1 / 15

Finite Model Theory Lecture 3

Finite Model Theory Lecture 3. Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse Games. Outline. Proof of the Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse theorem. Notation.

khoi
Télécharger la présentation

Finite Model Theory Lecture 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Finite Model TheoryLecture 3 Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse Games

  2. Outline • Proof of the Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse theorem

  3. Notation If A is a structure over vocabulary sand a1, …, an2Athen (A,a1, …, an) denotes the structure over vocabulary sn = s[ {c1, …, cn} s.t. the interpretation of each ci is ai In particular, (A,a) ' (B,b) means that there is an isomorphism A'B that maps a to b

  4. Types In classical model theory an m-type for m ¸ 0 is a set t of formulas with m free variables x1, …, xm s.t. there exists a structure A and m constants a = (a1, …, am) s.t. t = {f | A²f(a) } In finite model theory this is two strong: (A,a) and (B,b) have the same type iff they are isomorphic (A,a) ' (B,b)

  5. Rank-k m-Types FO[k] = all formulas of quantifier rank · k Definition Let A be a structure and a be an m-tuple in A. The rank-k m-type of a over A istpk(A,a) = {f2 FO[k] with m free vars | A²f(a) } How any distinct rank-k types are there ? [finitely or infinitely many ?]

  6. Rank-k m-Types For m ¸ 0, there are only finitely many formulas up to logical equivalence over m variables x1, …, xm in FO[0] [why ?] For m ¸ 0, there are only finitely many formulas up to logical equivalence over m variables x1, …, xm in FO[k+1] [why ?]

  7. Rank-k m-Types • For each rank-k m-type t there exists a unique rank-k formula f s.t. A²f(a) iff tpk(A,a) = t • In other words, if M = {f1, …, fn} are all formulas in FO[k] with n free variables, then for every subset M0µ M there exists a f2 M s.t. f = (Æy2 M0) y Æ (ÆyÏ M0:y) [WAIT ! Isn’t this a contradiction ?]

  8. The Back-and-Forth Property The k-back-and-forth equivalence relation 'k is defined as follows: • A'0B iff the substructures induced by the constants in A and B are isomorphic • A'k+1B iff the following hold: Forth: 8 a 2A9 b 2B s.t. (A,a) 'k (B,b) Back: 8 b 2B9 a 2A s.t. (A,a) 'k (B,b)

  9. The Back-and-Forth Property • What does A'kB say ? • If we have a partial isomorphism from (A, a1, …, ai) to (B,b1, …, bi), where i < k, and ai+12A, then there exists bi+12B s.t. there exists a partial isomorphism from (A, a1, …, ai, ai+1) to (B, b1, …, bi, bi+1); and vice versa

  10. Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse Games Theorem The following two are equivalent: • A and B agree on FO[k] • AkB • A'kB Proof 2 , 3 is straightforward 1 , 3 in class

  11. . . . . . . . . . . . . More EF Games (informally) Prove, informally, the following:  (N,S)  (N,S) [ (Z,S) k (Perfectly balanced binary trees are not expressible in FO)

  12. More EF Games (informally) k CONN is not expressible in FO

  13. Hanf’s Lemma • One of several combinatoric methods for proving EF games formally Definition. Let A be a structure. The Gaifman graph G(A) = (A, EA) is s.t.(a,b) 2 EA iff 9 tuple t in A containing both a and b Definition. The r-sphere, for r > 0, is: S(r,a) := {b 2 A | d(a,b) · r}

  14. Hanf’s Lemma Theorem [Hanf’s lemma; simplified form] Let A, B be two structures and there exists m > 0 s.t. 8 n · 3m and for each isomorphism type t of an n-sphere, A and B have the same number of elements of n-sphere type t. Then Am B. Applications: previous examples.

  15. Summary on EF Games • Complexity: examples in class are simple; but in general the proofs get quite complex • Informal arguments: We are all gamblers: • “If you play like this […] you will always win”. We usually accept such statements after thinking about […] • “here is a property not expressible in FO !”. We don’t accept that until we see a formal proof. • Logics v.s. games: Each logic corresponds to a certain kind of game.

More Related