270 likes | 286 Views
Explore the concepts of relations, mappings, countable and uncountable sets. Learn about binary relations, n-ary relations, functions, and examples of relations in mathematical logic. Understand the cardinality of sets and functions.
E N D
Mathematical logic Lesson 5 Relations, mappings, countable and uncountable sets Relation, function
Relation Relation between sets A, B is a subset of the Cartesian product A B. Cartesian productA B is a set of all ordered pairsa, b, where aA, bB (Binary) relation R2on a set M is a subset ofM M:R2 M M n-ary relation Rnon a set M: Rn M ... M n times Relation, function
Relation Mind: A couplea,b b,a, but a set{a,b} = {b,a} a, aa, but {a,a} = {a} n-tuplesare ordered, particular elements of tuples do not have to be unique (can be repeated), unlike sets Notation: a,b Ris written also in the prefix R(a,b)or infixwaya R b. For instance 1 3. Relation, function
Relation - Example: Binary relationon the set of natural numbers N:< (strictly less than) {0,1,0,2,0,3,…,1,2,1,3, 1,4, …, 2,3,2,4,…,3,4,…,5,7,…,115,119, .…} Ternary relation on N: {0,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,0,…,2,0,2,2,1,1,2,2,0, …,3,0,3,3,1,2,3,2,1,3,3,0,…,115,110,5, .…}the set of triples of natural numbers such that the 3rd number equals the 1st minus the 2nd one Relation“adressof a person”: {Jan Novák, Praha 5, Bellušova 1831,Marie Duží, Praha 5, Bellušova 1827,...,} Relation, function
Function (mapping) n-aryfunction F on a set M is a special“unique on the right-hand side” (n+1)-ary relation F M ... M: (n+1) x abc ([F(a,b) F(a,c)] b=c) Partial F: to each n-tupleof elementsaM...M there existsat most one element bM. Notation F: M ... M M, instead of F(a,b) we write F(a)=b. The set M ... M is called a domainof the function F, the set M is called a range. Relation, function
Function (mapping) Example: Relation on N{1,1,1,2,1,2,2,2 ,1,…,4,2,2,…,9,3,3,…, 27,9,3, .…} Is a partial functiondividing without a remainder. The relationminus on N (see the previous slide) is a partial function on N: for instance the couple 2,4does not have an image in N. In order that the function minus were total, we’d have to extend the domain to integers. Relation, function
Function (mapping) Functional symbols of FOL formulasare interpreted only by total functions: Total function F: A BTo each element aA there is just one element bB such that F(a)=b: a b F(a)=b abc[(F(a)=b F(a)=c) b=c] Sometimes we introduce a special quantifier!With the meaning “there is just one”, written as: a !b F(a)=b Relation, function
Function (mapping) Examples: Relation+{0,0,0, 1,0,1, 1,1,2, 0,1,1, …}is a(total binary) function on N. To each pair of numbers it assigns just one number, the sum of the former. Instead of 1,1,2 + we write 1+1=2. The relationis not a function: x y z [(x y) (x z) (y z)] Relation{0,0, 1,1, 2,4, 3,9, 4,16, …}is a function on N, namely the total functionthe second power (x2) Relation, function
Surjection, injection, bijection • A mappingf :A B is called a surjection(mappingA ontoB), iff to each elementb B there is an elementa A such thatf(a)=b. • b [B(b)a (A(a) f(a)=b)]. • A mappingf :A B is called an injection(one to onemappingA intoB), iff for all aA, bAsuch that a b it holds thatf(a) f(b). • a b [(A(b)A(a) (a b)) (f(a) f(b))]. • A mappingf :A B is called a bijection(one to onemappingA ontoB), iff f is a surjection and injection. Relation, function
Function (mapping) • Example: surjection injection bijection {1 2 3 4 5} {234 } {1 2 3 4 5} { 2 3 4 } {1 2 3 4 5} {1 2 3 4 5} If there is a bijection between the sets A, B, then we say that A and B have the same cardinality(number of elements). Relation, function
Cardinality, countable sets • A set A that has the same cardinality as the set N of natural numbers is called acountable set. • Example: the set S of even numbers is countable. The bijection f of S into N is defined, e.g., byf(n) = 2n. Hence0 0, 1 2, 2 4, 3 6, 4 8, … One of the paradoxesof Cantor’s set theory: S N (a proper subset) and yet the number of elements of the two sets is equal: Card(S) = Card(N)! Relation, function
Cardinality, countablesets The set of rational numbers R is also countable. • Proof: in two steps. • Card(N) Card(R), because each natural number is rational: N R. • Now we construct amapping ofN ontoR (surjection N ontoR), by which we prove thatCard(R) Card(N): 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 1/1 2/1 1/2 3/1 2/2 1/3 … But, in the table there are repeating rationals, hence the mapping is not one-to-one. However, no rational number is omitted, therefore it is a mapping of N onto R (surjection). Card(N) =Card(R). Relation, function
