a point free relation algebraic approach to general
play

A point-free relation-algebraic approach to general topology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 31, 2022 •429 likes •1.78k views

A point-free relation-algebraic approach to general topology Gunther Schmidt Fakult at f ur Informatik, Universit at der Bundeswehr M unchen Gunther.Schmidt@unibw.de May 1, 2014 Contents 1. Motivation my early topology 2.

  1. � � � � � ���� � ��� � Direct power — up to isomorphism � � �

  2. � � � � � ���� � ��� � Direct power — up to isomorphism � � � Any relation ε satisfying I syq ( ε , ε ) ✓ , (i.e., in fact syq ( ε , ε ) = ) I syq ( ε , R ) is surjective for every relation R starting in X . is called a interpreted with 2 -relation direct power P ( X ) DirPow x ε : X � ! P ( X ) Member x

  3. { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ } { ♠ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♣ } { ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ } { ♥ } { ♦ } { ♣ } {} ♠ 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ♥ 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 ε = B C ♦ @ 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 A ♣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

  4. { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ } { ♠ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♣ } { ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ } { ♥ } { ♦ } { ♣ } {} ♠ 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ♥ 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 ε = B C ♦ @ 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 A ♣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ } { ♦ , ♣ } { ♦ } { ♠ } { ♣ } { ♥ } {} ♠ 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ♥ 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 ε 0 = B C ♦ 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 @ A ♣ 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

  5. { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ } { ♠ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♣ } { ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ } { ♥ } { ♦ } { ♣ } {} ♠ 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ♥ 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 ε = B C ♦ @ 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 A ♣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♦ } { ♠ , ♥ , ♣ } { ♥ , ♦ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♦ } { ♥ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♣ } { ♠ , ♥ } { ♦ , ♣ } { ♦ } { ♠ } { ♣ } { ♥ } {} ♠ 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ♥ 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 ε 0 = B C ♦ 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 @ A ♣ 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 P := syq ( ε , ε 0 ) satisfies ε ; syq ( ε , ε 0 ) = ε 0

  6. Membership relations { a,b,c,d } { a,b,d } { b,c,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { a,b } { a,d } { b,d } { a,c } { b,c } { c,d } { a } { b } { d } { c } {} {} 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  0    { a } 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 U = ε ; e e = syq ( ε , U )   { b }  0  0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1     { a,b }   0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0       { a,b,c,d } { c }  0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1  0   { a,b,d }   { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,c,d } { a,c } 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0     { b,d } { a,b } { b,c } { a,d } { c,d } { a,c }     { b,c } 0 { b } { d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 { a } { c }     {}   { a,b,c } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1     a  0     0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1  { d }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0     b 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 { a,d }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1  0           c 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 { b,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1         d 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { a,b,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1         { c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0       { a,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1  0  ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ) = e T       { b,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 { a,b,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Subset U and corresponding point e in the powerset via ε , Ω

  7. Contents 1. Motivation — my early topology 2. Topology 3. Interlude on prerequisites 4. Cryptomorphy of topology concepts 5. Continuity 6. Interlude on structure comparison 7. Interlude on the existential and inverse image 8. Relating continuity with the inverse image

  8. Topology as defined by Felix Hausdor ff — recalled A set X endowed with a system U ( p ) of subsets for every p 2 X is called a topological structure , provided

  9. Topology as defined by Felix Hausdor ff — recalled A set X endowed with a system U ( p ) of subsets for every p 2 X is called a topological structure , provided i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p )

  10. Topology as defined by Felix Hausdor ff — recalled A set X endowed with a system U ( p ) of subsets for every p 2 X is called a topological structure , provided i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) ii) If U 2 U ( p ) and V ◆ U , then V 2 U ( p )

  11. Topology as defined by Felix Hausdor ff — recalled A set X endowed with a system U ( p ) of subsets for every p 2 X is called a topological structure , provided i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) ii) If U 2 U ( p ) and V ◆ U , then V 2 U ( p ) iii) If U 1 , U 2 2 U ( p ), then U 1 \ U 2 2 U ( p ) and X 2 U ( p )

  12. Topology as defined by Felix Hausdor ff — recalled A set X endowed with a system U ( p ) of subsets for every p 2 X is called a topological structure , provided i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) ii) If U 2 U ( p ) and V ◆ U , then V 2 U ( p ) iii) If U 1 , U 2 2 U ( p ), then U 1 \ U 2 2 U ( p ) and X 2 U ( p ) iv) For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V

  13. Topology — lifted i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) U ✓ ε

  14. Topology — lifted i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) U ✓ ε ii) If U 2 U ( p ) and V ◆ U , then V 2 U ( p ) U ; Ω ✓ U

  15. Topology — lifted i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) U ✓ ε ii) If U 2 U ( p ) and V ◆ U , then V 2 U ( p ) U ; Ω ✓ U iii) If U 1 , U 2 2 U ( p ), then U 1 \ U 2 2 U ( p ) and X 2 U ( p ) ( U � < U ) ; M ✓ U U ; =

  16. Topology — lifted i) p 2 U for every neighborhood U 2 U ( p ) U ✓ ε ii) If U 2 U ( p ) and V ◆ U , then V 2 U ( p ) U ; Ω ✓ U iii) If U 1 , U 2 2 U ( p ), then U 1 \ U 2 2 U ( p ) and X 2 U ( p ) ( U � < U ) ; M ✓ U U ; = iv) For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V U ✓ U ; ε T ; U

