DOCSLIB.ORG

Partial Orders — Basics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Partial Orders — Basics Edward A. Lee UC Berkeley — EECS EECS 219D — Concurrent Models of Computation Last updated: January 23, 2014 Outline Sets Join (Least Upper Bound) Relations and Functions Meet (Greatest Lower Bound) Notation Example of Join and Meet Directed Sets, Bottom Partial Order What is Order? Complete Partial Order Strict Partial Order Complete Partial Order Chains and Total Orders Alternative Definition Quiz Example Partial Orders — Basics Sets Frequently used sets: • B = {0, 1}, the set of binary digits. • T = {false, true}, the set of truth values. • N = {0, 1, 2, ···}, the set of natural numbers. • Z = {· · · , −1, 0, 1, 2, ···}, the set of integers. • R, the set of real numbers. • R+, the set of non-negative real numbers. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS3/32 Partial Orders — Basics Relations and Functions • A binary relation from A to B is a subset of A × B. • A partial function f from A to B is a relation where (a, b) ∈ f and (a, b0) ∈ f =⇒ b = b0. Such a partial function is written f : A*B. • A total function or just function f from A to B is a partial function where for all a ∈ A, there is a b ∈ B such that (a, b) ∈ f. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS4/32 Partial Orders — Basics Notation • A binary relation: R ⊆ A × B. • Infix notation: (a, b) ∈ R is written aRb. • A symbol for a relation: • ≤⊂ N × N • (a, b) ∈≤ is written a ≤ b. • A function is written f : A → B, and the A is called its domain and the B its codomain. Rather than writing (a, b) ∈ f, we can equivalently write f(a) = b. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS5/32 Partial Orders — Basics Partial Order A partial order on a set A is a relation from A to A satisfying the following properties. For all a, b, c ∈ A, the relation is 1. reflexive: a ≤ a 2. antisymmetric: a ≤ b and b ≤ a implies that a = b. 3. transitive: a ≤ b and b ≤ c implies that a ≤ c. A partially ordered set or poset is (A, ≤), or (A, ≤A). Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS6/32 Partial Orders — Basics What is Order? • 0 < 1 • 1 < ∞ • child < parent • child > parent • 11,000/3,501 is a better approximation to p than 22/7 • integer n is a divisor of integer m. • Set A is a subset of set B. • I know more about x than about y. Which of these are partial orders? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS7/32 Partial Orders — Basics Strict Partial Order A poset (A, ≤) induces another relation < called the strict partial order relation: ∀ a, a0 ∈ A, a < a0 ⇔ a ≤ a0 and a 6= a0 . (A, <) is called a strict poset. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS8/32 Partial Orders — Basics Chains and Total Orders 1. If a, a0 ∈ A satisfy either a ≤ a0 or a0 ≤ a, then a and a0 are comparable. Otherwise, they are incomparable. 2. A chain C ⊆ A is a subset of a poset (A, ≤) where any two members of the subset are comparable. 3.A total order is a poset (A, ≤) where A itself is a chain. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS9/32 Partial Orders — Basics Quiz 1. Is the set of integers with the usual numerical ordering a well-ordered set? (A well-ordered set is a set where every non-empty subset has a least element.) 2. Given a set A and its powerset (set of all subsets) ℘(A), is (℘(A), ⊆) a poset? A chain? 3. For A = {a, b, c} (an alphabet), find a well-ordered subset of (℘(A), ⊆). Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 10/32 Partial Orders — Basics Quiz 1. Is the set of integers with the usual numerical ordering a well-ordered set? No. The set itself is a chain with no least element. 2. Given a set A and its powerset (set of all subsets) ℘(A), is (℘(A), ⊆) a poset? A chain? It is a poset, but not a chain. 3. For A = {a, b, c} (an alphabet), find a well-ordered subset of (℘(A), ⊆). One possibility: {∅, {a}, {a, b}, {a, b, c}}. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 11/32 Partial Orders — Basics Join (Least Upper Bound) • Given a poset (A, ≤) and a subset B ⊆ A, an upper bound of B, if it exists, is an element a ∈ A such that for all b ∈ B, b ≤ a. • A least upper bound or LUB, if it exists, is an upper bound a such that for all other upper bounds a0 we have a ≤ a0. • If a set B ⊆ A has a least upper bound in the poset (A, ≤), then it is said to be joinable in (A, ≤). • The LUB is called the join of B and written W B. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 12/32 Partial Orders — Basics Meet (Greatest Lower Bound) • Given a poset (A, ≤) and a subset B ⊆ A, a lower bound of B, if it exists, is an element a ∈ A such that for all b ∈ B, a ≤ b. • A greatest lower bound or GLB, if it exists, is a lower bound a such that for all other lower bounds a0 we have a0 ≤ a. • If a set B ⊆ A has a GLB in the poset (A, ≤), the GLB is called the meet of B, written V B. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 13/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example of Join and Meet Given a set A and a poset (℘(A), ⊆), then for any B ⊆ ℘(A), • W B = ∪B (the union of subsets) • V B = ∩B (the intersection of subsets) Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 14/32 Partial Orders — Basics Directed Sets, Bottom • A nonempty subset D ⊆ A of poset (A, ≤) is a directed set if every pair of elements in D has an upper bound in D. • Equivalently, D is directed if every non-empty finite subset of D is joinable in D. V • A pointed poset has a bottom element, often written ⊥A = A ∈ A, or simply ⊥. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 15/32 Partial Orders — Basics Complete Partial Order A complete partial order or CPO (A, ≤) is a pointed poset where every directed subset is joinable in A. Examples: • Every finite pointed poset is a CPO. • (N, ≤) is not a CPO. • (N ∪ {∞}, ≤) is a CPO. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 16/32 Partial Orders — Basics Complete Partial Order Alternative Definition A complete partial order or CPO (A, ≤) is a pointed poset where every chain has a LUB in A. The equivalence of this definition is not trivial. See Davey and Priestly (2002), theorem 8.11. The equivalence is trivial for some posets, where every directed set is a chain, such a prefix orders, which we will look at later. Quiz: Is a pointed poset A where every chain is finite always a CPO? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 17/32 Partial Orders — Basics Complete Partial Order Alternative Definition A complete partial order or CPO (A, ≤) is a pointed poset where every chain has a LUB in A. The equivalence of this definition is not trivial. See Davey and Priestly (2002), theorem 8.11. The equivalence is trivial for some posets, where every directed set is a chain, such a prefix orders, which we will look at later. Quiz: Is a pointed poset A where every chain is finite always a CPO? Yes Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 18/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Hasse diagram of a poset (A, ≤) where A = {⊥, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h} Quiz: Is this a CPO? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 19/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Hasse diagram of a poset (A, ≤) where A = {⊥, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h} Quiz: Is this a CPO? Yes. Pointed and finite. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 20/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Is A well ordered? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 21/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Is A well ordered? No. E.g., D = {e, f} has no least element. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 22/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Does every pair of elements of A have a GLB? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 23/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Does every pair of elements of A have a GLB? Yes. Such a poset is a lower semilattice. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 24/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Does every pair of elements of A have a LUB? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 25/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Does every pair of elements of A have a GLB? No. Such a poset would be an upper semilattice. If it is both a lower and upper semilattice, then it is a lattice. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 26/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Is D = {e, f} joinable in A? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 27/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Is D = {e, f} joinable in A? Yes. W D = a. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 28/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Is D = {e, f} joinable in D? Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 29/32 Partial Orders — Basics Example Quiz: Is D = {e, f} joinable in D? No. No upper bound in D, so no least upper bound. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 30/32 Partial Orders — Basics References Davey, B. A. and H. A. Priestly, 2002: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. Edward A. Lee | UC Berkeley — EECS 31/32 Questions?.
Recommended publications
  • Directed Sets and Topological Spaces Definable in O-Minimal Structures

