The induced path function, monotonicity and betweenness

The induced path function $J(u, v)$ of a graph consists of the set of all vertices lying on the induced paths between vertices $u$ and $v$. This function is a special instance of a transit function. The function $J$ satisfies betweenness if $w \\in J(u, v)$ implies $u \\notin J(w, v)$ and $x \\in J(u, v)$ implies $J(u, x \\subseteq J(u, v)$, and it is monotone if $x, y \\in J(u, v)$ implies $J(x, y) \\subseteq J(u, v)$. The induced path function of aconnected graph satisfying the betweenness and monotone axioms are characterized by transit axioms.betweenness;induced path;transit function;monotone;house domino;long cycle;p-graph

Transit functions on graphs (and posets)

The notion of transit function is introduced to present a unifying approachfor results and ideas on intervals, convexities and betweenness in graphs andposets. Prime examples of such transit functions are the interval function I andthe induced path function J of a connected graph. Another transit function isthe all-paths function. New transit functions are introduced, such as the cutvertextransit function and the longest path function. The main idea of transitfunctions is that of ‘transferring’ problems and ideas of one transit functionto the other. For instance, a result on the interval function I might suggestsimilar problems for the induced path function J. Examples are given of howfruitful this transfer can be. A list of Prototype Problems and Questions forthis transferring process is given, which suggests many new questions and openproblems.graph theory;betweenness;block graph;convexity;distance in graphs;interval function;path function;induced path;paths and cycles;transit function;types of graphs

The induced path function, monotonicity and betweenness

The induced path function $J(u, v)$ of a graph consists of the set of all vertices lying on the induced paths between vertices $u$ and $v$. This function is a special instance of a transit function. The function $J$ satisfies betweenness if $w \\in J(u, v)$ implies $u \\notin J(w, v)$ and $x \\in J(u, v)$ implies $J(u, x \\subseteq J(u, v)$, and it is monotone if $x, y \\in J(u, v)$ implies $J(x, y) \\subseteq J(u, v)$. The induced path function of a connected graph satisfying the betweenness and monotone axioms are characterized by transit axioms

A Characterization of Uniquely Representable Graphs

The betweenness structure of a finite metric space M =(X, d) is a pair ℬ (M)=(X, βM) where βM is the so-called betweenness relation of M that consists of point triplets (x, y, z) such that d(x, z)= d(x, y)+ d(y, z). The underlying graph of a betweenness structure ℬ =(X, β)isthe simple graph G(ℬ)=(X, E) where the edges are pairs of distinct points with no third point between them. A connected graph G is uniquely representable if there exists a unique metric betweenness structure with underlying graph G. It was implied by previous works that trees are uniquely representable. In this paper, we give a characterization of uniquely representable graphs by showing that they are exactly the block graphs. Further, we prove that two related classes of graphs coincide with the class of block graphs and the class of distance-hereditary graphs, respectively. We show that our results hold not only for metric but also for almost-metric betweenness structures. © 2021 Péter G.N. Szabó

Oriented components and their separations

[EN] There is a tight connection between connectedness, connected components, and certain types of separation spaces. Recently, axiom systems for oriented connectedness were proposed leading to the notion of reaches. Here, we introduce production relations as a further generalization of connectivity spaces and reaches and derive associated systems of oriented components that generalize connected components in a natural manner. The main result is a characterization of generalized reaches in terms of equivalent separation spaces.Stadler, BMR.; Stadler, PF. (2017). Oriented components and their separations. Applied General Topology. 18(2):255-275. doi:10.4995/agt.2017.5868SWORD25527518

The Significance of Evidence-based Reasoning for Mathematics, Mathematics Education, Philosophy and the Natural Sciences

In this multi-disciplinary investigation we show how an evidence-based perspective of quantification---in terms of algorithmic verifiability and algorithmic computability---admits evidence-based definitions of well-definedness and effective computability, which yield two unarguably constructive interpretations of the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA---over the structure N of the natural numbers---that are complementary, not contradictory. The first yields the weak, standard, interpretation of PA over N, which is well-defined with respect to assignments of algorithmically verifiable Tarskian truth values to the formulas of PA under the interpretation. The second yields a strong, finitary, interpretation of PA over N, which is well-defined with respect to assignments of algorithmically computable Tarskian truth values to the formulas of PA under the interpretation. We situate our investigation within a broad analysis of quantification vis a vis: * Hilbert's epsilon-calculus * Goedel's omega-consistency * The Law of the Excluded Middle * Hilbert's omega-Rule * An Algorithmic omega-Rule * Gentzen's Rule of Infinite Induction * Rosser's Rule C * Markov's Principle * The Church-Turing Thesis * Aristotle's particularisation * Wittgenstein's perspective of constructive mathematics * An evidence-based perspective of quantification. By showing how these are formally inter-related, we highlight the fragility of both the persisting, theistic, classical/Platonic interpretation of quantification grounded in Hilbert's epsilon-calculus; and the persisting, atheistic, constructive/Intuitionistic interpretation of quantification rooted in Brouwer's belief that the Law of the Excluded Middle is non-finitary. We then consider some consequences for mathematics, mathematics education, philosophy, and the natural sciences, of an agnostic, evidence-based, finitary interpretation of quantification that challenges classical paradigms in all these disciplines

Cyclic proof systems for modal fixpoint logics

This thesis is about cyclic and ill-founded proof systems for modal fixpoint logics, with and without explicit fixpoint quantifiers.Cyclic and ill-founded proof-theory allow proofs with infinite branches or paths, as long as they satisfy some correctness conditions ensuring the validity of the conclusion. In this dissertation we design a few cyclic and ill-founded systems: a cyclic one for the weak Grzegorczyk modal logic K4Grz, based on our explanation of the phenomenon of cyclic companionship; and ill-founded and cyclic ones for the full computation tree logic CTL* and the intuitionistic linear-time temporal logic iLTL. All systems are cut-free, and the cyclic ones for K4Grz and iLTL have fully finitary correctness conditions.Lastly, we use a cyclic system for the modal mu-calculus to obtain a proof of the uniform interpolation property for the logic which differs from the original, automata-based one