Forbidden subposet problems for traces of set families

In this paper we introduce a problem that bridges forbidden subposet and forbidden subconfiguration problems. The sets $F_1,F_2, \dots,F_{|P|}$ form a copy of a poset $P$, if there exists a bijection $i:P\rightarrow \{F_1,F_2, \dots,F_{|P|}\}$ such that for any $p,p'\in P$ the relation $p<_P p'$ implies $i(p)\subsetneq i(p')$. A family $\mathcal{F}$ of sets is \textit{$P$-free} if it does not contain any copy of $P$. The trace of a family $\mathcal{F}$ on a set $X$ is $\mathcal{F}|_X:=\{F\cap X: F\in \mathcal{F}\}$. We introduce the following notions: $\mathcal{F}\subseteq 2^{[n]}$ is $l$-trace $P$-free if for any $l$-subset $L\subseteq [n]$, the family $\mathcal{F}|_L$ is $P$-free and $\mathcal{F}$ is trace $P$-free if it is $l$-trace $P$-free for all $l\le n$. As the first instances of these problems we determine the maximum size of trace $B$-free families, where $B$ is the butterfly poset on four elements $a,b,c,d$ with $a,b<c,d$ and determine the asymptotics of the maximum size of $(n-i)$-trace $K_{r,s}$-free families for $i=1,2$. We also propose a generalization of the main conjecture of the area of forbidden subposet problems

A doctrinal approach to modal/temporal Heyting logic and non-determinism in processes

The study of algebraic modelling of labelled non-deterministic concurrent processes leads us to consider a category LB , obtained from a complete meet-semilattice B and from B-valued equivalence relations. We prove that, if B has enough properties, then LB presents a two-fold internal logical structure, induced by two doctrines definable on it: one related to its families of subobjects and one to its families of regular subobjects. The first doctrine is Heyting and makes LB a Heyting category, the second one is Boolean. We will see that the difference between these two logical structures, namely the different behaviour of the negation operator, can be interpreted in terms of a distinction between non-deterministic and deterministic behaviours of agents able to perform computations in the context of the same process. Moreover, the sorted first-order logic naturally associated with LB can be extended to a modal/temporal logic, again using the doctrinal setting. Relations are also drawn to other computational model

Free shuffle algebras in language varieties

AbstractWe give simple concrete descriptions of the free algebras in the varieties generated by the “shuffle semirings” LΣ := (P(Σ∗),+,., ⊗, 0,1), or the semirings RΣ := (R(Σ∗),+,., ⊗,∗,0,1), where P(Σ∗) is the collection of all subsets of the free monoid Σ∗, and R(Σ∗) is the collection of all regular subsets. The operation x ⊗ y is the shuffle product

Fair Simulation for Nondeterministic and Probabilistic Buechi Automata: a Coalgebraic Perspective

Notions of simulation, among other uses, provide a computationally tractable and sound (but not necessarily complete) proof method for language inclusion. They have been comprehensively studied by Lynch and Vaandrager for nondeterministic and timed systems; for B\"{u}chi automata the notion of fair simulation has been introduced by Henzinger, Kupferman and Rajamani. We contribute to a generalization of fair simulation in two different directions: one for nondeterministic tree automata previously studied by Bomhard; and the other for probabilistic word automata with finite state spaces, both under the B\"{u}chi acceptance condition. The former nondeterministic definition is formulated in terms of systems of fixed-point equations, hence is readily translated to parity games and is then amenable to Jurdzi\'{n}ski's algorithm; the latter probabilistic definition bears a strong ranking-function flavor. These two different-looking definitions are derived from one source, namely our coalgebraic modeling of B\"{u}chi automata. Based on these coalgebraic observations, we also prove their soundness: a simulation indeed witnesses language inclusion

A Cyclic Proof System for HFL_?

A cyclic proof system allows us to perform inductive reasoning without explicit inductions. We propose a cyclic proof system for HFLN, which is a higher-order predicate logic with natural numbers and alternating fixed-points. Ours is the first cyclic proof system for a higher-order logic, to our knowledge. Due to the presence of higher-order predicates and alternating fixed-points, our cyclic proof system requires a more delicate global condition on cyclic proofs than the original system of Brotherston and Simpson. We prove the decidability of checking the global condition and soundness of this system, and also prove a restricted form of standard completeness for an infinitary variant of our cyclic proof system. A potential application of our cyclic proof system is semi-automated verification of higher-order programs, based on Kobayashi et al.'s recent work on reductions from program verification to HFLN validity checking.Comment: 27 page

Bohrification

New foundations for quantum logic and quantum spaces are constructed by merging algebraic quantum theory and topos theory. Interpreting Bohr's "doctrine of classical concepts" mathematically, given a quantum theory described by a noncommutative C*-algebra A, we construct a topos T(A), which contains the "Bohrification" B of A as an internal commutative C*-algebra. Then B has a spectrum, a locale internal to T(A), the external description S(A) of which we interpret as the "Bohrified" phase space of the physical system. As in classical physics, the open subsets of S(A) correspond to (atomic) propositions, so that the "Bohrified" quantum logic of A is given by the Heyting algebra structure of S(A). The key difference between this logic and its classical counterpart is that the former does not satisfy the law of the excluded middle, and hence is intuitionistic. When A contains sufficiently many projections (e.g. when A is a von Neumann algebra, or, more generally, a Rickart C*-algebra), the intuitionistic quantum logic S(A) of A may also be compared with the traditional quantum logic, i.e. the orthomodular lattice of projections in A. This time, the main difference is that the former is distributive (even when A is noncommutative), while the latter is not. This chapter is a streamlined synthesis of 0709.4364, 0902.3201, 0905.2275.Comment: 44 pages; a chapter of the first author's PhD thesis, to appear in "Deep Beauty" (ed. H. Halvorson

A discrete duality between nonmonotonic consequence relations and convex geometries

In this paper we present a duality between nonmonotonic consequence relations and well-founded convex geometries. On one side of the duality we consider nonmonotonic consequence relations satisfying the axioms of an infinitary variant of System P, which is one of the most studied axiomatic systems for nonmonotonic reasoning, conditional logic and belief revision. On the other side of the duality we consider well-founded convex geometries, which are infinite convex geometries that generalize well-founded posets. Since there is a close correspondence between nonmonotonic consequence relations and path independent choice functions one can view our duality as an extension of an existing duality between path independent choice functions and convex geometries that has been developed independently by Koshevoy and by Johnson and Dean