  17. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ”

  18. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ” � � �� 8 p, U : U 2 U ( p ) ! 9 V : V 2 U ( p ) ^ 8 y : y 2 V ! U 2 U ( y )

  19. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ” � � �� 8 p, U : U 2 U ( p ) ! 9 V : V 2 U ( p ) ^ 8 y : y 2 V ! U 2 U ( y ) 8 p, U : U pU ! � 9 V : U pV ^ � 8 y : ε yV ! U yU ��

  20. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ” � � �� 8 p, U : U 2 U ( p ) ! 9 V : V 2 U ( p ) ^ 8 y : y 2 V ! U 2 U ( y ) 8 p, U : U pU ! � 9 V : U pV ^ � 8 y : ε yV ! U yU �� � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ 9 y : ε yV ^ U yU

  21. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ” � � �� 8 p, U : U 2 U ( p ) ! 9 V : V 2 U ( p ) ^ 8 y : y 2 V ! U 2 U ( y ) 8 p, U : U pU ! � 9 V : U pV ^ � 8 y : ε yV ! U yU �� � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ 9 y : ε yV ^ U yU � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ ε T ; U V U

  22. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ” � � �� 8 p, U : U 2 U ( p ) ! 9 V : V 2 U ( p ) ^ 8 y : y 2 V ! U 2 U ( y ) 8 p, U : U pU ! � 9 V : U pV ^ � 8 y : ε yV ! U yU �� � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ 9 y : ε yV ^ U yU � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ ε T ; U V U � � 8 p, U : U pU ! U ; ε T ; U pU

  23. The same with ε conceiving U as a relation: ! 2 X ! 2 X ε : X � and U : X � “For every U 2 U ( p ) there exists a V 2 U ( p ) such that U 2 U ( y ) for all y 2 V ” � � �� 8 p, U : U 2 U ( p ) ! 9 V : V 2 U ( p ) ^ 8 y : y 2 V ! U 2 U ( y ) 8 p, U : U pU ! � 9 V : U pV ^ � 8 y : ε yV ! U yU �� � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ 9 y : ε yV ^ U yU � � 8 p, U : U pU ! 9 V : U pV ^ ε T ; U V U � � 8 p, U : U pU ! U ; ε T ; U pU U ✓ U ; ε T ; U

  24. A neighborhood topology and the basis of its open sets ! 2 X will be called a neighborhood A relation U : X � topology if the following properties are satisfied: i) U ; = and U ✓ ε , ii) U ; Ω ✓ U , iii) ( U � < U ) ; M ✓ U , iv) U ✓ U ; ε T ; U .

  25. � � � � A neighborhood topology and the basis of its open sets ! 2 X will be called a neighborhood A relation U : X � topology if the following properties are satisfied: i) U ; = and U ✓ ε , ii) U ; Ω ✓ U , iii) ( U � < U ) ; M ✓ U , iv) U ✓ U ; ε T ; U . { a,b,c,d } { a,b,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,c,d } { a,b } { a,d } { b,d } { a,c } { b,c } { c,d } { b } { d } { a } { c } {} a 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 U = B C c 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 @ A d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

  26. Topology given by transition to the open kernel We call a relation K : 2 X � ! 2 X a mapping-to-open-kernel topology , if i) K is a kernel forming, i.e., K ✓ Ω T , Ω ; K ✓ K ; Ω , K ; K ✓ K ,

  27. Topology given by transition to the open kernel We call a relation K : 2 X � ! 2 X a mapping-to-open-kernel topology , if i) K is a kernel forming, i.e., K ✓ Ω T , Ω ; K ✓ K ; Ω , K ; K ✓ K , contracting isotonic idempotent ii) ε ; K T is total, iii) ( K � ⇥ K ) ; M ✓ M ; K ; Ω T , ( K � ⇥ K ) ; M = M ; K . in fact

  28. Topology given by transition to the open kernel We call a relation K : 2 X � ! 2 X a mapping-to-open-kernel topology , if i) K is a kernel forming, i.e., K ✓ Ω T , Ω ; K ✓ K ; Ω , K ; K ✓ K , contracting isotonic idempotent ii) ε ; K T is total, iii) ( K � ⇥ K ) ; M ✓ M ; K ; Ω T , ( K � ⇥ K ) ; M = M ; K . in fact kernel forming commutes with intersection

  29. � � � � A topology in di ff erent forms { a,b,c,d } { a,b,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,c,d } { b,d } { a,b } { b,c } { a,d } { c,d } { a,c } { a,b,c,d } { a } { b } { c } { d } { a,b,d } { b,c,d } {} { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { a,b } { a,d } { b,d } { a,c } { b,c } { c,d } a  0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1  { b } { d } { a } { c } {} b 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1   {} 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1  c 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1     { a } 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1   { b }   1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 { a,b,c,d }       { a,b,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,c,d } { a,b }  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0   { b,d }   { a,b } { a,c } { b,c } { a,d } { c,d }   { c } 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1   { b } { d } { a } { c }     {}   { a,c } 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1       { b,c } 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1  a  0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1        { a,b,c } b 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1          c 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 { d } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0         d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 { a,d }  0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0       { b,d } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 { a,b,c,d }       { a,b,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,c,d } { a,b,d }   0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { b,d }   { a,b } { a,c } { b,c } { a,d } { c,d }   { c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  1  { b } { d } { a } { c }     {}   { a,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1       0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 a   { b,c,d }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  1   b 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 { a,b,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1   c 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1   d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 U ε O := ε ∩ ; O T V = ε ; K ∩ ε K := syq ( U , ε ) indicating O D as diagonal O V ε

