In mathematical set we have
A={1,2,3}
B={4,5,6}
A U B = B U A = {1,2,3,4,5,6} ={6,5,2,3,4,1} //order does not matter
But in theory of computation we get
a u b is either a or b but not both
also in a* u b* we get aaa or bbb but not aaabbb or bbbaaa as order does not matter in union.
why is that?
Thanks
Rahman
why?
No. In formal language theory, there is a correspondence between regular expressions and regular sets over an alphabet Σ. The function L maps a regular expression u to the corresponding regular set L(u); conversely, every every regular set A corresponds to a regular expression in L-1(A):
L(∅) = ∅
L(λ) = {λ}
L(a) = {a} (for all a ∈ Σ)
L(uv) = L(u)L(v) = {xy ∈ Σ* : x ∈ L(u) ∧ x ∈ L(v)}
L(u|v) = L(u) ∪ L(v) = {x ∈ Σ* : x ∈ L(u) ∨ x ∈ L(v)}
L(u*) = ∪[i ∈ ℕ] L(u)i = ∪[i ∈ ℕ] {xi ∈ Σ* : x ∈ L(u)}
The union of regular expressions corresponds to the union of regular sets, which is the familiar union operation from set theory. A regular expression u matches a string x iff x is a member of the corresponding set L(u). Therefore, u|v matches x iff x is a member of L(u) ∪ L(v).
This probably still belongs on math overflow, and you haven't really supplied enough context for a definitive answer so I'm going to make some assumptions.
Union Types in most languages might give you an expression like:
type C = B union A
So type C is the type/set of all values that might exist in the types B or C. So a value x of type B is also a value of type C.
And this is indeed the case for many languages. However stack overflow is targeting the more concrete world of programming. Math overflow is will have more theorists that will be better able to answer your question.
Related
So I'm trying to perform a simple proof using cardinalities. It looks like:
⟦(A::nat set) ∩ B = {}⟧ ⟹ (card (A ∪ B) = card A + card B)
Which seems to makes sense, but for some reason blast hangs, the rest of the provers fail to apply, and sledgehammer times out. Is there a gap in what I think I know about cardinalities? If not, how can I prove this lemma?
Thanks in advance!
I believe that the lemma you are trying to prove does not appropriately consider the case of infinite sets.
In Isabelle/HOL, infinite cardinalities are represented by zero. As we can see by the following lemma.
lemma "¬(finite A) ⟹ card A = 0"
by simp
If we consider the case of an infinite set, A, and a set of one element, B, then assume the intersection, A ∩ B is an empty set.
We are left with:
card (A ∪ B) = 0 as their union will also be infinite.
card A = 0
card B = 1
So we can see that in this case, the lemma does not hold.
The lemma can be corrected by asserting both sets are finite:
lemma
"⟦finite A; finite B; ((A::nat set) ∩ B) = {}⟧ ⟹ (card (A ∪ B) = card A + card B)"
by (simp add: card_Un_disjoint)
Which is essentially the same as the card_Un_disjoint used by the proof:
lemma card_Un_disjoint: "finite A ⟹ finite B ⟹ A ∩ B = {} ⟹ card (A ∪ B) = card A + card B"
using card_Un_Int [of A B] by simp
so here a grammar R and a Langauge L, I want to prove that from R comes out L.
R={S→abS|ε} , L={(ab)n|n≥0}
so I thought I would prove that L(G) ⊆ L and L(G) ⊇ L are right.
for L (G) ⊆ L: I show by induction on the number i of derivative steps that after every derivative step u → w through which w results from u according to the rules of R, w = v1v2 or w = v1v2w with | v2 | = | v1 | and v1 ∈ {a} ∗ and v2 ∈ {b} ∗.
and in the induction start: at i = 0 it produces that w is ε and at i = 1 w is {ε, abS}.
is that right so far ?
so here a grammar R and a Langauge L, I want to prove that from R comes out L.
Probably what you want to do is show that the language L(R) of some grammar R is the same as some other language L specified another way (in your case, set-builder notation with a regular expression).
so I thought I would prove that L(G) ⊆ L and L(G) ⊇ L are right.
Given the above assumption, you are correct in thinking this is the right way to proceed with the proof.
for L (G) ⊆ L: I show by induction on the number i of derivative steps that after every derivative step u → w through which w results from u according to the rules of R, w = v1v2 or w = v1v2w with | v2 | = | v1 | and v1 ∈ {a} ∗ and v2 ∈ {b} ∗. and in the induction start: at i = 0 it produces that w is ε and at i = 1 w is {ε, abS}.
This is hard for me to follow. That's not to say it's wrong. Let me write it down in my own words and perhaps you or others can judge whether we are saying the same thing.
We want to show that L(R) is a subset of L. That is, any string generated by the grammar R is contained in the language L. We can prove this by mathematical induction on the number of steps in the derivation of strings generated by the grammar. We start with the base case of one derivation step: S -> e produces the empty word, which is a string in the language L by choosing n = 0. Now that we have established the base case, we can state the induction hypothesis: assume that for all strings derived from the grammar in a number of steps up to and including k, those strings are also in L. Now we must prove the induction step: that any string derived in k+1 steps from the grammar is also in L. Let w be any string derived from the grammar in k+1 steps. From the grammar it is clear that the derivation of w must be S -> abS -> ababS -> ... -> abab...abS -> abab...abe = abab...ab. But this derivation is the same as the derivation of a string from the grammar in k steps, except that there was one extra application of S -> abS before the application of S -> e. By the induction hypothesis we know that the string w' derived in k steps is of the form (ab)^m for some m at least zero, and adding an extra application of S -> abS to the derivation adds ab. Because (ab)^m(ab) = (ab)^(m+1) we can choose n = m+1. So, all strings derived from the grammar in k+1 steps are also in the language, as required.
