DOCSLIB.ORG

Set Theory Fundamentals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Set Theory Fundamentals Set Theory Jason Filippou CMSC250 @ UMCP 06-20-2016 Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 1 / 56 Outline 1 Branches of Set Theory 2 Basic Definitions Single sets Two or more sets 3 Proofs with sets 4 An application: Formal languages 5 Paradoxes in Set Theory Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 2 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Branches of Set Theory Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 3 / 56 Formal Proofs! Branches of Set Theory Naive Naive set theory is typically taught even at elementary school nowadays. Only kind of set theory till the 1870s! Consists of applications of Venn Diagrams. Very intuitive, suitable for graphical applications Not an ounce of formality. Cannot be used for... Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 4 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Naive Naive set theory is typically taught even at elementary school nowadays. Only kind of set theory till the 1870s! Consists of applications of Venn Diagrams. Very intuitive, suitable for graphical applications Not an ounce of formality. Cannot be used for... Formal Proofs! Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 4 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Naive Based entirely on Venn Diagrams. Ω Α Β C Figure 1: An example Venn Diagram. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 5 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Axiomatic (Cantor & Dedekind) First axiomatization of Set Theory. Understanding of infinite sets and their cardinality. Figure 2: Georg Cantor, 1870s Figure 3: Richard Dedekind, 1900s Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 6 / 56 Also: Power set operation. Cantor's paradise. Branches of Set Theory Famous Result 1874 Cantor paper: \On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers" The set of real numbers is uncountable. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 7 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Famous Result 1874 Cantor paper: \On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers" The set of real numbers is uncountable. Also: Power set operation. Cantor's paradise. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 7 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Russel's Paradox Consider the following set: S = fxjx2 = xg Then, does S 2 S ? Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 8 / 56 Branches of Set Theory So why do we care? If Axiomatic (Cantorian) Set Theory is \broken", why do we study it? Rough answer: Just because a theory is \broken" (i.e leads to contradictions) doesn't mean we shouldn't study it. Theories are specialized (more stuff is added to them) in order to avoid contradictions all the time. Non-Euclidean geometries. Zermello - Fraenkel Set Theory. Qualitative answer: it gives us background necessary to discuss: 1 Limitations of computers as a whole! 2 Some fundamental results on countability and uncountability of infinite sets. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 9 / 56 Kripke-Platek Von Neumann - Bernays - G¨odel Morse-Kelley Tarski-Grothendieck ::: Branches of Set Theory Branches of Axiomatic Set Theory Zermelo-Fraenkel (answers Russel's paradox through the axiom of choice). Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 10 / 56 Von Neumann - Bernays - G¨odel Morse-Kelley Tarski-Grothendieck ::: Branches of Set Theory Branches of Axiomatic Set Theory Zermelo-Fraenkel (answers Russel's paradox through the axiom of choice). Kripke-Platek Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 10 / 56 Morse-Kelley Tarski-Grothendieck ::: Branches of Set Theory Branches of Axiomatic Set Theory Zermelo-Fraenkel (answers Russel's paradox through the axiom of choice). Kripke-Platek Von Neumann - Bernays - G¨odel Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 10 / 56 Tarski-Grothendieck ::: Branches of Set Theory Branches of Axiomatic Set Theory Zermelo-Fraenkel (answers Russel's paradox through the axiom of choice). Kripke-Platek Von Neumann - Bernays - G¨odel Morse-Kelley Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 10 / 56 ::: Branches of Set Theory Branches of Axiomatic Set Theory Zermelo-Fraenkel (answers Russel's paradox through the axiom of choice). Kripke-Platek Von Neumann - Bernays - G¨odel Morse-Kelley Tarski-Grothendieck Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 10 / 56 Branches of Set Theory Branches of Axiomatic Set Theory Zermelo-Fraenkel (answers Russel's paradox through the axiom of choice). Kripke-Platek Von Neumann - Bernays - G¨odel Morse-Kelley Tarski-Grothendieck ::: Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 10 / 56 Basic Definitions Basic Definitions Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 11 / 56 Basic Definitions Single sets Single sets Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 12 / 56 Definition (Ordered Set) An ordered set is a pair (S; ≤), where S is a set and ≤ is a total order. Total orders: binary relations that are antisymmetric, transitive and total. Examples: ≤, ⊆, lexicographic ordering. Definition (Multiset) A multiset is a collection of objects with repetitions. We won't really care about those, or about ordered multisets. Basic Definitions Single sets Definitions Definition (Set) A set is a collection of objects without repetitions. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 13 / 56 Definition (Multiset) A multiset is a collection of objects with repetitions. We won't really care about those, or about ordered multisets. Basic Definitions Single sets Definitions Definition (Set) A set is a collection of objects without repetitions. Definition (Ordered Set) An ordered set is a pair (S; ≤), where S is a set and ≤ is a total order. Total orders: binary relations that are antisymmetric, transitive and total. Examples: ≤, ⊆, lexicographic ordering. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 13 / 56 Basic Definitions Single sets Definitions Definition (Set) A set is a collection of objects without repetitions. Definition (Ordered Set) An ordered set is a pair (S; ≤), where S is a set and ≤ is a total order. Total orders: binary relations that are antisymmetric, transitive and total. Examples: ≤, ⊆, lexicographic ordering. Definition (Multiset) A multiset is a collection of objects with repetitions. We won't really care about those, or about ordered multisets. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 13 / 56 Since the chief operation is membership, and sets have unique elements, how would you implement them in computer memory? Basic Definitions Single sets Membership Chief operation on sets: membership (2). If Ω is a domain of choice and S is a set, any element e of Ω can either belong to A (e 2 A) or not (e2 = A). Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 14 / 56 Basic Definitions Single sets Membership Chief operation on sets: membership (2). If Ω is a domain of choice and S is a set, any element e of Ω can either belong to A (e 2 A) or not (e2 = A). Since the chief operation is membership, and sets have unique elements, how would you implement them in computer memory? Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 14 / 56 1 Curly braces: S = f0; 2; 4; 6g, Z = fAshley; John; Markg, F = f1; 2; 3; 5; 8; 13; 21;::: g 2 Definition: A = fz 2 Z j z ≥ −2g 3 Agreed upon symbol: N, P, etc 4 An operation (union, superset, etc): C = A [ B, P(f0; 1g) Basic Definitions Single sets Defining a set Three ways. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 15 / 56 2 Definition: A = fz 2 Z j z ≥ −2g 3 Agreed upon symbol: N, P, etc 4 An operation (union, superset, etc): C = A [ B, P(f0; 1g) Basic Definitions Single sets Defining a set Three ways. 1 Curly braces: S = f0; 2; 4; 6g, Z = fAshley; John; Markg, F = f1; 2; 3; 5; 8; 13; 21;::: g Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 15 / 56 3 Agreed upon symbol: N, P, etc 4 An operation (union, superset, etc): C = A [ B, P(f0; 1g) Basic Definitions Single sets Defining a set Three ways. 1 Curly braces: S = f0; 2; 4; 6g, Z = fAshley; John; Markg, F = f1; 2; 3; 5; 8; 13; 21;::: g 2 Definition: A = fz 2 Z j z ≥ −2g Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 15 / 56 4 An operation (union, superset, etc): C = A [ B, P(f0; 1g) Basic Definitions Single sets Defining a set Three ways. 1 Curly braces: S = f0; 2; 4; 6g, Z = fAshley; John; Markg, F = f1; 2; 3; 5; 8; 13; 21;::: g 2 Definition: A = fz 2 Z j z ≥ −2g 3 Agreed upon symbol: N, P, etc Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 15 / 56 Basic Definitions Single sets Defining a set Three ways. 1 Curly braces: S = f0; 2; 4; 6g, Z = fAshley; John; Markg, F = f1; 2; 3; 5; 8; 13; 21;::: g 2 Definition: A = fz 2 Z j z ≥ −2g 3 Agreed upon symbol: N, P, etc 4 An operation (union, superset, etc): C = A [ B, P(f0; 1g) Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 15 / 56 Corollary 8A ⊆ Ω; jAj ≥ 0 |{−10; 0; 10gj = ? 