I have done research on normalization. I know if there is no Primary Key or repetition of a column or group of column it is not in 1NF. But I wondered how can we show it be functional dependencies?
For instance, let's say
P = (N, C, A, K)
A→ K then (augmentation) AN → AK Then ANC → AKC
C → K then (augmentation) CN → KC Then CAN → AKC
k(A,N,C) Not
Can we say it is not in 1NF or is there a way to change it to not become 1NF or any other example will be appreciated.?
EDIT
In other word, my question is, is it possible to determine a function is not in 1NF.
Lets say:
R = (A, B, C)
No valid functional dependencies
What is the highest normalization form of this?
"Not in 1NF" does not mean "2NF or higher". A relation in xNF is also in all the lower NFs. "Not in xNF" means it must be in some lower one. Always talk about its highest NF.
If a relation has no (non-trivial) FDs then it is in BCNF. That is because to not be in BCNF it has to have more that one key but a column set smaller than all columns needs a FD to make it a key so the only key is all columns. It might have non-FD JDs though so it might not be in a higher NF.
Related
I am quite new to Coq, but for my project I have to use a union-find data structure in Coq. Are there any implementations of the union-find (disjoint set) data structure in Coq?
If not, can someone provide an implementation or some ideas? It doesn't have to be very efficient. (no need to do path compression or all the fancy optimizations) I just need a data structure that can hold an arbitrary data type (or nat if it's too hard) and perform: union and find.
Thanks in advance
If all you need is a mathematical model, with no concern for actual performance, I would go for the most straightforward one: a functional map (finite partial function) in which each element optionally links to another element with which it has been merged.
If an element links to nothing, then its canonical representative is itself.
If an element links to another element, then its canonical representative is the canonical representative of that other element.
Note: in the remaining of this answer, as is standard with union-find, I will assume that elements are simply natural numbers. If you want another type of elements, simply have another map that binds all elements to unique numbers.
Then you would define a function find : UnionFind → nat → nat that returns the canonical representative of a given element, by following links as long as you can. Notice that the function would use recursion, whose termination argument is not trivial. To make it happen, I think that the easiest way is to maintain the invariant that a number only links to a lesser number (i.e. if i links to j, then i > j). Then the recursion terminates because, when following links, the current element is a decreasing natural number.
Defining the function union : UnionFind → nat → nat → UnionFind is easier: union m i j simply returns an updated map with max i' j' linking to min i' j', where i' = find m i and j' = find m j.
[Side note on performance: maintaining the invariant means that you cannot adequately choose which of a pair of partitions to merge into the other, based on their ranks; however you can still implement path compression if you want!]
As for which data structure exactly to use for the map: there are several available.
The standard library (look under the title FSets) has several implementations (FMapList, FMapPositive and so on) satisfying the interface FMapInterface.
The stdpp libray has gmap.
Again if performance is not a concern, just pick the simplest encoding or, more importantly, the one that makes your proofs the simplest. I am thinking of just a list of natural numbers.
The positions of the list are the elements in reverse order.
The values of the list are offsets, i.e. the number of positions to skip forward in order to reach the target of the link.
For an element i linking to j (i > j), the offset is i − j.
For a canonical representative, the offset is zero.
With my best pseudo-ASCII-art skills, here is a map where the links are { 6↦2, 4↦2, 3↦0, 2↦1 } and the canonical representatives are { 5, 1, 0 }:
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 element
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
/‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾↘
[ 4 ; 0 ; 2 ; 3 ; 1 ; 0 ; 0 ] map
\ \____↗↗ \_↗
\___________/
The motivation is that the invariant discussed above is then enforced structurally. Hence, there is hope that find could actually be defined by structural induction (on the structure of the list), and have termination for free.
A related paper is: Sylvain Conchon and Jean-Christophe Filliâtre. A Persistent Union-Find Data Structure. In ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on ML.
It describes the implementation of an efficient union-find data structure in ML, that is persistent from the user perspective, but uses mutation internally. What may be more interesting for you, is that they prove it correct in Coq, which implies that they have a Coq model for union-find. However, this model reflects the memory store for the imperative program that they seek to prove correct. I’m not sure how applicable it is to your problem.