    Directed Sets and Topological Spaces Definable in O-Minimal Structures

    Directed sets and topological spaces definable in o-minimal structures. Pablo And´ujarGuerrero∗ Margaret E. M. Thomas ∗ Erik Walsbergy 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 03C64 (Primary), 54A20, 54A05, 54D30 (Secondary). Key words. o-minimality, directed sets, definable topological spaces. Abstract We study directed sets definable in o-minimal structures, show- ing that in expansions of ordered fields these admit cofinal definable curves, as well as a suitable analogue in expansions of ordered groups, and furthermore that no analogue holds in full generality. We use the theory of tame pairs to extend the results in the field case to definable families of sets with the finite intersection property. We then apply our results to the study of definable topologies. We prove that all de- finable topological spaces display properties akin to first countability, and give several characterizations of a notion of definable compactness due to Peterzil and Steinhorn [PS99] generalized to this setting. 1 Introduction The study of objects definable in o-minimal structures is motivated by the notion that o-minimality provides a rich but \tame" setting for the theories of said objects. In this paper we study directed sets definable in o-minimal structures, focusing on expansions of groups and fields. By \directed set" we mean a preordered set in which every finite subset has a lower (if downward ∗Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, 150 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2067, U.S.A. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (And´ujarGuer- rero), [email protected] (Thomas) yDepartment of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, Department of Math- ematics, University of California, Irvine, 340 Rowland Hall (Bldg.# 400), Irvine, CA 92697-3875, U.S.A.
  • Relations on Semigroups