  30. Non-topological kernel-forming { a,b,c,d } { a,b,d } { b,c,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,d } { a,b } { a,d } { a,c } { b,c } { c,d } { a } { b } { d } { c } {} {} 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { a } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { b } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { a,b }  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { c } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { a,c } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { b,c } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { a,b,c } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K =     { d } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { a,d }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0    { b,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0     { a,b,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0     { c,d } 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { a,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0     { b,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 { a,b,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Kernel-forming that is not a topology, since not intersection-closed

  31. � � � � { 1,2,3,4 } { 1,2,3 } { 1,2,4 } { 1,3,4 } { 2,3,4 } { 1,2 } { 1,3 } { 2,3 } { 1,4 } { 2,4 } { 3,4 } { 1 } { 2 } { 3 } { 4 } {} 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 B C 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 @ A 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

  32. � � � � � 5 4 3 2 1 @ B B B 0 {} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 { 1 } { 2 } { 1,2 } { 3 } { 1,3 } { 2,3 } { 1,2,3 } { 4 } { 1,4 } { 2,4 } { 1,2,4 } { 3,4 } { 1,3,4 } { 2,3,4 } { 1,2,3,4 } { 5 } { 1,5 } { 2,5 } { 1,2,5 } { 3,5 } { 1,3,5 } { 2,3,5 } { 1,2,3,5 } { 4,5 } { 1,4,5 } { 2,4,5 } { 1,2,4,5 } { 3,4,5 } { 1,3,4,5 } { 2,3,4,5 } { 1,2,3,4,5 } A C C C 1

  33. � � � � { a,b,c,d } { a,b,d } { b,c,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,d } { a,b } { b,c } { a,d } { c,d } { a,c } { a } { b } { d } { c } {} a 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 B C c 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 @ A d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

  34. Cryptomorphy of diverse topology concepts K := syq ( U , ε ) : 2 X � ! 2 X U 7! U := ε ; K T : X � ! 2 X . K 7! O D 7! U := ε ; O D ; Ω K , U 7! O D := \ ε T ; U = K T ; K

  35. Cryptomorphy of diverse topology concepts K := syq ( U , ε ) : 2 X � ! 2 X U 7! U := ε ; K T : X � ! 2 X . K 7! O D 7! U := ε ; O D ; Ω K , U 7! O D := \ ε T ; U = K T ; K This means the obligation to prove, e.g. U ; = , K ✓ Ω T , U ✓ ε , Ω ; K ✓ K ; Ω , U ; Ω ✓ U , ( ) K ; K ✓ K , ( U � < U ) ; M ✓ U , ε ; K T ; = , ( K � ⇥ K ) ; M = M ; K . U ✓ U ; ε T ; U .

  36. Separation axioms Let a topology on X be given via neighborhoods, open sets, kernel mapping as required. It is T 0 -space (sometimes a Kolmogorov space) if for any two points in X an open set exists that contains one of them but not the other. It is T 1 -space when 8 x, y : x = / y ! 9 U, V 2 O : x 2 U ^ y 2 / U ^ y 2 V ^ x 2 / V . It is T 2 -space, i.e., a topology satisfying the Hausdor ff property, when 8 x, y : x = / y ! 9 U, V 2 O : x 2 U ^ y 2 V ^ ; = U \ V .

  37. Separation axioms Let a topology given in relational form, i.e., by U , O , K , ε O as required. It is called a i) T 0 -space if syq ( U T , U T ) = T . ii) T 1 -space if ✓ U ; U iii) T 2 -space or a Hausdor ff space if ✓ U ; ε T ; ε ; U T .

  38. Contents 1. Motivation — my early topology 2. Topology 3. Interlude on prerequisites 4. Cryptomorphy of topology concepts 5. Continuity 6. Interlude on structure comparison 7. Interlude on the existential and inverse image 8. Relating continuity with the inverse image

  39. � � � � � � � � � � � � Continuity — standard vs. relational definition � � T Let any two neighborhood topologies U , U 0 be given on sets X, X 0 , and a mapping f : X � ! X 0 . For p 2 X and every neighborhood U 0 2 U 0 ( f ( p )), there exists a neighborhood f continuous : ( ) U 2 U ( p ) satisfying f ( U ) ✓ U 0 .

