scholarly journals A Distributed and Trusted Web of Formal Proofs

Author(s):  
Dale Miller
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Mareike Fischer

AbstractTree balance plays an important role in different research areas like theoretical computer science and mathematical phylogenetics. For example, it has long been known that under the Yule model, a pure birth process, imbalanced trees are more likely than balanced ones. Also, concerning ordered search trees, more balanced ones allow for more efficient data structuring than imbalanced ones. Therefore, different methods to measure the balance of trees were introduced. The Sackin index is one of the most frequently used measures for this purpose. In many contexts, statements about the minimal and maximal values of this index have been discussed, but formal proofs have only been provided for some of them, and only in the context of ordered binary (search) trees, not for general rooted trees. Moreover, while the number of trees with maximal Sackin index as well as the number of trees with minimal Sackin index when the number of leaves is a power of 2 are relatively easy to understand, the number of trees with minimal Sackin index for all other numbers of leaves has been completely unknown. In this manuscript, we extend the findings on trees with minimal and maximal Sackin indices from the literature on ordered trees and subsequently use our results to provide formulas to explicitly calculate the numbers of such trees. We also extend previous studies by analyzing the case when the underlying trees need not be binary. Finally, we use our results to contribute both to the phylogenetic as well as the computer scientific literature using the new findings on Sackin minimal and maximal trees to derive formulas to calculate the number of both minimal and maximal phylogenetic trees as well as minimal and maximal ordered trees both in the binary and non-binary settings. All our results have been implemented in the Mathematica package SackinMinimizer, which has been made publicly available.


2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 33-71
Author(s):  
Yves Bertot ◽  
Laurence Rideau ◽  
Laurent Théry

Author(s):  
Víctor M. Gulfas ◽  
J. Santiago Jorge ◽  
Juan J. Quintela ◽  
José L. Freire
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
pp. 121-138
Author(s):  
Jan L. A. Snepscheut

Author(s):  
David Booth ◽  
Renatus Ziegler
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Ariane A. Almeida ◽  
Ana Cristina Rocha-Oliveira ◽  
Thiago M. Ferreira Ramos ◽  
Flávio L. C. de Moura ◽  
Mauricio Ayala-Rincón
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Robert C. May ◽  
Kai F. Wehmeier

Beginning in Grundgesetze §53, Frege presents proofs of a set of theorems known to encompass the Peano-Dedekind axioms for arithmetic. The initial part of Frege’s deductive development of arithmetic, to theorems (32) and (49), contains fully formal proofs that had merely been sketched out in Grundlagen. Theorems (32) and (49) are significant because they are the right-to-left and left-to-right directions respectively of what we call today “Hume’s Principle” (HP). The core observation that we explore is that in Grundgesetze, Frege does not prove Hume’s Principle, not at least if we take HP to be the principle he introduces, and then rejects, as a definition of number in Grundlagen. In order better to understand why Frege never considers HP as a biconditional principle in Grundgesetze, we explicate the theorems Frege actually proves in that work, clarify their conceptual and logical status within the overall derivation of arithmetic, and ask how the definitional content that Frege intuited in Hume’s Principle is reconstructed by the theorems that Frege does prove.


1971 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-482
Author(s):  
Juliusz Reichbach
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document