19.07.2014 Views

Contents - Student subdomain for University of Bath

Contents - Student subdomain for University of Bath

Contents - Student subdomain for University of Bath

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

102 CHAPTER 3. POLYNOMIAL EQUATIONS<br />

quantities are non-negative, or that concentrations is biochemistry lie in the<br />

range [0, 1].<br />

Robot motion planning . . .<br />

It is also <strong>of</strong>ten important to prove unsatisfiability, i.e. that a semi-algebraic<br />

<strong>for</strong>mula has no solutions. [Mon09] gives several examples, ranging from program<br />

proving to biological systems. The program proving one is as follows. One<br />

wishes to prove that I is an invariant (i.e. if it was true at the start, it is true<br />

at the end) <strong>of</strong> a program which moves from one state to another by a transition<br />

relation τ. More <strong>for</strong>mally, one wishes to prove that there do not exist two states<br />

s, s ′ such that s ∈ I, s ′ /∈ I, but s → τ s ′ . Such a pair (s, s ′ ) would be where “the<br />

program breaks down”, so a pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> unsatisfiability becomes a pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> program<br />

correctness. This places stress on the concept <strong>of</strong> ‘pro<strong>of</strong>’ — “I can prove that<br />

there are no bad cases” is much better than “I couldn’t find any bad cases”.<br />

3.5.2 Quantifier Elimination<br />

A fundamental result <strong>of</strong> algebraic geometry is the following, which follows from<br />

the existence <strong>of</strong> resultants (section A.1).<br />

Theorem 24 A projection <strong>of</strong> an algebraic set is itself an algebraic set.<br />

For example, the projection <strong>of</strong> the set defined by<br />

{<br />

}<br />

(x − 1) 2 + (y − 1) 2 + (z − 1) 2 − 4, x 2 + y 2 + z 2 − 4<br />

(3.48)<br />

on the x, y-plane is the ellipse<br />

8 x 2 + 8 y 2 − 7 − 12 x + 8 xy − 12 y. (3.49)<br />

We can regard equation (3.48) as defining the set<br />

(<br />

)<br />

∃z (x − 1) 2 + (y − 1) 2 + (z − 1) 2 = 4 ∧ x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = 4<br />

(3.50)<br />

and equation (3.49) as the quantifier-free equivalent<br />

8 x 2 + 8 y 2 − 12 x + 8 xy − 12 y = 7. (3.51)<br />

Is the same true in real algebraic geometry? If P is a projection operator,<br />

and R denotes the real part, then clearly<br />

P (R(U) ∩ R(V )) ⊆ R(P (U ∩ V )). (3.52)<br />

However, the following example shows that the inclusion can be strict. Consider<br />

{<br />

}<br />

(x − 3) 2 + (y − 1) 2 + z 2 − 1, x 2 + y 2 + z 2 − 1<br />

Its projection is (10 − 6 x − 2 y) 2 , i.e. a straight line (with multiplicity 2). If we<br />

substitute in the equation <strong>for</strong> y in terms <strong>of</strong> x, we get z = √ −10 x 2 + 30 x − 24,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!