Cardinality, uncountable sets • There are, however, uncountable sets: the least of them is theset of real numbersR • Even in the interval0,1there are more real numbers than the number of all natural numbers. However, in this interval there is the same number of reals than the number of all the realsR! • Cantor’s diagonal proof:If there were countably many real numbers in the interval 0,1, the numbers could be ordered into a sequence: the first one (1.), the second (2.), the third (3.),…, and each of these numbers would be of a form 0,i1i2i3…, where i1i2i3… is the decimal part of the number. • Rational numbers have a finite decimal part, irrational numbers have an infinite decimal part. • Let us add to each nthnumber in in the sequence i1i2i3… of decimals the number 1. We obtain a number which is not contained in the original sequence – see the next slide: Relation, function
Cantor’s diagonal proof of uncountability of real numbers in the interval0,1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 i11 i12 i13 i14 i15 i16 i17 2 i21 i22 i23 i24 i25 i26 i27 3 i31 i32 i33 i34 i35 i36 i37 4 i41 i42 i43 i44 i45 i46 i47 5 i51 i52 i53 i54 i55 i56 i57 …. A new number that is not contained in the table: 0,i11+1 i22+1 i33+1 i44+1 i55+1 … Relation, function
Propositional Logic again • Summary of the most important notions and methods. Relation, function
Table of the truth functions Propositional Logic - summary
Summary • Typical tasks: • Check whether an argument is valid • What is entailed by a given set of assumptions? • Add the missing assumptions so that the argument is valid • Is a given formula tautology, contradiction, satisfiable? • Find the models of a formula, find amodel of a set of formulas • Up to now we know the following methods: • Truth-table method • Equivalent transformations • An indirect semantic proof • The resolution method • Semantic tableau Propositional Logic
Example. The proof of a tautology |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) Table:A
Indirect proof of the tautology |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) The formulaA is a tautology, iff the negated formulaA is a contradiction: |= A iff A |= • Let us assume that the negated formula can be true. • Negation of implication: (A B) (A B) • (p q) (p r) q r 1 1 1 0 1 0 q = 0, r = 0, hence p 0, p 0 0 0 0 0 therefore: p = 0, p = 0, i.e. 1 p = 1 contradiction • The negated formula does not have a model, it is a contradiction. Hence the formula A is a tautology. Propositional Logic
The proof by equivalent transformations We need the laws: • (A B) (A B) ((A B)) • (A B) (A B) de Morgan • (A B) (A B) de Morgan • (A B) (A B) negation of implication • (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) distributive law • (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) distributive law • 1 A 1 1 tautology, • 1 A A e.g. (p p) • 0 A 0 0 contradiction • 0 A A e.g. (p p) propositional logic
The proof by equivalent transformations |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) [(p q) (p r)] (q r) [(p q) (p r)] (q r) • (p q) (p r) q r • [p (p r) q r] [q (p r) q r] • (p p q r) (p r q r) (qp q r) (q r q r) 1 1 1 1 1 – tautology • Note: We obtained a conjunctive normal form (CNF) Relation, function
Proof of a tautology – resolution method |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) • Negated formula is transformed into a clausal form (CNF), the indirect proof: (p q) (p r) q r (p q) (p r) q r 1. p q 2. p r 3. q 4. r 5. q r resolution 1, 2 6. r resolution 3, 5 7. resolution 4, 6 – contradiction propositional logic
Proof by a semantic tableau |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) Direct proof: we construct the CNF (‘’: branching, ‘’:comma – closed branches: ‘p p’) (p q) (p r) q r p, (p r), q, r q, (p r), q, r + p, p, q, r p, r, q, r + + propositional logic
Indirect proof by a semantic tableau |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) Indirect proof: by the DNF of the negated formula (‘’: branching, ‘’:comma, - closed branches 0:‘p p’) [(p q) (p r)] q r p, (p r), q, r q, (p r), q, r + p, p, q, r p, r, q, r + + propositional logic
Proof of an argument |= [(p q) (p r)] (q r) iff [(p q) (p r)] |=(q r) iff (p q), (p r) |=(q r) p: The program goes right q: The system is in order r: It is necessary to call for a system engineer If the program goes right, the system is in order. If the program malfunctions, it is necessary to call for a system engineer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the system is not in order, it is necessary to call for a system engineer. propositional logic
Proof of an argument (p q), (p r) |=(q r) Indirect proof: {(p q), (p r), (q r)}– it cannot be a satisfiable set • p q • p r • q • r • q r resolution 1, 2 • r resolution 3, 5 • resolution 4, 6, contradiction
Proof of an argument (p q), (p r) |=(q r) Direct proof: What is entailed by the assumptions? The resolution rule is truth preserving: p q, p r |-- q r 1 1 1 In any valuation vit holds that if the assumptions are true, the resolvent is true as well Proof: a) p = 1 p = 0 q = 1 (q r) = 1 b) p = 0 r = 1 (q r) = 1 • p q • p r • q r resolution 1, 2 – consequence: (q r) (q r) QED propositional logic