2 πf2g(f1; 2g; R) R X1 πf1g(f1; 2g; R) Inverse Projection X2 −1 f g \ −1 f g T2 πf1;2g( 1 ; T1) πf1;2g( 2 ; T2) X1 T1 f g × −1 f g \ −1 f g ( 1; 2 ; T1 T2) = πf1;2g( 1 ; T1) πf1;2g( 2 ; T2) −1 f g f g πf1gπf12g( 1 ; T1) = ( 1 ; T1) Projections and Inverse Projections Corollary Let I and J be index sets with I ⊆ J. Suppose πI(J; S) = (I; R). −1 ⊇ Then πJI (I; R) (J; S). Corollary Let J1;:::; JK ; J be index sets with J1;:::; JK ⊆ J. Then (J; R) ⊆ π−1 π (J; R) \ π−1 π (J; R) \···\ π−1 π (J; R) J1J J1 J2J J2 JK J JK Projections of a Composite Relation Proposition Let I; J; K be index sets with I; J ⊆ K . Suppose −1 −1 (K ; R) = πIK (I; S) \ πJK (J; T ) Then πI(K ; R) ⊆ (I; S) πJ (K ; R) ⊆ (J; T ) Relation Join Definition Index sets: J1; J2 Index set: K = J1 [ J2 ⊆ Relation: R1 j2J1 Lj ⊆ Relation: R2 j2J2 Lj Relation: S ⊆ k2K Lk (K ; S) is the Relation Join of (J1; R1) and (J2; R2) if and only if (K ; S) = π−1 (J ; R ) \ π−1 (J ; R ) J1K 1 1 J2K 2 2 We write: (K ; S) = (J1; R1) ⊗ (J2; R2) Join Characterization Theorem Theorem Let I; J; K be index sets with K = I [ J. Let R ⊂ i2I Li and S ⊂ j2J Lj Then (I; R) ⊗ (J; S) = (K ; T ) where T = f(t ;:::; t ) 2 L j π (K ; (t ;:::; t ))g 2 (I; R) and 1 jK j k I 1 jK j k2K πJ (K ; (t1;:::; tjK j)) 2 (J; S)g Relation Join Example R S 1,3,5,6 2,3,4,5 1 (a,b,e,d) 1 (e,e,a,d) 2 (b,d,e,a) 2 (d,c,b,a) 3 (e,c,a,b) 3 (a,d,b,e) 4 (c,e,d,a) 4 (b,b,c,e) 5 (e,d,c,e) Then R ⊗ S is defined by R ⊗ S 1,2,3,4,5,6 (1,4) (a,b,b,c,e,d) (2,3) (b,a,d,b,e,a) (2,5) (b,e,d,c,e,a) (3,2) (e,d,c,b,a,b) (4,1) (c,e,e,a,d,a) Join Properties Proposition Let I; J; K ⊂ [N] be index sets. Let R ⊆ i2I Li S ⊆ j2J Lj T ⊆ k2K Lk Then, (I; R)⊗ (J; S) = (J; S) ⊗ (I; R) ((I; R) ⊗ (J; S)) ⊗ (K ; T ) = (I; R) ⊗ ((J; S) ⊗ (K ; T )) (I; R) ⊗ (I; R) = (I; R) (I; R) ⊆ (I; T ) implies (I; R) ⊗ (I; T ) = (I; R) N-Tuple Method [N] = f1;:::; Ng indexes for all pixel positions ([N]; Tc) training set for class c J1;:::; JM M sets of random subsets of [N], each having L elements πJm ([N]; Tc) = (Jm; Tmc); m = 1;:::; M analogous to tables N r 2 n=1 Ln is new measurement Assign r to unique class c, if there is one where πJm ([N]; r) 2 (Jm; Tmc); m = 1;:::; M Otherwise reserve decision N-Tuple Method Theorem The set of all tuples that could potentially be assigned to class c is f([N]; x) j π ([N]; x) 2 (J ; T ); m = 1;:::; Mg = ⊗M (J ; T ) Jm m mc m=1 m mc Acceptance Region Definition The Acceptance Region for a class is the set of all measurements that will be assigned to the class.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Cardinality of Sets
    Cardinality of Sets MAT231 Transition to Higher Mathematics Fall 2014 MAT231 (Transition to Higher Math) Cardinality of Sets Fall 2014 1 / 15 Outline 1 Sets with Equal Cardinality 2 Countable and Uncountable Sets MAT231 (Transition to Higher Math) Cardinality of Sets Fall 2014 2 / 15 Sets with Equal Cardinality Definition Two sets A and B have the same cardinality, written jAj = jBj, if there exists a bijective function f : A ! B. If no such bijective function exists, then the sets have unequal cardinalities, that is, jAj 6= jBj. Another way to say this is that jAj = jBj if there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of A and the elements of B. For example, to show that the set A = f1; 2; 3; 4g and the set B = {♠; ~; }; |g have the same cardinality it is sufficient to construct a bijective function between them. 1 2 3 4 ♠ ~ } | MAT231 (Transition to Higher Math) Cardinality of Sets Fall 2014 3 / 15 Sets with Equal Cardinality Consider the following: This definition does not involve the number of elements in the sets. It works equally well for finite and infinite sets. Any bijection between the sets is sufficient. MAT231 (Transition to Higher Math) Cardinality of Sets Fall 2014 4 / 15 The set Z contains all the numbers in N as well as numbers not in N. So maybe Z is larger than N... On the other hand, both sets are infinite, so maybe Z is the same size as N... This is just the sort of ambiguity we want to avoid, so we appeal to the definition of \same cardinality." The answer to our question boils down to \Can we find a bijection between N and Z?" Does jNj = jZj? True or false: Z is larger than N.
    [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]
  • Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses A
    EQUIVALENTS TO THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND THEIR USES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics California State University, Los Angeles In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Mathematics By James Szufu Yang c 2015 James Szufu Yang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of James Szufu Yang is approved. Mike Krebs, Ph.D. Kristin Webster, Ph.D. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., Committee Chair Grant Fraser, Ph.D., Department Chair California State University, Los Angeles June 2015 iii ABSTRACT Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses By James Szufu Yang In set theory, the Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo. It is an addition to the older Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. We call it Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice and abbreviate it as ZFC. This paper starts with an introduction to the foundations of ZFC set the- ory, which includes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, partially ordered sets (posets), the Cartesian product, the Axiom of Choice, and their related proofs. It then intro- duces several equivalent forms of the Axiom of Choice and proves that they are all equivalent. In the end, equivalents to the Axiom of Choice are used to prove a few fundamental theorems in set theory, linear analysis, and abstract algebra. This paper is concluded by a brief review of the work in it, followed by a few points of interest for further study in mathematics and/or set theory. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Between the two department requirements to complete a master's degree in mathematics − the comprehensive exams and a thesis, I really wanted to experience doing a research and writing a serious academic paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Worksheet: Cardinality, Countable and Uncountable Sets
    Math 347 Worksheet: Cardinality A.J. Hildebrand Worksheet: Cardinality, Countable and Uncountable Sets • Key Tool: Bijections. • Definition: Let A and B be sets. A bijection from A to B is a function f : A ! B that is both injective and surjective. • Properties of bijections: ∗ Compositions: The composition of bijections is a bijection. ∗ Inverse functions: The inverse function of a bijection is a bijection. ∗ Symmetry: The \bijection" relation is symmetric: If there is a bijection f from A to B, then there is also a bijection g from B to A, given by the inverse of f. • Key Definitions. • Cardinality: Two sets A and B are said to have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection from A to B. • Finite sets: A set is called finite if it is empty or has the same cardinality as the set f1; 2; : : : ; ng for some n 2 N; it is called infinite otherwise. • Countable sets: A set A is called countable (or countably infinite) if it has the same cardinality as N, i.e., if there exists a bijection between A and N. Equivalently, a set A is countable if it can be enumerated in a sequence, i.e., if all of its elements can be listed as an infinite sequence a1; a2;::: . NOTE: The above definition of \countable" is the one given in the text, and it is reserved for infinite sets. Thus finite sets are not countable according to this definition. • Uncountable sets: A set is called uncountable if it is infinite and not countable. • Two famous results with memorable proofs.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Session 5 – Main Theme
    Database Systems Session 5 – Main Theme Relational Algebra, Relational Calculus, and SQL Dr. Jean-Claude Franchitti New York University Computer Science Department Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences Presentation material partially based on textbook slides Fundamentals of Database Systems (6th Edition) by Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant Navathe Slides copyright © 2011 and on slides produced by Zvi Kedem copyight © 2014 1 Agenda 1 Session Overview 2 Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus 3 Relational Algebra Using SQL Syntax 5 Summary and Conclusion 2 Session Agenda . Session Overview . Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus . Relational Algebra Using SQL Syntax . Summary & Conclusion 3 What is the class about? . Course description and syllabus: » http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jcf/CSCI-GA.2433-001 » http://cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall11/CSCI-GA.2433-001/ . Textbooks: » Fundamentals of Database Systems (6th Edition) Ramez Elmasri and Shamkant Navathe Addition Wesley ISBN-10: 0-1360-8620-9, ISBN-13: 978-0136086208 6th Edition (04/10) 4 Icons / Metaphors Information Common Realization Knowledge/Competency Pattern Governance Alignment Solution Approach 55 Agenda 1 Session Overview 2 Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus 3 Relational Algebra Using SQL Syntax 5 Summary and Conclusion 6 Agenda . Unary Relational Operations: SELECT and PROJECT . Relational Algebra Operations from Set Theory . Binary Relational Operations: JOIN and DIVISION . Additional Relational Operations . Examples of Queries in Relational Algebra . The Tuple Relational Calculus . The Domain Relational Calculus 7 The Relational Algebra and Relational Calculus . Relational algebra . Basic set of operations for the relational model . Relational algebra expression . Sequence of relational algebra operations . Relational calculus . Higher-level declarative language for specifying relational queries 8 Unary Relational Operations: SELECT and PROJECT (1/3) .
    [Show full text]
  • Math 310 Class Notes 1: Axioms of Set Theory
    MATH 310 CLASS NOTES 1: AXIOMS OF SET THEORY Intuitively, we think of a set as an organization and an element be- longing to a set as a member of the organization. Accordingly, it also seems intuitively clear that (1) when we collect all objects of a certain kind the collection forms an organization, i.e., forms a set, and, moreover, (2) it is natural that when we collect members of a certain kind of an organization, the collection is a sub-organization, i.e., a subset. Item (1) above was challenged by Bertrand Russell in 1901 if we accept the natural item (2), i.e., we must be careful when we use the word \all": (Russell Paradox) The collection of all sets is not a set! Proof. Suppose the collection of all sets is a set S. Consider the subset U of S that consists of all sets x with the property that each x does not belong to x itself. Now since U is a set, U belongs to S. Let us ask whether U belongs to U itself. Since U is the collection of all sets each of which does not belong to itself, thus if U belongs to U, then as an element of the set U we must have that U does not belong to U itself, a contradiction. So, it must be that U does not belong to U. But then U belongs to U itself by the very definition of U, another contradiction. The absurdity results because we assume S is a set.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy and Large Cardinals
    Determinacy and Large Cardinals Itay Neeman∗ Abstract. The principle of determinacy has been crucial to the study of definable sets of real numbers. This paper surveys some of the uses of determinacy, concentrating specifically on the connection between determinacy and large cardinals, and takes this connection further, to the level of games of length ω1. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). 03E55; 03E60; 03E45; 03E15. Keywords. Determinacy, iteration trees, large cardinals, long games, Woodin cardinals. 1. Determinacy Let ωω denote the set of infinite sequences of natural numbers. For A ⊂ ωω let Gω(A) denote the length ω game with payoff A. The format of Gω(A) is displayed in Diagram 1. Two players, denoted I and II, alternate playing natural numbers forming together a sequence x = hx(n) | n < ωi in ωω called a run of the game. The run is won by player I if x ∈ A, and otherwise the run is won by player II. I x(0) x(2) ...... II x(1) x(3) ...... Diagram 1. The game Gω(A). A game is determined if one of the players has a winning strategy. The set A is ω determined if Gω(A) is determined. For Γ ⊂ P(ω ), det(Γ) denotes the statement that all sets in Γ are determined. Using the axiom of choice, or more specifically using a wellordering of the reals, it is easy to construct a non-determined set A. det(P(ωω)) is therefore false. On the other hand it has become clear through research over the years that det(Γ) is true if all the sets in Γ are definable by some concrete means.