  40. � � � � � � � � � { a,b,c,d } { a,b,d } { b,c,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { a,b } { a,d } { b,d } { a,c } { b,c } { c,d } { b } { d } { a } { c } {} {} 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { 1 } 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { 2 } 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 1,2 } 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 3 } 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b d   a c { 1,3 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    1 0 1 0 0 0 1 { 2,3 } 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 1,2,3 } 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0     { 4 } B C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   f = 3 B 0 0 1 0 C   { 1,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0   B C   { 2,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 @ A   { 1,2,4 }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0   5 0 0 1 0 { 3,4 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0    { 1,3,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0     { 2,3,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0     { 1,2,3,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ϑ f =   { 5 }   0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { 1,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { 2,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { 1,2,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 3,5 } 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 1,3,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 2,3,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { 1,2,3,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { 4,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0    { 1,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0     { 2,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0     { 1,2,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1     { 3,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0   { 1,3,4,5 }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0   { 2,3,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0   { 1,2,3,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

  41. � � � � � � � � � � b d a c e 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 B C f = 3 B 1 0 0 0 0 C B C 4 1 0 0 0 0 @ A 5 0 0 1 0 0

  42. Contents 1. Motivation — my early topology 2. Topology 3. Interlude on prerequisites 4. Cryptomorphy of topology concepts 5. Continuity 6. Interlude on structure comparison 7. Interlude on the existential and inverse image 8. Relating continuity with the inverse image

  43. Structure-preserving mappings Let be given two “structures” of whatever kind abstracted to relations R 1 : X 1 � ! Y 1 and R 2 : X 2 � ! Y 2 . Y Y 1 2 R R 1 2 X X 1 2

  44. � � � � � � Structure-preserving mappings Let be given two “structures” of whatever kind abstracted to relations R 1 : X 1 � ! Y 1 and R 2 : X 2 � ! Y 2 . Ψ 1 2 1 2 Φ 1 2 Given mappings Φ : X 1 � ! X 2 and Ψ : Y 1 � ! Y 2 , we may ask whether these mappings transfer the first structure “su ffi ciently nice” into the second one.

  45. � � � � � � Structure-preserving mappings Let be given two “structures” of whatever kind abstracted to relations R 1 : X 1 � ! Y 1 and R 2 : X 2 � ! Y 2 . Ψ 1 2 1 2 Φ 1 2 Given mappings Φ : X 1 � ! X 2 and Ψ : Y 1 � ! Y 2 , we may ask whether these mappings transfer the first structure “su ffi ciently nice” into the second one. If any two elements x, y are in relation R 1 , then their images Φ ( x ) , Ψ ( y ) shall be in relation R 2 .

  46. � � � � � � Structure-preserving mappings Let be given two “structures” of whatever kind abstracted to relations R 1 : X 1 � ! Y 1 and R 2 : X 2 � ! Y 2 . Ψ 1 2 1 2 Φ 1 2 Given mappings Φ : X 1 � ! X 2 and Ψ : Y 1 � ! Y 2 , we may ask whether these mappings transfer the first structure “su ffi ciently nice” into the second one. If any two elements x, y are in relation R 1 , then their images Φ ( x ) , Ψ ( y ) shall be in relation R 2 . 8 x 2 X 1 : 8 y 2 Y 1 : ( x, y ) 2 R 1 ! ( Φ ( x ) , Ψ ( y )) 2 R 2

  47. � � � � � � Structure-preserving mappings Let be given two “structures” of whatever kind abstracted to relations R 1 : X 1 � ! Y 1 and R 2 : X 2 � ! Y 2 . Ψ 1 2 1 2 Φ 1 2 Given mappings Φ : X 1 � ! X 2 and Ψ : Y 1 � ! Y 2 , we may ask whether these mappings transfer the first structure “su ffi ciently nice” into the second one. If any two elements x, y are in relation R 1 , then their images Φ ( x ) , Ψ ( y ) shall be in relation R 2 . 8 x 2 X 1 : 8 y 2 Y 1 : ( x, y ) 2 R 1 ! ( Φ ( x ) , Ψ ( y )) 2 R 2 R 1 ; Ψ ✓ Φ ; R 2

  48. Homomorphism This concept works for groups, fields and other algebraic structures , but also for relational structures as, e.g., graphs. Φ , Ψ is a homomorphism from R to R 0 , if Φ , Ψ are mappings satisfying R ; Φ ✓ Ψ ; R 0 . Φ , Ψ is an isomorphism between R and R 0 , if Φ , Ψ as well as Φ T , Ψ T are homomorphisms. Theorem If Φ , Ψ are mappings, then R ; Ψ ✓ Φ ; R 0 ( ) R ✓ Φ ; R 0 ; Ψ T ( ) Φ T ; R ✓ R 0 ; Ψ T ( ) Φ T ; R ; Ψ ✓ R 0 If relations Φ , Ψ are not mappings, one cannot fully execute this rolling; there remain di ff erent forms of (bi-)simulations.

  49. � � � � � � � � � � � � Continuity compares structures in a di ff erent way! � � T Let any two neighborhood topologies U , U 0 be given on sets X, X 0 , and a mapping f : X � ! X 0 . For p 2 X and every neighborhood U 0 2 U 0 ( f ( p )), there exists a neighborhood f continuous : ( ) U 2 U ( p ) satisfying f ( U ) ✓ U 0 .

  50. Contents 1. Motivation — my early topology 2. Topology 3. Interlude on prerequisites 4. Cryptomorphy of topology concepts 5. Continuity 6. Interlude on structure comparison 7. Interlude on the existential and inverse image 8. Relating continuity with the inverse image

  51. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Existential image of relations � � T

  52. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Existential image of relations � � T ϑ := ϑ R := syq ( R T ; ε , ε 0 ) existential image .