To prove that all strings in the language can be derived in the grammar, consider the following construction: to derive the string (ab)^n in the grammar, apply the production S -> abS a number of times equal to n, and the production S -> e exactly once. The first step gives an intermediate form (ab)^nS and the second step gives a closed form string (ab)^n.
I know what does f(n)=theta(g(n)) or f(n)=BighOh(g(n)) mean but getting confused when there are something like theta(f(n)) = theta(g(n)). i.e. when the asymptotic notation is on the both side. Can anyone please explain what does this mean?
I got this, when solving a problem like this: there are 3 algorithm
X : is polynomial
Y : is exponential
Z : is double exponential
There are 4 opitions in the answers :
a) theta(X) = theta(Y)
b) theta(X) = theta(Z)
c) theta(Y) = theta(Z)
d) BigOh(Z) = X
The correct answer is option C.
Can anyone please explain
C = θ(D), in simple language means there are 2 tight bounds say, A and B such that C can be sandwiched between them. That is A <= C <= B.
A and B depend upon D. That is, A = aD and B = bD where, a and b are constants.
In general theta(P) = theta(Q) means the bounds specified by P (aP and bP) and Q (aQ and bQ)
are equal i.e, aP = aQ and bP = bQ, or
one of the bounds in contained inside another
i.e, aP<=aQ<=bQ<=bP or aQ<=aP<=bP<=bQ.
Y = exponential = 1.5^x
Z = double exponential = 1.5^1.5^x
Here, it can be seen from the the graph that the bounds on exponential function (1.5^x) can contain the bounds of double exponential function (1.5^1.5^x). Hence θ(Y) = θ(Z). In fact the bounds of exponential function can be used as bounds of double exponential function.
When reading formal descriptions of the lambda calculus, the set of variables seems to always be defined as countably infinite. Why this set cannot be finite seems clear; defining the set of variables as finite would restrict term constructions in unacceptable ways. However, why not allow the set to be uncountably infinite?
Currently, the most sensible answer to this question I have received is that choosing a countably infinite set of variables implies we may enumerate variables making the description of how to choose fresh variables, say for an alpha rewrite, natural.
I am looking for a definitive answer to this question.
Most definitions and constructs in maths and logic include only the minimal apparatus that is required to achieve the desired end. As you note, more than a finite number of variables may be required. But since no more than a countable infinity is required, why allow more?
The reason that this set is required to be countable is quite simple. Imagine that you had a bag full of the variables. There would be no way to count the number of variables in this bag unless the set was denumerable.
Note that bags are isomorphic to sacks.
Uncountable collections of things seem to usually have uncomputable elements. I'm not sure that all uncountable collections have this property, but I strongly suspect they do.
As a result, you could never even write out the name of those elements in any reasonable way. For example, unlike a number like pi, you cannot have a program that writes out the digits Chaitin's constant past a certain finite number of digits. The set of computable real numbers is countably infinite, so the "additional" reals you get are uncomputable.
I also don't believe you gain anything from the set being uncountably infinite. So you would introduce uncomputable names without benefit (as far as I can see).
Having a countable number of variables, and a computable bijection between them and ℕ, lets us create a bijection between Λ and ℕ:
#v = ⟨0, f(v)⟩, where f is the computable bijection between 𝕍 and ℕ (exists because 𝕍 is countable) and ⟨m, n⟩ is a computable bijection between ℕ2 and ℕ.
#(L M) = ⟨1, ⟨#L, #M⟩⟩
#(λv. L) = ⟨2, ⟨#v, #L⟩⟩
The notation ⌜L⌝ represents c_{#L}, the church numeral representing the encoding of L. For all sets S, #S represents the set {#L | L ∈ S}.
This allows us to prove that lambda calculus is not decidable:
Let A be a non-trivial (not ∅ or Λ) set closed under α and β equality (if L ∈ A and L β= M, M ∈ A). Let B be the set {L | L⌜L⌝ ∈ A}. Assume that set #A is recursive. Then f, for which f(x) = 1 if x ∈ A and 0 if x ∉ A, must be a μ-recursive function. All μ-recursive functions are λ-definable*, so there must be an F for which:
F⌜L⌝ = c_1 ⇔ ⌜L⌝ ∈ A
F⌜L⌝ = c_0 ⇔ ⌜L⌝ ∉ A
By letting G ≡ λn. iszero (F ⟨1, ⟨n, #n⟩⟩) M_0 M_1, where M_0 is any λ-term in B and M_1 is any λ-term not in B. Note that #n is computable and therefore λ-definable.
Now just ask the question "Is G⌜G⌝ in B?". If yes, then G⌜G⌝ = M_1 ∉ B, so G⌜G⌝ could not have been in B (remember that B is closed under β=). If no, then G⌜G⌝ = M_0 ∈ B, so it must have been in B.
This is a contradiction, so A could not have been recursive, therefore no closed-under-β= non-trivial set is recursive.
Note that {L | L β= true} is closed under β= and non-trivial, so it is therefore not recursive. This means lambda calculus is not decidable.
* The proof that all computable functions are λ-definable (we can have a λ-term F such that F c_{n1} c_{n2} ... = c_{f(n1, n2, ...)}), as well as the proof in this answer, can be found in "Lambda Calculi With Types" by Henk Barendregt (section 2.2).
Let x be a language over an alphabet,
INSERT(x) is the set of all strings obtained by adding exactly one more character into any one of the strings in x.
INSERT(x) = { azb : a,b ∈ ∑* and ab ∈ L and z ∈ ∑. }
Why is the set of regular languages closed under the INSERT operation?