Second cohomology groups for algebraic groups and their Frobenius kernels

Let $G$ be a simple simply connected algebraic group scheme defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p > 0$. Let $T$ be a maximal split torus in $G$, $B \supset T$ be a Borel subgroup of $G$ and $U$ its unipotent radical. Let $F: G \rightarrow G$ be the Frobenius morphism. For $r \geq 1$ define the Frobenius kernel, $G_r$, to be the kernel of $F$ iterated with itself $r$ times. Define $U_r$ (respectively $B_r$) to be the kernel of the Frobenius map restricted to $U$ (respectively $B$). Let $X(T)$ be the integral weight lattice and $X(T)_+$ be the dominant integral weights. The computations of particular importance are \h^2(U_1,k), \h^2(B_r,\la) for \la \in X(T), \h^2(G_r,H^0(\la)) for \la \in X(T)_+, and \h^2(B,\la) for \la \in X(T). The above cohomology groups for the case when the field has characteristic 2 one computed in this paper. These computations complete the picture started by Bendel, Nakano, and Pillen for $p \geq 3$ \cite{BNP2}.Comment: 49 pages, 4 appendices, 6 table

Enriched factorization systems

In a paper of 1974, Brian Day employed a notion of factorization system in the context of enriched category theory, replacing the usual diagonal lifting property with a corresponding criterion phrased in terms of hom-objects. We set forth the basic theory of such enriched factorization systems. In particular, we establish stability properties for enriched prefactorization systems, we examine the relation of enriched to ordinary factorization systems, and we provide general results for obtaining enriched factorizations by means of wide (co)intersections. As a special case, we prove results on the existence of enriched factorization systems involving enriched strong monomorphisms or strong epimorphisms

Completion, closure, and density relative to a monad, with examples in functional analysis and sheaf theory

Given a monad T on a suitable enriched category B equipped with a proper factorization system (E,M), we define notions of T-completion, T-closure, and T-density. We show that not only the familiar notions of completion, closure, and density in normed vector spaces, but also the notions of sheafification, closure, and density with respect to a Lawvere-Tierney topology, are instances of the given abstract notions. The process of T-completion is equally the enriched idempotent monad associated to T (which we call the idempotent core of T), and we show that it exists as soon as every morphism in B factors as a T-dense morphism followed by a T-closed M-embedding. The latter hypothesis is satisfied as soon as B has certain pullbacks as well as wide intersections of M-embeddings. Hence the resulting theorem on the existence of the idempotent core of an enriched monad entails Fakir's existence result in the non-enriched case, as well as adjoint functor factorization results of Applegate-Tierney and Day

Totally distributive toposes

A locally small category E is totally distributive (as defined by Rosebrugh-Wood) if there exists a string of adjoint functors t -| c -| y, where y : E --> E^ is the Yoneda embedding. Saying that E is lex totally distributive if, moreover, the left adjoint t preserves finite limits, we show that the lex totally distributive categories with a small set of generators are exactly the injective Grothendieck toposes, studied by Johnstone and Joyal. We characterize the totally distributive categories with a small set of generators as exactly the essential subtoposes of presheaf toposes, studied by Kelly-Lawvere and Kennett-Riehl-Roy-Zaks.Comment: Now includes extended result: The lex totally distributive categories with a small set of generators are exactly the injective Grothendieck toposes; Made changes to abstract and intro to reflect the enhanced result; Changed formatting of diagram

Some conservative stopping rules for the operational testing of safety-critical software

Operational testing, which aims to generate sequences of test cases with the same statistical properties as those that would be experienced in real operational use, can be used to obtain quantitative measures of the reliability of software. In the case of safety critical software it is common to demand that all known faults are removed. This means that if there is a failure during the operational testing, the offending fault must be identified and removed. Thus an operational test for safety critical software takes the form of a specified number of test cases (or a specified period of working) that must be executed failure-free. This paper addresses the problem of specifying the numbers of test cases (or time periods) required for a test, when the previous test has terminated as a result of a failure. It has been proposed that, after the obligatory fix of the offending fault, the software should be treated as if it were completely novel, and be required to pass exactly the same test as originally specified. The reasoning here claims to be conservative, inasmuch as no credit is given for any previous failure-free operation prior to the failure that terminated the test. We show that, in fact, this is not a conservative approach in all cases, and propose instead some new Bayesian stopping rules. We show that the degree of conservatism in stopping rules depends upon the precise way in which the reliability requirement is expressed. We define a particular form of conservatism that seems desirable on intuitive grounds, and show that the stopping rules that exhibit this conservatism are also precisely the ones that seem preferable on other grounds

The use of multilegged arguments to increase confidence in safety claims for software-based systems: A study based on a BBN analysis of an idealized example

The work described here concerns the use of so-called multi-legged arguments to support dependability claims about software-based systems. The informal justification for the use of multi-legged arguments is similar to that used to support the use of multi-version software in pursuit of high reliability or safety. Just as a diverse, 1-out-of-2 system might be expected to be more reliable than each of its two component versions, so a two-legged argument might be expected to give greater confidence in the correctness of a dependability claim (e.g. a safety claim) than would either of the argument legs alone. Our intention here is to treat these argument structures formally, in particular by presenting a formal probabilistic treatment of ‘confidence’, which will be used as a measure of efficacy. This will enable claims for the efficacy of the multi-legged approach to be made quantitatively, answering questions such as ‘How much extra confidence about a system’s safety will I have if I add a verification argument leg to an argument leg based upon statistical testing?’ For this initial study, we concentrate on a simplified and idealized example of a safety system in which interest centres upon a claim about the probability of failure on demand. Our approach is to build a BBN (“Bayesian Belief Network”) model of a two-legged argument, and manipulate this analytically via parameters that define its node probability tables. The aim here is to obtain greater insight than is afforded by the more usual BBN treatment, which involves merely numerical manipulation. We show that the addition of a diverse second argument leg can, indeed, increase confidence in a dependability claim: in a reasonably plausible example the doubt in the claim is reduced to one third of the doubt present in the original single leg. However, we also show that there can be some unexpected and counter-intuitive subtleties here; for example an entirely supportive second leg can sometimes undermine an original argument, resulting overall in less confidence than came from this original argument. Our results are neutral on the issue of whether such difficulties will arise in real life - i.e. when real experts judge real systems