    [Show full text]
  • Set (Mathematics) from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Set (mathematics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A set in mathematics is a collection of well defined and distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. Sets are one of the most fundamental concepts in mathematics. Developed at the end of the 19th century, set theory is now a ubiquitous part of mathematics, and can be used as a foundation from which nearly all of mathematics can be derived. In mathematics education, elementary topics such as Venn diagrams are taught at a young age, while more advanced concepts are taught as part of a university degree. Contents The intersection of two sets is made up of the objects contained in 1 Definition both sets, shown in a Venn 2 Describing sets diagram. 3 Membership 3.1 Subsets 3.2 Power sets 4 Cardinality 5 Special sets 6 Basic operations 6.1 Unions 6.2 Intersections 6.3 Complements 6.4 Cartesian product 7 Applications 8 Axiomatic set theory 9 Principle of inclusion and exclusion 10 See also 11 Notes 12 References 13 External links Definition A set is a well defined collection of objects. Georg Cantor, the founder of set theory, gave the following definition of a set at the beginning of his Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre:[1] A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception [Anschauung] and of our thought – which are called elements of the set. The elements or members of a set can be anything: numbers, people, letters of the alphabet, other sets, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitting Set Enumeration with Partial Information for Unique Column Combination Discovery
    Hitting Set Enumeration with Partial Information for Unique Column Combination Discovery Johann BirnickF, Thomas Bläsius, Tobias Friedrich, Felix Naumann, Thorsten Papenbrock, Martin Schirneck FETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Germany fi[email protected] ABSTRACT that fulfill the necessary properties of a key, whereby null Unique column combinations (UCCs) are a fundamental con- values require special consideration, they serve to define key cept in relational databases. They identify entities in the constraints and are, hence, also called key candidates. data and support various data management activities. Still, In practice, key discovery is a recurring activity as keys are UCCs are usually not explicitly defined and need to be dis- often missing for various reasons: on freshly recorded data, covered. State-of-the-art data profiling algorithms are able keys may have never been defined, on archived and transmit- to efficiently discover UCCs in moderately sized datasets, ted data, keys sometimes are lost due to format restrictions, but they tend to fail on large and, in particular, on wide on evolving data, keys may be outdated if constraint en- datasets due to run time and memory limitations. forcement is lacking, and on fused and integrated data, keys In this paper, we introduce HPIValid, a novel UCC discov- often invalidate in the presence of key collisions. Because ery algorithm that implements a faster and more resource- UCCs are also important for many data management tasks saving search strategy. HPIValid models the metadata dis- other than key discovery, such as anomaly detection, data covery as a hitting set enumeration problem in hypergraphs.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions
    This is a repository copy of Constructive zermelo-fraenkel set theory, power set, and the calculus of constructions. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/75182/ Book Section: Rathjen, M (2012) Constructive zermelo-fraenkel set theory, power set, and the calculus of constructions. In: Dybjer, P, Lindström, S, Palmgren, E and Sundholm, G, (eds.) Epistemology versus ontology: Essays on the philosophy and foundations of mathematics in honour of Per Martin-Löf. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, 27 . Springer , Dordrecht, Netherlands , 313 - 349. ISBN 9789400744356 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4435-6 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Constructive Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, Power Set, and the Calculus of Constructions Michael Rathjen∗ Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom [email protected] May 4, 2012 Abstract Full intuitionistic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, IZF, is obtained from constructive Zermelo- Fraenkel set theory, CZF, by adding the full separation axiom scheme and the power set axiom.
    [Show full text]