  53. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Existential image of relations � � T ϑ := ϑ R := syq ( R T ; ε , ε 0 ) existential image . ϑ is (lattice-)continuous wrt. the powerset orderings Ω = ε T ; ε

  54. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Existential image of relations � � T ϑ := ϑ R := syq ( R T ; ε , ε 0 ) existential image . ϑ is (lattice-)continuous wrt. the powerset orderings Ω = ε T ; ε X = ϑ Q ; R = ϑ Q i.e. multiplicative ϑ ; ϑ R 2 X ε 0 T ; R T = ϑ R T ; ε T ; ε 0 T ε T ; R = ϑ R i.e. mutual simulation R may be re-obtained from ϑ as R = ε ; ϑ ; ε 0 T

  55. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Existential image of relations � � T ϑ := ϑ R := syq ( R T ; ε , ε 0 ) existential image . ϑ is (lattice-)continuous wrt. the powerset orderings Ω = ε T ; ε X = ϑ Q ; R = ϑ Q i.e. multiplicative ϑ ; ϑ R 2 X ε 0 T ; R T = ϑ R T ; ε T ; ε 0 T ε T ; R = ϑ R i.e. mutual simulation R may be re-obtained from ϑ as R = ε ; ϑ ; ε 0 T but there exist many relations W satisfying R = ε ; W ; ε 0 T

  56. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � { a,b,c,d } Existential image { a,b,d } { b,c,d } { a,b,c } { a,c,d } { b,d } { a,b } { a,c } { b,c } { a,d } { c,d } { a } { b } { c } { d } {} {}  1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  { 1 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0   { 2 } 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 1,2 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0     { 3 } 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { 1,3 }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0   { 2,3 }  0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    � � T { 1,2,3 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1     { 4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { 1,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0     { 2,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0   { 1,2,4 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0    { 3,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0     { 1,3,4 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0    { 2,3,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0     { 1,2,3,4 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b d a c ϑ R =   { 5 }   0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1     { 1,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1    2 1 0 0 0 { 2,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { 1,2,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1     R = 3 0 0 1 0   { 3,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0         { 1,3,5 } 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1   { 2,3,5 }   0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   5 1 0 1 0 { 1,2,3,5 }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1   { 4,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0    { 1,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1     { 2,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0     { 1,2,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1     { 3,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0   { 1,3,4,5 }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1   { 2,3,4,5 }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0  { 1,2,3,4,5 } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

  57. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Inverse image � � T b d a c 1 0 1 0 1   2 1 0 0 0   R = 3 0 0 1 0      4 0 0 0 1  5 1 0 1 0 { } { 1,2,3,4,5 } { 1,2,3,4 } { 1,2,3,5 } { 1,2,4,5 } { 1,3,4,5 } { 2,3,4,5 } { 1,2,3 } { 1,2,4 } { 1,3,4 } { 2,3,4 } { 1,2,5 } { 1,3,5 } { 2,3,5 } { 1,4,5 } { 2,4,5 } { 3,4,5 } { 1,2 } { 1,3 } { 2,3 } { 1,4 } { 2,4 } { 3,4 } { 1,5 } { 2,5 } { 3,5 } { 4,5 } { 1 } { 2 } { 3 } { 4 } { 5 } {} {} 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { a } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { b } 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { a,b }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { c } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { a,c } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { b,c } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0     { a,b,c } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ϑ R T =     { d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   { a,d }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0    { b,d }  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0    { a,b,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0     { c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0     { a,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1   { b,c,d }   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 { a,b,c,d } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

  58. Contents 1. Motivation — my early topology 2. Topology 3. Interlude on prerequisites 4. Cryptomorphy of topology concepts 5. Continuity 6. Interlude on structure comparison 7. Interlude on the existential and inverse image 8. Relating continuity with the inverse image

  59. � � � � � � � � � � � � Continuity compares structures in a di ff erent way! � � T Let any two neighborhood topologies U , U 0 be given on sets X, X 0 , and a mapping f : X � ! X 0 . For p 2 X and every neighborhood U 0 2 U 0 ( f ( p )), there exists a neighborhood f continuous : ( ) U 2 U ( p ) satisfying f ( U ) ✓ U 0 .

  60. Lifting the continuity condition For all p 2 X , all V 2 U 0 ( f ( p )), exists a U 2 U ( p ) with f ( U ) ✓ V . 8 p 2 X : 8 V 2 U 0 ( f ( p )) : 9 U 2 U ( p ) : f ( U ) ✓ V 8 p 2 X : 8 v 2 2 X 0 : U 0 � ⇥ ⇤� f ( p ) ,v � ! 9 u : U p,u ^ 8 y : ε yu ! ε 0 f ( y ) ,v � ⇥ ⇤� 8 p : 8 v : ( f ; U 0 ) pv � ! 9 u : U pu ^ 8 y : ε yu ! ( f ; ε 0 ) yv � � 8 p : 8 v : ( f ; U 0 ) pv � ! 9 u : U pu ^ 9 y : ε yu ^ ( f ; ε 0 ) yv � � 8 p : 8 v : ( f ; U 0 ) pv � ! 9 u : U pu ^ ε T ; f ; ε 0 uv � U ; ε T ; f ; ε 0 � 8 p : 8 v : ( f ; U 0 ) pv � ! pv f ; U 0 ✓ U ; ε T ; f ; ε 0 f ; U 0 ✓ U ; ϑ T The last step is proved as follows: f T U ; ε T ; f ; ε 0 ✓ U ; ε T ; f ; ε 0 ; ϑ f T ; ϑ T because ϑ f T is total f T = U ; ε T ; f ; ε 0 ; syq ( f ; ε 0 , ε ) ; ϑ T by definition of ϑ f T f T ✓ U ; ε T ; ε ; ϑ T cancellation f T = U ; ε T ; ε ; ϑ T since ϑ f T is a mapping f T = U ; Ω ; ϑ T f T = U ; ϑ T f T