    Relations on Semigroups

    International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM) ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-09, Dec 2018 Relations on Semigroups 1D.D.Padma Priya, 2G.Shobhalatha, 3U.Nagireddy, 4R.Bhuvana Vijaya 1 Sr.Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, New Horizon College Of Engineering, Bangalore, India, Research scholar, Department of Mathematics, JNTUA- Anantapuram [email protected] 2Professor, Department of Mathematics, SKU-Anantapuram, India, [email protected] 3Assistant Professor, Rayalaseema University, Kurnool, India, [email protected] 4Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, JNTUA- Anantapuram, India, [email protected] Abstract: Equivalence relations play a vital role in the study of quotient structures of different algebraic structures. Semigroups being one of the algebraic structures are sets with associative binary operation defined on them. Semigroup theory is one of such subject to determine and analyze equivalence relations in the sense that it could be easily understood. This paper contains the quotient structures of semigroups by extending equivalence relations as congruences. We define different types of relations on the semigroups and prove they are equivalence, partial order, congruence or weakly separative congruence relations. Keywords: Semigroup, binary relation, Equivalence and congruence relations. I. INTRODUCTION [1,2,3 and 4] Algebraic structures play a prominent role in mathematics with wide range of applications in science and engineering. A semigroup
  • Scott Spaces and the Dcpo Category

    Scott Spaces and the Dcpo Category

    SCOTT SPACES AND THE DCPO CATEGORY JORDAN BROWN Abstract. Directed-complete partial orders (dcpo’s) arise often in the study of λ-calculus. Here we investigate certain properties of dcpo’s and the Scott spaces they induce. We introduce a new construction which allows for the canonical extension of a partial order to a dcpo and give a proof that the dcpo introduced by Zhao, Xi, and Chen is well-filtered. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. General Definitions and the Finite Case 2 3. Connectedness of Scott Spaces 5 4. The Categorical Structure of DCPO 6 5. Suprema and the Waybelow Relation 7 6. Hofmann-Mislove Theorem 9 7. Ordinal-Based DCPOs 11 8. Acknowledgments 13 References 13 1. Introduction Directed-complete partially ordered sets (dcpo’s) often arise in the study of λ-calculus. Namely, they are often used to construct models for λ theories. There are several versions of the λ-calculus, all of which attempt to describe the ‘computable’ functions. The first robust descriptions of λ-calculus appeared around the same time as the definition of Turing machines, and Turing’s paper introducing computing machines includes a proof that his computable functions are precisely the λ-definable ones [5] [8]. Though we do not address the λ-calculus directly here, an exposition of certain λ theories and the construction of Scott space models for them can be found in [1]. In these models, computable functions correspond to continuous functions with respect to the Scott topology. It is thus with an eye to the application of topological tools in the study of computability that we investigate the Scott topology.
  • A Guide to Topology

