On the methods of mechanical non-theorems (latest version)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

over finite sets. Again we avoid explicitly computing the whole of the complex algebras in question. Proposition 3.5.4 measures the extent of the representable algebras whose atom-structures are enumerated thusly. 102
Bibliography [Aan71] [Aan83] S.O. Aanderaa. On the decision problem for fomulas in which all disjunctions are binary. In Proc. 2nd Scandinavian Logic Symp., volume 48, pages 1–18, 1971. S.O. Aanderaa. On the solvability of the extended ∀∃ ∧ ∃∀∗ ackermann class with identity. In Logic and Machines, pages 270–284, 1983. [AGM + 98] H. Andréka, S. Givant, S. Mikulás, I. Németi, and A. Simon. Notions of density that imply representability in algebraic logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 91(2-3):93–190, 1998. [AL73] S.O. Aanderaa and H.R. Lewis. Prefix classes of krom formulas. J. Symb. Log., 38(4):628–642, 1973. [AM94] [ANS01] [ASN01] [B¨60] [Ber59] [Ber66] [BG04] [BGG97] H. Andréka and R.D. Maddux. Representations for small relation algebras. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 35(4):550–562, 1994. H. Andreka, I. Nemeti, and I. Sain. Algebraic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 2, pages 133–247. 2001. H. Andréka, I. Sain, and I. Németi. Algebraic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol 2, volume 2, pages 133–247. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. J. R. Büchi. Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 6:66–92, 1960. P. Bernays. Über eine natürliche erweiterung des relationenkalküls. In A. Heyting, editor, Constuctivity in mathermatics, pages 1–14, Amsterdam, 1959. North-Holland. R. Berger. The undecidability of the domino problem. Memoirs American Mathematical Society, 66:1966, 1966. A. Blumensath and E. Grädel. Finite presentations of infinite structures: Automata and interpretations. Theory Comput. Syst., 37(6):641–674, 2004. E. Börger, E. Grädel, and Y. Gurevich. The Classical Decision Problem. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, 1997. [BHMV94] V. Bruyére, G. Hansel, C. Michaux, and R. Villemaire. Logic and p-recognizable sets of integers. Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society, 1:191–238, 1994. Available from http://www.emis.de/ journals/BBMS/Bulletin/bul942/BRU.PDF. 103
Page 1:
On the methods of mechanical non-th
Page 4 and 5:
1.4 A construction of Ps 3 ’s and
Page 7 and 8:
0.1 Introduction The present thesis
Page 9 and 10:
can be done on automata computation
Page 11 and 12:
Parallel to this mathematicians wor
Page 13 and 14:
For an algebra to soundly replace a
Page 15:
Dr. Philos. degree. As life is not
Page 18 and 19:
1.1 Introduction In this setting a
Page 20 and 21:
either φ ∈ Γ or ¬φ ∈ Γ, an
Page 22 and 23:
satisfaction in Ps 3 ’s in such a
Page 24 and 25:
1.2.4 Polyadic set algebras of tern
Page 26 and 27:
Lemma 1.2.3 If {R, ...} are the rel
Page 28 and 29:
1.2.8 Exhaustive search for satisfy
Page 30 and 31:
Lemma 1.3.1 L 33 ∪ L 32 ∪ L 31
Page 32 and 33:
The following allows us to use homo
Page 34 and 35:
Corollary 1.3.10 Let |= be a recurs
Page 36 and 37:
the full Ps 3 over 3 has 27 atoms.
Page 38 and 39:
set. In the example, the initial so
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 2 Automata for mechanising
Page 43 and 44:
3. The finite automata of the class
Page 45 and 46:
theorem [BHMV94], the p-recognisabl
Page 47 and 48:
Using this theorem contrapositively
Page 49 and 50:
4. associative, i.e. V |= ∀x[0(0(
Page 51 and 52:
Again the axioms with a (*) behind
Page 53 and 54:
Let m be equal to the dimension of
Page 55 and 56:
Definition Let W = (V, K, δ, ι, T
Page 57 and 58: states reachable in i steps from th
Page 59 and 60: Proof: Left to the reader. qed Defi
Page 61 and 62: 2.5 Reachability refined Here we in
Page 63 and 64: Definition For each n-fold vector-s
Page 65 and 66: Definition Let W = (V, K, δ, ι, .
Page 67 and 68: δ ∗ h(ι, ˆσ(A)) = q ′ Also
Page 69 and 70: 1. Immediate from the definition of
Page 71 and 72: there exist x, y ∈ V such that t(
Page 73 and 74: 1. δ ∗ h(0, A 0 ⌢ · · · ⌢
Page 75 and 76: 2. Disjunction: Let {φ, ψ, φ ∨
Page 77 and 78: (←) Again we let q be reachable a
Page 79: 1. If Γ has an automatic model the
Page 82 and 83: 3.1 Introduction This is the second
Page 84 and 85: We write R −1 (B) for the inverse
Page 86 and 87: Definition Let U be a set. The full
Page 88 and 89: Proof: We turn a fragment of first-
Page 90 and 91: 3.2.2 The complex algebra tailored
Page 92 and 93: 3.3 The h-complex algebra of a mult
Page 94 and 95: Similarly we define two relations o
Page 96 and 97: 3.3.2 Properly partitioned automata
Page 98 and 99: 3.3.5 Representability of the h-com
Page 100 and 101: then there exists a B ∈ V k+1 s.t
Page 102 and 103: By well known results from automata
Page 104 and 105: A ′ is an n-dimensional polyadic
Page 106 and 107: We now define a class of automata t
Page 110 and 111: [Büc62] J.R. Büchi. Turing machin
show all

On the methods of mechanical non-theorems (latest version)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?