  61. � � � � � � � � � � � � Continuity — standard vs. relational definition � � T Let any two neighborhood topologies U , U 0 be given on sets X, X 0 , and a mapping f : X � ! X 0 . For p 2 X and every neighborhood U 0 2 U 0 ( f ( p )), there exists a neighborhood f continuous : ( ) U 2 U ( p ) satisfying f ( U ) ✓ U 0 . : ( ) f ; U 0 ; ϑ f T ✓ U f continuous f ; U 0 ✓ U ; ϑ T ( ) f T

  62. Cryptomorphy of continuity concepts Given sets X, X 0 with topologies, we consider a mapping ! X 0 together with its inverse image ϑ f T : 2 X 0 � ! 2 X . f : X � Then we say that the pair ( f, ϑ f T ) is i) K - continuous : ( ) K T 2 ; ϑ f T ✓ ε 2 T ; f T ; ε 1 ; K T 1 : ( ) O D 2 ; ϑ f T ✓ ϑ f T ; O D 1 ii) O D - continuous iii) O V - continuous : ( ) ϑ T f T ; O 0 V ✓ O V iv) ε O - continuous : ( ) f ; ε O 2 ; ϑ f T ✓ ε O 1

  63. Cryptomorphy of continuity concepts Given sets X, X 0 with topologies, we consider a mapping ! X 0 together with its inverse image ϑ f T : 2 X 0 � ! 2 X . f : X � Then we say that the pair ( f, ϑ f T ) is i) K - continuous : ( ) K T 2 ; ϑ f T ✓ ε 2 T ; f T ; ε 1 ; K T 1 : ( ) O D 2 ; ϑ f T ✓ ϑ f T ; O D 1 ii) O D - continuous iii) O V - continuous : ( ) ϑ T f T ; O 0 V ✓ O V iv) ε O - continuous : ( ) f ; ε O 2 ; ϑ f T ✓ ε O 1 Again, there is an obligation to prove f is K - continuous ( ) f is O D - continuous ( ) ( ) f is O V - continuous f is ε O - continuous

  64. Thank you!

  65. Language and system

  66. Systems to support work with relations I RelView : RBDD-Implementierung; auch f¨ ur große Relationen I T ITU R EL eine relationale Sprache, transformierbar, interpretierbar I Ralf : weiland ein guter Formel-Manipulator und Beweis-Assistent I RATH : Exploring (finite) relation algebras with tools written in Haskell

  67. Aims in designing T ITU R EL I Formulate all problems so far tackled with relational methods I Transform relational terms and formulae in order to optimize them I Interpret the relational constructs as boolean matrices, in RelView , in the T ITU R EL substrate, or in Rath I Prove relational formulae with system support in the style of Ralf or Rasiowa-Sikorski I Translate relational formulae into T EX-representation, or to first-order predicate logic, e.g.

  68. Recalling syntax vs. semantics for PL/I: K const. an element K I for K interpretation I ϕ fct. a function table ϕ I for ϕ tokens in supporting set p pred. s subset p I for p

  69. Recalling syntax vs. semantics for PL/I: K const. an element K I for K interpretation I ϕ fct. a function table ϕ I for ϕ tokens in supporting set p pred. s subset p I for p Out of this and the variables V one forms terms and formulae T = V | K | ϕ ( T ) F = p ( T ) | ¬ F | 8 V : F

  70. Recalling syntax vs. semantics for PL/I: K const. an element K I for K interpretation I ϕ fct. a function table ϕ I for ϕ tokens in supporting set p pred. s subset p I for p Out of this and the variables V one forms terms and formulae T = V | K | ϕ ( T ) F = p ( T ) | ¬ F | 8 V : F With a variable valuation v : x 7! v ( x ) terms are evaluated v ⇤ ( x ) := v ( x ) v ⇤ ( k ) := k I v ⇤ ( ϕ ( t )) := ϕ I ( v ⇤ ( t ))

  71. Recalling syntax vs. semantics for PL/I: K const. an element K I for K interpretation I ϕ fct. a function table ϕ I for ϕ tokens in supporting set p pred. s subset p I for p Out of this and the variables V one forms terms and formulae T = V | K | ϕ ( T ) F = p ( T ) | ¬ F | 8 V : F With a variable valuation v : x 7! v ( x ) terms are evaluated v ⇤ ( x ) := v ( x ) v ⇤ ( k ) := k I v ⇤ ( ϕ ( t )) := ϕ I ( v ⇤ ( t )) and formulae interpreted | = I,v p ( t ) : ( ) v ⇤ ( t ) ✓ p I | = I,v ¬ F : ( ) | = / I,v F | = I,v 8 x : F : ( ) For all s holds | = I,v x s F

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

A Symbolic Approach for Solving Algebraic Riccati Equations G. Rance, Y. Bouzidi, Al. Quadrat, Ar.