3 jfn 2 Njn < 100gj = ? 100 ∗ jfn 2 N jn < 100gj = ? 99 jNj = ? @0 (???) Basic Definitions Single sets Cardinality Definition (Cardinality of a set) Let A be a finite set.a Then, the number of elements of the A, denoted jAj 2 N is called the cardinality of A. aHold your horses, please. Jason Filippou (CMSC250 @ UMCP) Set Theory 06-20-2016 16 / 56 |{−10; 0; 10gj = ? 3 jfn 2 Njn < 100gj = ? 100 ∗ jfn 2 N jn < 100gj = ? 99 jNj = ? @0 (???) Basic Definitions Single sets Cardinality Definition (Cardinality of a set) Let A be a finite set.a Then, the number of elements of the A, denoted jAj 2 N is called the cardinality of A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion
    Inclusion / Exclusion — §3.1 67 Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion Example. Suppose that in this class, 14 students play soccer and 11 students play basketball. How many students play a sport? Solution. Let S be the set of students who play soccer and B be the set of students who play basketball. Then, |S ∪ B| = |S| + |B| . Inclusion / Exclusion — §3.1 68 Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion When A = A1 ∪···∪Ak ⊂U (U for universe) and the sets Ai are pairwise disjoint,wehave|A| = |A1| + ···+ |Ak |. When A = A1 ∪···∪Ak ⊂U and the Ai are not pairwise disjoint, we must apply the principle of inclusion-exclusion to determine |A|: |A1 ∪ A2| = |A1| + |A2|−|A1 ∩ A2| |A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3| = |A1| + |A2| + |A3|−|A1 ∩ A2|−|A1 ∩ A3| −|A2 ∩ A3| + |A1 ∩ A2 ∩ A3| |A1 ∪···∪Am| = |Ai |− |Ai ∩ Aj | + Ai ∩ Aj ∩ Ak ··· ! ! ! " " " " It may be more convenient to apply inclusion/exclusion where the Ai are forbidden subsets of U,inwhichcase . Inclusion / Exclusion — §3.1 69 mmm...PIE The key to using the principle of inclusion-exclusion is determining the right choice of Ai .TheAi and their intersections should be easy to count and easy to characterize. Notation: π = p1p2 ···pn is the one-line notation for a permutation of [n] whose first element is p1,secondelementisp2,etc. Example. How many permutations p = p1p2 ···pn are there in which at least one of p1 and p2 are even? Solution. Let U be the set of n-permutations. Let A1 be the set of permutations where p1 is even. Let A2 be the set of permutations where p2 is even.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Sets and Pluralities
    Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Sistema de Información Científica Gustavo Fernández Díez Sets and Pluralities Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, vol. IX, núm. 19, 2009, pp. 5-22, Universidad El Bosque Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=41418349001 Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, ISSN (Printed Version): 0124-4620 [email protected] Universidad El Bosque Colombia How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage www.redalyc.org Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative Sets and Pluralities1 Gustavo Fernández Díez2 Resumen En este artículo estudio el trasfondo filosófico del sistema de lógica conocido como “lógica plural”, o “lógica de cuantificadores plurales”, de aparición relativamente reciente (y en alza notable en los últimos años). En particular, comparo la noción de “conjunto” emanada de la teoría axiomática de conjuntos, con la noción de “plura- lidad” que se encuentra detrás de este nuevo sistema. Mi conclusión es que los dos son completamente diferentes en su alcance y sus límites, y que la diferencia proviene de las diferentes motivaciones que han dado lugar a cada uno. Mientras que la teoría de conjuntos es una teoría genuinamente matemática, que tiene el interés matemático como ingrediente principal, la lógica plural ha aparecido como respuesta a considera- ciones lingüísticas, relacionadas con la estructura lógica de los enunciados plurales del inglés y el resto de los lenguajes naturales. Palabras clave: conjunto, teoría de conjuntos, pluralidad, cuantificación plural, lógica plural. Abstract In this paper I study the philosophical background of the relatively recent (and in the last few years increasingly flourishing) system of logic called “plural logic”, or “logic of plural quantifiers”.