Maëlan has a good answer, but for an even simpler and more inefficient disjoint set data structure, you can just use functions to nat to represent them. This avoids any termination stickiness. In essence, the preimages of any total function form disjoint sets over the domain. Another way of looking at this is as representing any disjoint set G as the curried application find_root G : nat -> nat since find_root is the essential interface that disjoint sets provide.
This is also analogous to using functions to represent Maps in Coq like in Software Foundations. https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/lf-current/Maps.html
Require Import Arith.
Search eq_nat_decide.
(* disjoint set *)
Definition ds := nat -> nat.
Definition init_ds : ds := fun x => x.
Definition find_root (g : ds) x := g x.
Definition in_same_set (g : ds) x y :=
eq_nat_decide (g x) (g y).
Definition union (g : ds) x y : ds :=
fun z =>
if in_same_set g x z
then find_root g y
else find_root g z.
You can also make it generic over the type held in the disjoint set like so
Definition ds (a : Type) := a -> nat.
Definition find_root {a} (g : ds a) x := g x.
Definition in_same_set {a} (g : ds a) x y :=
eq_nat_decide (g x) (g y).
Definition union {a} (g : ds a) x y : ds a :=
fun z =>
if in_same_set g x z
then find_root g y
else find_root g z.
To initialize the disjoint set for a particular a, you need an Enum instance for your type a basically.
Definition init_bool_ds : ds bool := fun x => if x then 0 else 1.
You may want to trade out eq_nat_decide for eqb or some other roughly equivalent thing depending on your proof style and needs.
So i made a list using atom_chars(X,Y). Which split the string 'abc' into [a,b,c]. I now want to assign numbers to the elements in the list. Such as a is 4, b is 2, c is 7.
How would i go about doing this?
In Prolog, the symbols a, b, and c are considered atoms. You can't "assign" values to them. You could, however, associate numbers with them using, for example, - as a convenient notation for a term. You could form a list:
[a-2, b-4, c-3]
Let's say you bind this to the variable AssocList. Then if you have a letter or character bound to C, you can query:
member(C-N, AssocList)
This will bind N to the number associated with C. Likewise, if you have a number, it will yield all of the characters C that are associated with that number.
I am trying to understand what will be the result of performing a natural join
between two relations R and S, where they have no common attributes.
By following the below definition, I thought the answer might be an empty set:
Natural Join definition.
My line of thought was because the condition in the 'Select' symbol is not met, the projection of all of the attributes won't take place.
When I asked my lecturer about this, he said that the output will be the same as doing a cartezian product between R and S.
I can't seem to understand why, would appreciate any help )
Natural join combines a cross product and a selection into one
operation. It performs a selection forcing equality on those
attributes that appear in both relation schemes. Duplicates are
removed as in all relation operations.
There are two special cases:
• If the two relations have no attributes in common, then their
natural join is simply their cross product.
• If the two relations have more than one attribute in common,
then the natural join selects only the rows where all pairs of
matching attributes match.
Notation: r s
Let r and s be relation instances on schema R and S
respectively.
The result is a relation on schema R ∪ S which is
obtained by considering each pair of tuples tr from r and ts from s.
If tr and ts have the same value on each of the attributes in R ∩ S, a
tuple t is added to the result, where
– t has the same value as tr on r
– t has the same value as ts on s
Example:
R = (A, B, C, D)
S = (E, B, D)
Result schema = (A, B, C, D, E)
r s is defined as:
πr.A, r.B, r.C, r.D, s.E (σr.B = s.B r.D = s.D (r x s))
The definition of the natural join you linked is:
It can be broken as:
1.First take the cartezian product.
2.Then select only those row so that attributes of the same name have the same value
3.Now apply projection so that all attributes have distinct names.
If the two tables have no attributes with same name, we will jump to step 3 and therefore the result will indeed be cartezian product.
In DFA we can do the intersection of two automata by doing the cross product of the states of the two automata and accepting those states that are accepting in both the initial automata.
Union is performed similarly. How ever although i can do union in NFA easily using epsilon transition how do i do their intersection?
You can use the cross-product construction on NFAs just as you would DFAs. The only changes are how you'd handle ε-transitions. Specifically, for each state (qi, rj) in the cross-product automaton, you add an ε-transition from that state to each pair of states (qk, rj) where there's an ε-transition in the first machine from qi to qk and to each pair of states (qi, rk) where there's an ε-transition in the second machine from rj to rk.