    A Guide to Topology

    i i “topguide” — 2010/12/8 — 17:36 — page i — #1 i i A Guide to Topology i i i i i i “topguide” — 2011/2/15 — 16:42 — page ii — #2 i i c 2009 by The Mathematical Association of America (Incorporated) Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 2009929077 Print Edition ISBN 978-0-88385-346-7 Electronic Edition ISBN 978-0-88385-917-9 Printed in the United States of America Current Printing (last digit): 10987654321 i i i i i i “topguide” — 2010/12/8 — 17:36 — page iii — #3 i i The Dolciani Mathematical Expositions NUMBER FORTY MAA Guides # 4 A Guide to Topology Steven G. Krantz Washington University, St. Louis ® Published and Distributed by The Mathematical Association of America i i i i i i “topguide” — 2010/12/8 — 17:36 — page iv — #4 i i DOLCIANI MATHEMATICAL EXPOSITIONS Committee on Books Paul Zorn, Chair Dolciani Mathematical Expositions Editorial Board Underwood Dudley, Editor Jeremy S. Case Rosalie A. Dance Tevian Dray Patricia B. Humphrey Virginia E. Knight Mark A. Peterson Jonathan Rogness Thomas Q. Sibley Joe Alyn Stickles i i i i i i “topguide” — 2010/12/8 — 17:36 — page v — #5 i i The DOLCIANI MATHEMATICAL EXPOSITIONS series of the Mathematical Association of America was established through a generous gift to the Association from Mary P. Dolciani, Professor of Mathematics at Hunter College of the City Uni- versity of New York. In making the gift, Professor Dolciani, herself an exceptionally talented and successfulexpositor of mathematics, had the purpose of furthering the ideal of excellence in mathematical exposition.
  • On Scattered Convex Geometries

    On Scattered Convex Geometries

    ON SCATTERED CONVEX GEOMETRIES KIRA ADARICHEVA AND MAURICE POUZET Abstract. A convex geometry is a closure space satisfying the anti-exchange axiom. For several types of algebraic convex geometries we describe when the collection of closed sets is order scat- tered, in terms of obstructions to the semilattice of compact elements. In particular, a semilattice Ω(η), that does not appear among minimal obstructions to order-scattered algebraic modular lattices, plays a prominent role in convex geometries case. The connection to topological scat- teredness is established in convex geometries of relatively convex sets. 1. Introduction We call a pair X; φ of a non-empty set X and a closure operator φ 2X 2X on X a convex geometry[6], if it is a zero-closed space (i.e. ) and φ satisfies the anti-exchange axiom: ( ) ∶ → x A y and x∅ =A∅imply that y A x for all x y in X and all closed A X: ∈ ∪ { } ∉ ∉ ∪ { } The study of convex geometries in finite≠ case was inspired by their⊆ frequent appearance in mod- eling various discrete structures, as well as by their juxtaposition to matroids, see [20, 21]. More recently, there was a number of publications, see, for example, [4, 43, 44, 45, 48, 7] brought up by studies in infinite convex geometries. A convex geometry is called algebraic, if the closure operator φ is finitary. Most of interesting infinite convex geometries are algebraic, such as convex geometries of relatively convex sets, sub- semilattices of a semilattice, suborders of a partial order or convex subsets of a partially ordered set.
  • Binary Relations and Functions

    Binary Relations and Functions

    Harvard University, Math 101, Spring 2015 Binary relations and Functions 1 Binary Relations Intuitively, a binary relation is a rule to pair elements of a sets A to element of a set B. When two elements a 2 A is in a relation to an element b 2 B we write a R b . Since the order is relevant, we can completely characterize a relation R by the set of ordered pairs (a; b) such that a R b. This motivates the following formal definition: Definition A binary relation between two sets A and B is a subset of the Cartesian product A×B. In other words, a binary relation is an element of P(A × B). A binary relation on A is a subset of P(A2). It is useful to introduce the notions of domain and range of a binary relation R from a set A to a set B: • Dom(R) = fx 2 A : 9 y 2 B xRyg Ran(R) = fy 2 B : 9 x 2 A : xRyg. 2 Properties of a relation on a set Given a binary relation R on a set A, we have the following definitions: • R is transitive iff 8x; y; z 2 A :(xRy and yRz) =) xRz: • R is reflexive iff 8x 2 A : x Rx • R is irreflexive iff 8x 2 A : :(xRx) • R is symmetric iff 8x; y 2 A : xRy =) yRx • R is asymmetric iff 8x; y 2 A : xRy =):(yRx): 1 • R is antisymmetric iff 8x; y 2 A :(xRy and yRx) =) x = y: In a given set A, we can always define one special relation called the identity relation.
  • Advanced Discrete Mathematics Mm-504 &