    [Show full text]
  • VENN DIAGRAM Is a Graphic Organizer That Compares and Contrasts Two (Or More) Ideas
    InformationVenn Technology Diagram Solutions ABOUT THE STRATEGY A VENN DIAGRAM is a graphic organizer that compares and contrasts two (or more) ideas. Overlapping circles represent how ideas are similar (the inner circle) and different (the outer circles). It is used after reading a text(s) where two (or more) ideas are being compared and contrasted. This strategy helps students identify Wisconsin similarities and differences between ideas. State Standards Reading:INTERNET SECURITYLiterature IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY •Sit Integration amet, consec tetuer of Establish the purpose of the Venn Diagram. adipiscingKnowledge elit, sed diam and Discuss two (or more) ideas / texts, brainstorming characteristics of each of the nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt Ideas ideas / texts. ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam. Provide students with a Venn diagram and model how to use it, using two (or more) ideas / class texts and a think aloud to illustrate your thinking; scaffold as NETWORKGrade PROTECTION Level needed. Ut wisi enim adK- minim5 veniam, After students have examined two (or more) ideas or read two (or more) texts, quis nostrud exerci tation have them complete the Venn diagram. Ask students leading questions for each ullamcorper.Et iusto odio idea: What two (or more) ideas are we comparing and contrasting? How are the dignissimPurpose qui blandit ideas similar? How are the ideas different? Usepraeseptatum with studentszzril delenit Have students synthesize their analysis of the two (or more) ideas / texts, toaugue support duis dolore te feugait summarizing the differences and similarities. comprehension:nulla adipiscing elit, sed diam identifynonummy nibh. similarities MEASURING PROGRESS and differences Teacher observation betweenPERSONAL ideas FIREWALLS Conferring Tincidunt ut laoreet dolore Student journaling magnaWhen aliquam toerat volutUse pat.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Organizing Tuple Reconstruction in Column-Stores
    Self-organizing Tuple Reconstruction in Column-stores Stratos Idreos Martin L. Kersten Stefan Manegold CWI Amsterdam CWI Amsterdam CWI Amsterdam The Netherlands The Netherlands The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION Column-stores gained popularity as a promising physical de- A prime feature of column-stores is to provide improved sign alternative. Each attribute of a relation is physically performance over row-stores in the case that workloads re- stored as a separate column allowing queries to load only quire only a few attributes of wide tables at a time. Each the required attributes. The overhead incurred is on-the-fly relation R is physically stored as a set of columns; one col- tuple reconstruction for multi-attribute queries. Each tu- umn for each attribute of R. This way, a query needs to load ple reconstruction is a join of two columns based on tuple only the required attributes from each relevant relation. IDs, making it a significant cost component. The ultimate This happens at the expense of requiring explicit (partial) physical design is to have multiple presorted copies of each tuple reconstruction in case multiple attributes are required. base table such that tuples are already appropriately orga- Each tuple reconstruction is a join between two columns nized in multiple different orders across the various columns. based on tuple IDs/positions and becomes a significant cost This requires the ability to predict the workload, idle time component in column-stores especially for multi-attribute to prepare, and infrequent updates. queries [2, 6, 10].
    [Show full text]
  • The Probability Set-Up.Pdf
    CHAPTER 2 The probability set-up 2.1. Basic theory of probability We will have a sample space, denoted by S (sometimes Ω) that consists of all possible outcomes. For example, if we roll two dice, the sample space would be all possible pairs made up of the numbers one through six. An event is a subset of S. Another example is to toss a coin 2 times, and let S = fHH;HT;TH;TT g; or to let S be the possible orders in which 5 horses nish in a horse race; or S the possible prices of some stock at closing time today; or S = [0; 1); the age at which someone dies; or S the points in a circle, the possible places a dart can hit. We should also keep in mind that the same setting can be described using dierent sample set. For example, in two solutions in Example 1.30 we used two dierent sample sets. 2.1.1. Sets. We start by describing elementary operations on sets. By a set we mean a collection of distinct objects called elements of the set, and we consider a set as an object in its own right. Set operations Suppose S is a set. We say that A ⊂ S, that is, A is a subset of S if every element in A is contained in S; A [ B is the union of sets A ⊂ S and B ⊂ S and denotes the points of S that are in A or B or both; A \ B is the intersection of sets A ⊂ S and B ⊂ S and is the set of points that are in both A and B; ; denotes the empty set; Ac is the complement of A, that is, the points in S that are not in A.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Structures: Sets, Functions, Sequences, and Sums 2-2
    CHAPTER Basic Structures: Sets, Functions, 2 Sequences, and Sums 2.1 Sets uch of discrete mathematics is devoted to the study of discrete structures, used to represent discrete objects. Many important discrete structures are built using sets, which 2.2 Set Operations M are collections of objects. Among the discrete structures built from sets are combinations, 2.3 Functions unordered collections of objects used extensively in counting; relations, sets of ordered pairs that represent relationships between objects; graphs, sets of vertices and edges that connect 2.4 Sequences and vertices; and finite state machines, used to model computing machines. These are some of the Summations topics we will study in later chapters. The concept of a function is extremely important in discrete mathematics. A function assigns to each element of a set exactly one element of a set. Functions play important roles throughout discrete mathematics. They are used to represent the computational complexity of algorithms, to study the size of sets, to count objects, and in a myriad of other ways. Useful structures such as sequences and strings are special types of functions. In this chapter, we will introduce the notion of a sequence, which represents ordered lists of elements. We will introduce some important types of sequences, and we will address the problem of identifying a pattern for the terms of a sequence from its first few terms. Using the notion of a sequence, we will define what it means for a set to be countable, namely, that we can list all the elements of the set in a sequence.