Alternatively, you can always convert the NFAs into DFAs and then compute the cross product of those DFAs.
Hope this helps!
We can also use De Morgan's Laws: A intersection B = (A' U B')'
Taking the union of the compliments of the two NFA's is comparatively simpler, especially if you are used to the epsilon method of union.
There is a huge mistake in templatetypedef's answer.
The product automaton of L1 and L2 which are NFAs :
New states Q = product of the states of L1 and L2.
Now the transition function:
a is a symbol in the union of both automatons' alphabets
delta( (q1,q2) , a) = delta_L1(q1 , a) X delta_L2(q2 , a)
which means you should multiply the set that is the result of delta_L1(q1 , a) with the set that results from delta_L2(q1 , a).
The problem in the templatetypedef's answer is that the product result (qk ,rk) is not mentioned.
Probably a late answer, but since I had the similar problem today I felt like sharing it. Realise the meaning of intersection first. Here, it means that given the string e, e should be accepted by both automata.
Consider the folowing automata:
m1 accepting the language {w | w contains '11' as a substring}
m2 accepting the language {w | w contains '00' as a substring}
Intuitively, m = m1 ∩ m2 is the automaton accepting the strings containing both '11' and '00' as substrings. The idea is to simulate both automata simultaneously.
Let's now formally define the intersection.
m = (Q, Σ, Δ, q0, F)
Let's start by defining the states for m; this is, as mentioned above the Cartesian product of the states in m1 and m2. So, if we have a1, a2 as labels for the states in m1, and b1, b2 the states in m2, Q will consist of following states: a1b1, a2b1, a1b2, a2b2. The idea behind this product construction is to keep track of where we are in both m1 and m2.
Σ most likely remains the same, however in some cases they differ and we just take the union of alphabets in m1 and m2.
q0 is now the state in Q containing both the start state of m1 and the start state of m2. (a1b1, to give an example.)
F contains state s IF and only IF both states mentioned in s are accept states of m1, m2 respectively.
Last but not least, Δ; we define delta again in terms of the Cartesian product, as follows: Δ(a1b1, E) = Δ(m1)(a1, E) x Δ(m2)(b1, E), as also mentioned in one of the answers above (if I am not mistaken). The intuitive idea behind this construction for Δ is just to tear a1b1 apart and consider the states a1 and b1 in their original automaton. Now we 'iterate' each possible edge, let's pick E for example, and see where it brings us in the original automaton. After that, we glue these results together using the Cartesian product. If (a1, E) is present in m1 but not Δ(b1, E) in m2, then the edge will not exist in m; otherwise we'll have some kind of a union construction.
An alternative to constructing the product automaton is allowing more complicated acceptance criteria. Ordinarily, an NFA accepts an input string when it has reached any one of a set of accepting final states. That can be extended to boolean combinations of states. Specifically, you construct the automaton for the intersection like you do for the union, but consider the resulting automaton to accept an input string only when it is in (what corresponds to) accepting final states in both automata.
I am trying to write a simple algorithm that generates different sets
(c b a) (c a b) (b a c) (b c a) (a c b) from (a b c)
by doing two operations:
exchange first and second elements of input (a b c) , So I get (b a c)
then shift first element to last = > input is (b a c), output is (a c b)
so final output of this procedure is (a c b).
Of course, this method only generates a c b and a b c. I was wondering if using these two operations (perhaps using 2 exchange in a row and then a shift, or any variation) is enough to produce all different orderings?
I would like to come up with a simple algorithm, not using > < or + , just by repeatedly exchanging certain positions (for example always exchanging positions 1 and 2) and always shifting certain positions (for example shift 1st element to last).
Note that the shift operation (move the first element to the end) is equivalent to allowing an exchange (swap) of any adjacent pair: you simply shift until you get to the pair you want to swap, and then swap the elements.
So your question is essentially equivalent to the following question: Is it possible to generate every permutation using only adjacent-pair swap. And if it is, is there an algorithm to do that.
The answer is yes (to both questions). One of the algorithms to do that is called "The Johnson–Trotter algorithm" and you can find it on Wikipedia.