(2^n,2^n,2^n,1)-relative difference sets and their representations

We show that every $(2^n,2^n,2^n,1)$-relative difference set $D$ in $\Z_4^n$ relative to $\Z_2^n$ can be represented by a polynomial f(x)\in \F_{2^n}[x], where $f(x+a)+f(x)+xa$ is a permutation for each nonzero $a$. We call such an $f$ a planar function on \F_{2^n}. The projective plane $\Pi$ obtained from $D$ in the way of Ganley and Spence \cite{ganley_relative_1975} is coordinatized, and we obtain necessary and sufficient conditions of $\Pi$ to be a presemifield plane. We also prove that a function $f$ on \F_{2^n} with exactly two elements in its image set and $f(0)=0$ is planar, if and only if, $f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)$ for any x,y\in\F_{2^n}

Classical logic, continuation semantics and abstract machines

One of the goals of this paper is to demonstrate that denotational semantics is useful for operational issues like implementation of functional languages by abstract machines. This is exemplified in a tutorial way by studying the case of extensional untyped call-by-name λ-calculus with Felleisen's control operator 𝒞. We derive the transition rules for an abstract machine from a continuation semantics which appears as a generalization of the ¬¬-translation known from logic. The resulting abstract machine appears as an extension of Krivine's machine implementing head reduction. Though the result, namely Krivine's machine, is well known our method of deriving it from continuation semantics is new and applicable to other languages (as e.g. call-by-value variants). Further new results are that Scott's D∞-models are all instances of continuation models. Moreover, we extend our continuation semantics to Parigot's λμ-calculus from which we derive an extension of Krivine's machine for λμ-calculus. The relation between continuation semantics and the abstract machines is made precise by proving computational adequacy results employing an elegant method introduced by Pitts

Boundary Algebra: A Simpler Approach to Boolean Algebra and the Sentential Connectives

Boundary algebra [BA] is a algebra of type , and a simplified notation for Spencer-Brown’s (1969) primary algebra. The syntax of the primary arithmetic [PA] consists of two atoms, () and the blank page, concatenation, and enclosure between ‘(‘ and ‘)’, denoting the primitive notion of distinction. Inserting letters denoting, indifferently, the presence or absence of () into a PA formula yields a BA formula. The BA axioms are A1: ()()= (), and A2: “(()) [abbreviated ‘⊥’] may be written or erased at will,” implying (⊥)=(). The repeated application of A1 and A2 simplifies any PA formula to either () or ⊥. The basis for BA is B1: abc=bca (concatenation commutes & associates); B2, ⊥a=a (BA has a lower bound, ⊥); B3, (a)a=() (BA is a complemented lattice); and B4, (ba)a=(b)a (implies that BA is a distributive lattice). BA has two intended models: (1) the Boolean algebra 2 with base set B={(),⊥}, such that () ⇔ 1 [dually 0], (a) ⇔ a′, and ab ⇔ a∪b [a∩b]; and (2) sentential logic, such that () ⇔ true [false], (a) ⇔ ~a, and ab ⇔ a∨b [a∧b]. BA is a self-dual notation, facilitates a calculational style of proof, and simplifies clausal reasoning and Quine’s truth value analysis. BA resembles C.S. Peirce’s graphical logic, the symbolic logics of Leibniz and W.E. Johnson, the 2 notation of Byrne (1946), and the Boolean term schemata of Quine (1982).Boundary algebra; boundary logic; primary algebra; primary arithmetic; Boolean algebra; calculation proof; G. Spencer-Brown; C.S. Peirce; existential graphs

Boundary Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth Functors

Boundary algebra [BA] is a simpler notation for Spencer-Brown’s (1969) primary algebra [pa], the Boolean algebra 2, and the truth functors. The primary arithmetic [PA] consists of the atoms ‘()’ and the blank page, concatenation, and enclosure between ‘(‘ and ‘)’, denoting the primitive notion of distinction. Inserting letters denoting the presence or absence of () into a PA formula yields a BA formula. The BA axioms are "()()=()" (A1), and "(()) [=?] may be written or erased at will” (A2). Repeated application of these axioms to a PA formula yields a member of B= {(),?} called its simplification. (a) has two intended interpretations: (a) ? a? (Boolean algebra 2), and (a) ? ~a (sentential logic). BA is self-dual: () ? 1 [dually 0] so that B is the carrier for 2, ab ? a?b [a?b], and (a)b [(a(b))] ? a=b, so that ?=() [()=?] follows trivially and B is a poset. The BA basis abc= bca (Dilworth 1938), a(ab)= a(b), and a()=() (Bricken 2002) facilitates clausal reasoning and proof by calculation. BA also simplifies normal forms and Quine’s (1982) truth value analysis. () ? true [false] yields boundary logic.G. Spencer Brown; boundary algebra; boundary logic; primary algebra; primary arithmetic; Boolean algebra; calculation proof; C.S. Peirce; existential graphs.

Compensation methods to support cooperative applications: A case study in automated verification of schema requirements for an advanced transaction model

Compensation plays an important role in advanced transaction models, cooperative work and workflow systems. A schema designer is typically required to supply for each transaction another transaction to semantically undo the effects of . Little attention has been paid to the verification of the desirable properties of such operations, however. This paper demonstrates the use of a higher-order logic theorem prover for verifying that compensating transactions return a database to its original state. It is shown how an OODB schema is translated to the language of the theorem prover so that proofs can be performed on the compensating transactions

Alternating register automata on finite words and trees

We study alternating register automata on data words and data trees in relation to logics. A data word (resp. data tree) is a word (resp. tree) whose every position carries a label from a finite alphabet and a data value from an infinite domain. We investigate one-way automata with alternating control over data words or trees, with one register for storing data and comparing them for equality. This is a continuation of the study started by Demri, Lazic and Jurdzinski. From the standpoint of register automata models, this work aims at two objectives: (1) simplifying the existent decidability proofs for the emptiness problem for alternating register automata; and (2) exhibiting decidable extensions for these models. From the logical perspective, we show that (a) in the case of data words, satisfiability of LTL with one register and quantification over data values is decidable; and (b) the satisfiability problem for the so-called forward fragment of XPath on XML documents is decidable, even in the presence of DTDs and even of key constraints. The decidability is obtained through a reduction to the automata model introduced. This fragment contains the child, descendant, next-sibling and following-sibling axes, as well as data equality and inequality tests

Encoding TLA+ set theory into many-sorted first-order logic

We present an encoding of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory into many-sorted first-order logic, the input language of state-of-the-art SMT solvers. This translation is the main component of a back-end prover based on SMT solvers in the TLA+ Proof System