A Symbolic Approach for Solving Algebraic Riccati Equations G. Rance, Y. Bouzidi, Al. Quadrat, Ar.

Algebraic Riccati Equations for the optimal control problem A new algebraic description The case of 3 order systems A practical example Conclusion and persp A Symbolic Approach for Solving Algebraic Riccati Equations G. Rance, Y. Bouzidi, Al.

554 views • 31 slides
Mechanised Relation-Algebraic Order Theory in Ordered Categories without Meets Musa Al-hassy and

Mechanised Relation-Algebraic Order Theory in Ordered Categories without Meets Musa Al-hassy and

Mechanised Relation-Algebraic Order Theory in Ordered Categories without Meets Musa Al-hassy and Wolfram Kahl McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 29 September 2015 15th RAMiCS Braga, Portugal This research is supported by

699 views • 27 slides
Algebraic and holomorphic flows in the bi-algebraic context Emmanuel Ullmo, IHES joint work with

Algebraic and holomorphic flows in the bi-algebraic context Emmanuel Ullmo, IHES joint work with

Algebraic and holomorphic flows in the bi-algebraic context Emmanuel Ullmo, IHES joint work with Andrei Yafaev. Cetraro, July 14, 2017. Hermitian Locally Symmetric Spaces-bi-Algebraic point of view. The following transcendental maps relates

368 views • 21 slides
A General Approach to State-Morphism MV-Algebras Anatolij DVURE CENSKIJ Mathematical

A General Approach to State-Morphism MV-Algebras Anatolij DVURE CENSKIJ Mathematical

A General Approach to State-Morphism MV-Algebras Anatolij DVURE CENSKIJ Mathematical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Stef anikova 49, SK-814 73 Bratislava, Slovakia E-mail: dvurecen@mat.savba.sk The talk given at the Algebraic

1.76k views • 154 slides
The impact of the algebraic approach on perturbative quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen II.

The impact of the algebraic approach on perturbative quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen II.

Introduction Algebraic structure of perturbative renormalization Adiabatic limit Conclusions and Outlook The impact of the algebraic approach on perturbative quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen II. Institut f ur Theoretische Physik,

845 views • 29 slides
Operator algebraic properties for free wreath products by quantum permutation groups -Conf

Operator algebraic properties for free wreath products by quantum permutation groups -Conf

Fusion rules for free wreath products Operator algebraic properties for free wreath products by quantum permutation groups -Conf erence du GDRE Noncommutative Geometry and Applications- Fran cois Lemeux (part. joint work with Pierre

326 views • 19 slides
Free models of enriched T-algebraic theories computed as Kan extensions Nicolas Tabareau joint

Free models of enriched T-algebraic theories computed as Kan extensions Nicolas Tabareau joint

Free models of enriched T-algebraic theories computed as Kan extensions Nicolas Tabareau joint work with Paul-Andr e Melli` es PPS (Preuves Programmations Syst` emes) PARIS, FRANCE Category Theory 2008 Tabareau, Melli` es (PPS) Free

703 views • 55 slides
Categorical Duality between Point-Free and Point-Set Spaces Yoshihiro Maruyama Kyoto University,

Categorical Duality between Point-Free and Point-Set Spaces Yoshihiro Maruyama Kyoto University,

Introduction Bool. Topo. Axioms in Functor-Structured Categories Dual Adjunction b/w Monadic and Topological Cats Categorical Duality between Point-Free and Point-Set Spaces Yoshihiro Maruyama Kyoto University, Japan

411 views • 19 slides
Algebraic Approach to Promise Constraint Satisfaction Alexandr Kazda Department of Algebra

Algebraic Approach to Promise Constraint Satisfaction Alexandr Kazda Department of Algebra

Algebraic Approach to Promise Constraint Satisfaction Alexandr Kazda Department of Algebra Charles University Noon Seminar Alexandr Kazda (Dept of Algebra) Algebraic Approach to PCSP Noon Seminar 1 / 11 Disclaimer The results presented are

281 views • 11 slides
Notion of mean point in the data Why bother about mean point? Defining mean point can be

Notion of mean point in the data Why bother about mean point? Defining mean point can be

Fundamentals of AI Introduction and the most basic concepts Notion of mean point in the data Why bother about mean point? Defining mean point can be considered as a simple application of unsupervised learning approach Calculating mean

473 views • 19 slides
Relative generalized Hamming weights of one-point algebraic geometric codes: an application to

Relative generalized Hamming weights of one-point algebraic geometric codes: an application to

Relative generalized Hamming weights of one-point algebraic geometric codes: an application to secret sharing INdAM meeting: International meeting on numerical semigroups Cortona 2014, September 10th. Diego Ruano

589 views • 57 slides
Algebraic Footprints of Quantum Gravity: a Stability Point of View Chryssomalis Chryssomalakos

Algebraic Footprints of Quantum Gravity: a Stability Point of View Chryssomalis Chryssomalakos

Algebraic Footprints of Quantum Gravity: a Stability Point of View Chryssomalis Chryssomalakos ICN - UNAM (based on joint work with Elias Okon (ICN - UNAM)) Reference: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13/10 (2004) 20032034 ( hep-th/0410212 ) Contents