    Advanced Discrete Mathematics Mm-504 &

    1 ADVANCED DISCRETE MATHEMATICS M.A./M.Sc. Mathematics (Final) MM-504 & 505 (Option-P3) Directorate of Distance Education Maharshi Dayanand University ROHTAK – 124 001 2 Copyright © 2004, Maharshi Dayanand University, ROHTAK All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means; electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Maharshi Dayanand University ROHTAK – 124 001 Developed & Produced by EXCEL BOOKS PVT. LTD., A-45 Naraina, Phase 1, New Delhi-110 028 3 Contents UNIT 1: Logic, Semigroups & Monoids and Lattices 5 Part A: Logic Part B: Semigroups & Monoids Part C: Lattices UNIT 2: Boolean Algebra 84 UNIT 3: Graph Theory 119 UNIT 4: Computability Theory 202 UNIT 5: Languages and Grammars 231 4 M.A./M.Sc. Mathematics (Final) ADVANCED DISCRETE MATHEMATICS MM- 504 & 505 (P3) Max. Marks : 100 Time : 3 Hours Note: Question paper will consist of three sections. Section I consisting of one question with ten parts covering whole of the syllabus of 2 marks each shall be compulsory. From Section II, 10 questions to be set selecting two questions from each unit. The candidate will be required to attempt any seven questions each of five marks. Section III, five questions to be set, one from each unit. The candidate will be required to attempt any three questions each of fifteen marks. Unit I Formal Logic: Statement, Symbolic representation, totologies, quantifiers, pradicates and validity, propositional logic. Semigroups and Monoids: Definitions and examples of semigroups and monoids (including those pertaining to concentration operations).
  • Slides by Akihisa

    Slides by Akihisa

    Complete non-orders and fixed points Akihisa Yamada1, Jérémy Dubut1,2 1 National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan 2 Japanese-French Laboratory for Informatics, Tokyo, Japan Supported by ERATO HASUO Metamathematics for Systems Design Project (No. JPMJER1603), JST Introduction • Interactive Theorem Proving is appreciated for reliability • But it's also engineering tool for mathematics (esp. Isabelle/jEdit) • refactoring proofs and claims • sledgehammer • quickcheck/nitpick(/nunchaku) • We develop an Isabelle library of order theory (as a case study) ⇒ we could generalize many known results, like: • completeness conditions: duality and relationships • Knaster-Tarski fixed-point theorem • Kleene's fixed-point theorem Order A binary relation ⊑ • reflexive ⟺ � ⊑ � • transitive ⟺ � ⊑ � and � ⊑ � implies � ⊑ � • antisymmetric ⟺ � ⊑ � and � ⊑ � implies � = � • partial order ⟺ reflexive + transitive + antisymmetric Order A binary relation ⊑ locale less_eq_syntax = fixes less_eq :: 'a ⇒ 'a ⇒ bool (infix "⊑" 50) • reflexive ⟺ � ⊑ � locale reflexive = ... assumes "x ⊑ x" • transitive ⟺ � ⊑ � and � ⊑ � implies � ⊑ � locale transitive = ... assumes "x ⊑ y ⟹ y ⊑ z ⟹ x ⊑ z" • antisymmetric ⟺ � ⊑ � and � ⊑ � implies � = � locale antisymmetric = ... assumes "x ⊑ y ⟹ y ⊑ x ⟹ x = y" • partial order ⟺ reflexive + transitive + antisymmetric locale partial_order = reflexive + transitive + antisymmetric Quasi-order A binary relation ⊑ locale less_eq_syntax = fixes less_eq :: 'a ⇒ 'a ⇒ bool (infix "⊑" 50) • reflexive ⟺ � ⊑ � locale reflexive = ... assumes
  • Semiring Orders in a Semiring -.:: Natural Sciences Publishing

    Semiring Orders in a Semiring -.:: Natural Sciences Publishing

    Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 6, No. 1, 99-102 (2012) 99 Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences An International Journal °c 2012 NSP Natural Sciences Publishing Cor. Semiring Orders in a Semiring Jeong Soon Han1, Hee Sik Kim2 and J. Neggers3 1 Department of Applied Mathematics, Hanyang University, Ahnsan, 426-791, Korea 2 Department of Mathematics, Research Institute for Natural Research, Hanyang University, Seoal, Korea 3 Department of Mathematics, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0350, U.S.A Received: Received May 03, 2011; Accepted August 23, 2011 Published online: 1 January 2012 Abstract: Given a semiring it is possible to associate a variety of partial orders with it in quite natural ways, connected with both its additive and its multiplicative structures. These partial orders are related among themselves in an interesting manner is no surprise therefore. Given particular types of semirings, e.g., commutative semirings, these relationships become even more strict. Finally, in terms of the arithmetic of semirings in general or of some special type the fact that certain pairs of elements are comparable in one of these orders may have computable and interesting consequences also. It is the purpose of this paper to consider all these aspects in some detail and to obtain several results as a consequence. Keywords: semiring, semiring order, partial order, commutative. The notion of a semiring was first introduced by H. S. they are equivalent (see [7]). J. Neggers et al. ([5, 6]) dis- Vandiver in 1934, but implicitly semirings had appeared cussed the notion of semiring order in semirings, and ob- earlier in studies on the theory of ideals of rings ([2]).
  • On Tarski's Axiomatization of Mereology