    [Show full text]
  • A Diagrammatic Inference System with Euler Circles ∗
    A Diagrammatic Inference System with Euler Circles ∗ Koji Mineshima, Mitsuhiro Okada, and Ryo Takemura Department of Philosophy, Keio University, Japan. fminesima,mitsu,[email protected] Abstract Proof-theory has traditionally been developed based on linguistic (symbolic) represen- tations of logical proofs. Recently, however, logical reasoning based on diagrammatic or graphical representations has been investigated by logicians. Euler diagrams were intro- duced in the 18th century by Euler [1768]. But it is quite recent (more precisely, in the 1990s) that logicians started to study them from a formal logical viewpoint. We propose a novel approach to the formalization of Euler diagrammatic reasoning, in which diagrams are defined not in terms of regions as in the standard approach, but in terms of topo- logical relations between diagrammatic objects. We formalize the unification rule, which plays a central role in Euler diagrammatic reasoning, in a style of natural deduction. We prove the soundness and completeness theorems with respect to a formal set-theoretical semantics. We also investigate structure of diagrammatic proofs and prove a normal form theorem. 1 Introduction Euler diagrams were introduced by Euler [3] to illustrate syllogistic reasoning. In Euler dia- grams, logical relations among the terms of a syllogism are simply represented by topological relations among circles. For example, the universal categorical statements of the forms All A are B and No A are B are represented by the inclusion and the exclusion relations between circles, respectively, as seen in Fig. 1. Given two Euler diagrams which represent the premises of a syllogism, the syllogistic inference can be naturally replaced by the task of manipulating the diagrams, in particular of unifying the diagrams and extracting information from them.
    [Show full text]
  • On Free Products of N-Tuple Semigroups
    n-tuple semigroups Anatolii Zhuchok Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University Starobilsk, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] Anatolii Zhuchok Plan 1. Introduction 2. Examples of n-tuple semigroups and the independence of axioms 3. Free n-tuple semigroups 4. Free products of n-tuple semigroups 5. References Anatolii Zhuchok 1. Introduction The notion of an n-tuple algebra of associative type was introduced in [1] in connection with an attempt to obtain an analogue of the Chevalley construction for modular Lie algebras of Cartan type. This notion is based on the notion of an n-tuple semigroup. Recall that a nonempty set G is called an n-tuple semigroup [1], if it is endowed with n binary operations, denoted by 1 ; 2 ; :::; n , which satisfy the following axioms: (x r y) s z = x r (y s z) for any x; y; z 2 G and r; s 2 f1; 2; :::; ng. The class of all n-tuple semigroups is rather wide and contains, in particular, the class of all semigroups, the class of all commutative trioids (see, for example, [2, 3]) and the class of all commutative dimonoids (see, for example, [4, 5]). Anatolii Zhuchok 2-tuple semigroups, causing the greatest interest from the point of view of applications, occupy a special place among n-tuple semigroups. So, 2-tuple semigroups are closely connected with the notion of an interassociative semigroup (see, for example, [6, 7]). Moreover, 2-tuple semigroups, satisfying some additional identities, form so-called restrictive bisemigroups, considered earlier in the works of B. M. Schein (see, for example, [8, 9]).