411 views • 20 slides
Point-free Descriptive Set Theory and Algorithmic Randomness Alex Simpson University of

Point-free Descriptive Set Theory and Algorithmic Randomness Alex Simpson University of

1/24 Point-free Descriptive Set Theory and Algorithmic Randomness Alex Simpson University of Ljubljana, Slovenia incorporating j.w.w. Antonin Delpeuch (Univ. Oxford) CCC, Nancy, June 2017 Point-free Descriptive Set Theory and Algorithmic

538 views • 24 slides
Annalas derived algebraic cobordism over a general base Talk I July 7, 2020 Talk I

Annalas derived algebraic cobordism over a general base Talk I July 7, 2020 Talk I

Introduction Bivariant derived algebraic cobordism with bundles Precobordism theories Annalas derived algebraic cobordism over a general base Talk I July 7, 2020 Talk I Annalas derived algebraic cobordism over a general base

629 views • 44 slides
Logics Definition A logic is a consequence relation over the set of formulas Fm of The

Logics Definition A logic is a consequence relation over the set of formulas Fm of The

Logics Definition A logic is a consequence relation over the set of formulas Fm of The computational complexity of the Leibniz an algebraic language,which is substitution invariant in the sense hierarchy that if , then ( )

584 views • 4 slides
Context-free languages in Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory Jos e Manuel Rodr guez

Context-free languages in Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory Jos e Manuel Rodr guez

Context-free languages in Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory Jos e Manuel Rodr guez Caballero Ph.D. student Laboratoire de combinatoire et dinformatique math ematique (LaCIM) eal (UQ` Universit e du Qu ebec ` a Montr

796 views • 41 slides
1 What is a Gospel? Gospel = English translation of (good news)

1 What is a Gospel? Gospel = English translation of (good news)

Class 2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 1 Outline What Is a Gospel? The Lives of Mark Academic Approaches to (Sacred) Texts Literary Criticism, &amp; its Subset, Narrative Criticism Literary criticism in general Narrative

556 views • 12 slides
Source Attribution of Attainment and Exposure- Based Ozone Metrics Amanda Pappin, Amir Hakami

Source Attribution of Attainment and Exposure- Based Ozone Metrics Amanda Pappin, Amir Hakami

October 17, 2012 Source Attribution of Attainment and Exposure- Based Ozone Metrics Amanda Pappin, Amir Hakami Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Carleton University Outline regulatory standards sensitivity methods

443 views • 27 slides
Upstanders and Allies: Taking Action Against Cyberbullying commonsense.org/education Shareable

Upstanders and Allies: Taking Action Against Cyberbullying commonsense.org/education Shareable

DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP | GRADE 7 Upstanders and Allies: Taking Action Against Cyberbullying commonsense.org/education Shareable with attribution for noncommercial use. Remixing is permitted. Essential Question How can you respond when

558 views • 11 slides
We have failed the internet. Mike Eisen Emmy Tsang | Innovation Community Manager,

We have failed the internet. Mike Eisen Emmy Tsang | Innovation Community Manager,

We have failed the internet. Mike Eisen Emmy Tsang | Innovation Community Manager, eLife | t @emmy_ft / @ eLifeInnovation @eLifeInnovation Finding restaurants in 1929 Finding restaurants in 2019 Image source: Wikipedia

662 views • 21 slides
Civilization in Eastern Europe Byzantium and Orthodox Europe The Grand Mosque in Makkah The

Civilization in Eastern Europe Byzantium and Orthodox Europe The Grand Mosque in Makkah The

Civilization in Eastern Europe Byzantium and Orthodox Europe The Grand Mosque in Makkah The Byzantine Empire One God, One Empire, One Religion Busy Byzantines The Byzantine Empire One God, One Empire, One Religion The Eastern Empire

789 views • 52 slides
Warren Wiersbe Three miracles are recorded in Luke 7: A great miracle, the healing of the

Warren Wiersbe Three miracles are recorded in Luke 7: A great miracle, the healing of the

Warren Wiersbe Three miracles are recorded in Luke 7: A great miracle, the healing of the centurions servant; a greater miracle, the raising of a young man from the dead; and greatest miracle of all, the forgiving and restoring of a sinful

320 views • 18 slides
TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FUTURE TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FUTURE BY TRANSITION TO THE NEXT LEVEL

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FUTURE TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FUTURE BY TRANSITION TO THE NEXT LEVEL

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FUTURE TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FUTURE BY TRANSITION TO THE NEXT LEVEL CIVILIZATION BY TRANSITION TO THE NEXT LEVEL CIVILIZATION Company how many how many COUNTDOWNS ON LOGO moments moments left ? left ? Andrei P.

615 views • 23 slides
Introduction Algorithmic Methods for Formal Verification by Yaniv Saar Introduction JTLV

Introduction Algorithmic Methods for Formal Verification by Yaniv Saar Introduction JTLV

Algorithmic Methods for Formal Verification by Yaniv Saar A LGORITHMIC M ETHODS FOR F ORMAL Introduction V ERIFICATION JTLV Synthesis Synthesis of Reactive(1) Designs by Yaniv Saar AspectLTL: An Aspect Language for LTL

808 views • 70 slides

More recommend