    On Tarski's Axiomatization of Mereology

    On Tarski’s Axiomatization of Mereology Neil Tennant Studia Logica An International Journal for Symbolic Logic ISSN 0039-3215 Volume 107 Number 6 Stud Logica (2019) 107:1089-1102 DOI 10.1007/s11225-018-9819-3 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy Neil Tennant On Tarski’s Axiomatization of Mereology Abstract. It is shown how Tarski’s 1929 axiomatization of mereology secures the re- flexivity of the ‘part of’ relation. This is done with a fusion-abstraction principle that is constructively weaker than that of Tarski; and by means of constructive and relevant rea- soning throughout. We place a premium on complete formal rigor of proof. Every step of reasoning is an application of a primitive rule; and the natural deductions themselves can be checked effectively for formal correctness. Keywords: Mereology, Part of, Reflexivity, Tarski, Axiomatization, Constructivity.
  • Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1

    Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1

    Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1: A directed set I is a set with a partial order ≤ such that for every i; j 2 I there is k 2 I such that i ≤ k and j ≤ k. Let R be a ring. A directed system of R-modules indexed by I is a collection of R modules fMi j i 2 Ig with a R module homomorphisms µi;j : Mi ! Mj for each pair i; j 2 I where i ≤ j, such that (i) for any i 2 I, µi;i = IdMi and (ii) for any i ≤ j ≤ k in I, µi;j ◦ µj;k = µi;k. We shall denote a directed system by a tuple (Mi; µi;j). The direct limit of a directed system is defined using a universal property. It exists and is unique up to a unique isomorphism. Theorem 2 (Direct limits). Let fMi j i 2 Ig be a directed system of R modules then there exists an R module M with the following properties: (i) There are R module homomorphisms µi : Mi ! M for each i 2 I, satisfying µi = µj ◦ µi;j whenever i < j. (ii) If there is an R module N such that there are R module homomorphisms νi : Mi ! N for each i and νi = νj ◦µi;j whenever i < j; then there exists a unique R module homomorphism ν : M ! N, such that νi = ν ◦ µi. The module M is unique in the sense that if there is any other R module M 0 satisfying properties (i) and (ii) then there is a unique R module isomorphism µ0 : M ! M 0.
  • Functions, Sets, and Relations

    Functions, Sets, and Relations

    Sets A set is a collection of objects. These objects can be anything, even sets themselves. An object x that is in a set S is called an element of that set. We write x ∈ S. Some special sets: ∅: The empty set; the set containing no objects at all N: The set of all natural numbers 1, 2, 3, … (sometimes, we include 0 as a natural number) Z: the set of all integers …, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, … Q: the set of all rational numbers (numbers that can be written as a ratio p/q with p and q integers) R: the set of real numbers (points on the continuous number line; comprises the rational as well as irrational numbers) When all elements of a set A are elements of set B as well, we say that A is a subset of B. We write this as A ⊆ B. When A is a subset of B, and there are elements in B that are not in A, we say that A is a strict subset of B. We write this as A ⊂ B. When two sets A and B have exactly the same elements, then the two sets are the same. We write A = B. Some Theorems: For any sets A, B, and C: A ⊆ A A = B if and only if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ C then A ⊆ C Formalizations in first-order logic: ∀x ∀y (x = y ↔ ∀z (z ∈ x ↔ z ∈ y)) Axiom of Extensionality ∀x ∀y (x ⊆ y ↔ ∀z (z ∈ x → z ∈ y)) Definition subset Operations on Sets With A and B sets, the following are sets as well: The union A ∪ B, which is the set of all objects that are in A or in B (or both) The intersection A ∩ B, which is the set of all objects that are in A as well as B The difference A \ B, which is the set of all objects that are in A, but not in B The powerset P(A) which is the set of all subsets of A.