    [Show full text]
  • TOPOLOGY and ITS APPLICATIONS the Number of Complements in The
    TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS ELSEVIER Topology and its Applications 55 (1994) 101-125 The number of complements in the lattice of topologies on a fixed set Stephen Watson Department of Mathematics, York Uniuersity, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ont., Canada M3J IP3 (Received 3 May 1989) (Revised 14 November 1989 and 2 June 1992) Abstract In 1936, Birkhoff ordered the family of all topologies on a set by inclusion and obtained a lattice with 1 and 0. The study of this lattice ought to be a basic pursuit both in combinatorial set theory and in general topology. In this paper, we study the nature of complementation in this lattice. We say that topologies 7 and (T are complementary if and only if 7 A c = 0 and 7 V (T = 1. For simplicity, we call any topology other than the discrete and the indiscrete a proper topology. Hartmanis showed in 1958 that any proper topology on a finite set of size at least 3 has at least two complements. Gaifman showed in 1961 that any proper topology on a countable set has at least two complements. In 1965, Steiner showed that any topology has a complement. The question of the number of distinct complements a topology on a set must possess was first raised by Berri in 1964 who asked if every proper topology on an infinite set must have at least two complements. In 1969, Schnare showed that any proper topology on a set of infinite cardinality K has at least K distinct complements and at most 2” many distinct complements.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy in Linear Rational Expectations Models
    Journal of Mathematical Economics 40 (2004) 815–830 Determinacy in linear rational expectations models Stéphane Gauthier∗ CREST, Laboratoire de Macroéconomie (Timbre J-360), 15 bd Gabriel Péri, 92245 Malakoff Cedex, France Received 15 February 2002; received in revised form 5 June 2003; accepted 17 July 2003 Available online 21 January 2004 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to assess the relevance of rational expectations solutions to the class of linear univariate models where both the number of leads in expectations and the number of lags in predetermined variables are arbitrary. It recommends to rule out all the solutions that would fail to be locally unique, or equivalently, locally determinate. So far, this determinacy criterion has been applied to particular solutions, in general some steady state or periodic cycle. However solutions to linear models with rational expectations typically do not conform to such simple dynamic patterns but express instead the current state of the economic system as a linear difference equation of lagged states. The innovation of this paper is to apply the determinacy criterion to the sets of coefficients of these linear difference equations. Its main result shows that only one set of such coefficients, or the corresponding solution, is locally determinate. This solution is commonly referred to as the fundamental one in the literature. In particular, in the saddle point configuration, it coincides with the saddle stable (pure forward) equilibrium trajectory. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. JEL classification: C32; E32 Keywords: Rational expectations; Selection; Determinacy; Saddle point property 1. Introduction The rational expectations hypothesis is commonly justified by the fact that individual forecasts are based on the relevant theory of the economic system.
    [Show full text]
  • 180: Counting Techniques
    180: Counting Techniques In the following exercise we demonstrate the use of a few fundamental counting principles, namely the addition, multiplication, complementary, and inclusion-exclusion principles. While none of the principles are particular complicated in their own right, it does take some practice to become familiar with them, and recognise when they are applicable. I have attempted to indicate where alternate approaches are possible (and reasonable). Problem: Assume n ≥ 2 and m ≥ 1. Count the number of functions f :[n] ! [m] (i) in total. (ii) such that f(1) = 1 or f(2) = 1. (iii) with minx2[n] f(x) ≤ 5. (iv) such that f(1) ≥ f(2). (v) that are strictly increasing; that is, whenever x < y, f(x) < f(y). (vi) that are one-to-one (injective). (vii) that are onto (surjective). (viii) that are bijections. (ix) such that f(x) + f(y) is even for every x; y 2 [n]. (x) with maxx2[n] f(x) = minx2[n] f(x) + 1. Solution: (i) A function f :[n] ! [m] assigns for every integer 1 ≤ x ≤ n an integer 1 ≤ f(x) ≤ m. For each integer x, we have m options. As we make n such choices (independently), the total number of functions is m × m × : : : m = mn. (ii) (We assume n ≥ 2.) Let A1 be the set of functions with f(1) = 1, and A2 the set of functions with f(2) = 1. Then A1 [ A2 represents those functions with f(1) = 1 or f(2) = 1, which is precisely what we need to count. We have jA1 [ A2j = jA1j + jA2j − jA1 \ A2j.
    [Show full text]