scholarly journals Regular ω-semigroups

1968 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. D. Munn
Keyword(s):  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Image Position

Let S be a semigroup whose set E of idempotents is non-empty. We define a partial ordering ≧ on E by the rule that e ≧ f and only if ef = f = fe. If E = {ei: i∈ N}, where N denotes the set of all non-negative integers, and if the elements of E form the chainthen S is called an ω-semigroup.

scholarly journals REVERSE MATHEMATICS, YOUNG DIAGRAMS, AND THE ASCENDING CHAIN CONDITION

2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 576-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
KOSTAS HATZIKIRIAKOU ◽  
STEPHEN G. SIMPSON
Keyword(s):  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Chain Condition ◽  
Reverse Mathematics ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Young Diagrams ◽  
Equivalence Proof ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Countably Infinite ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Ascending Chain Condition

AbstractLetSbe the group of finitely supported permutations of a countably infinite set. Let$K[S]$be the group algebra ofSover a fieldKof characteristic 0. According to a theorem of Formanek and Lawrence,$K[S]$satisfies the ascending chain condition for two-sided ideals. We study the reverse mathematics of this theorem, proving its equivalence over$RC{A_0}$(or even over$RCA_0^{\rm{*}}$) to the statement that${\omega ^\omega }$is well ordered. Our equivalence proof proceeds via the statement that the Young diagrams form a well partial ordering.

Injective Hulls of Semilattices

1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Bruns ◽  
H. Lakser
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Partially Ordered Set ◽  
Binary Operation ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Partially Ordered ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Injective Hulls

A (meet-) semilattice is an algebra with one binary operation ∧, which is associative, commutative and idempotent. Throughout this paper we are working in the category of semilattices. All categorical or general algebraic notions are to be understood in this category. In every semilattice S the relationdefines a partial ordering of S. The symbol "∨" denotes least upper bounds under this partial ordering. If it is not clear from the context in which partially ordered set a least upper bound is taken, we add this set as an index to the symbol; for example, ∨AX denotes the least upper bound of X in the partially ordered set A.

scholarly journals Possible behaviours of the reflection ordering of stationary sets

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 534-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiří Witzany
Keyword(s):  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Maximal Antichain ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Stationary Subsets ◽  
Almost All

AbstractIf S, T are stationary subsets of a regular uncountable cardinal κ, we say that S reflects fully in T, S < T, if for almost all α ∈ T (except a nonstationary set) S ∩ α stationary in α. This relation is known to be a well-founded partial ordering. We say that a given poset P is realized by the reflection ordering if there is a maximal antichain 〈Xp: p ∈ P〉 of stationary subsets of Reg(κ) so thatWe prove that if , and P is an arbitrary well-founded poset of cardinality ≤ κ+ then there is a generic extension where P is realized by the reflection ordering on κ.

A lattice of interpretability types of theories

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Mycielski
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Relative Consistency ◽  
Infinite Distributivity ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Interpretability Type ◽  
Consistency Proofs

We consider first-order logic only. A theory S will be called locally interpretable in a theory T if every theorem of S is interpretable in T. If S is locally interpretable in T and T is consistent then S is consistent. Most known relative consistency proofs can be viewed as local interpretations. The classic examples are the cartesian interpretation of the elementary theorems of Euclidean n-dimensional geometry into the first-order theory of real closed fields, the interpretation of the arithmetic of integers (rational numbers) into the arithmetic of positive integers, the interpretation of ZF + (V = L) into ZF, the interpretation of analysis into ZFC, relative consistency proofs by forcing, etc. Those interpretations are global. Under fairly general conditions local interpretability implies global interpretability; see Remarks (7), (8), and (9) below.We define the type (interpretability type) of a theory S to be the class of all theories T such that S is locally interpretable in T and vice versa. There happen to be such types and they are partially ordered by the relation of local interpretability. This partial ordering is of lattice type and has the following form:The lattice is distributive and complete and satisfies the infinite distributivity law of Brouwerian lattices:We do not know if the dual lawis true. We will show that the lattice is algebraic and that its compact elements form a sublattice and are precisely the types of finitely axiomatizable theories, and several other facts.

An axiomatisation of quantum logic

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Logic ◽  
Orthomodular Lattice ◽  
Binary Operation ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Unary Operation ◽  
Axiom System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Orthomodular Poset ◽  
Implication Algebra ◽  
Image Position

The purpose of this paper is to give an axiom system for quantum logic. Here quantum logic is considered to have the structure of an orthomodular lattice. Some authors assume that it has the structure of an orthomodular poset.In finding this axiom system the implication algebra given in Finch [1] has been very useful. Finch shows there that this algebra can be produced from an orthomodular lattice and vice versa.Definition. An orthocomplementation N on a poset (partially ordered set) whose partial ordering is denoted by ≤ and which has least and greatest elements 0 and 1 is a unary operation satisfying the following:(1) the greatest lower bound of a and Na exists and is 0,(2) a ≤ b implies Nb ≤ Na,(3) NNa = a.Definition. An orthomodular lattice is a lattice with meet ∧, join ∨, least and greatest elements 0 and 1 and an orthocomplementation N satisfyingwhere a ≤ b means a ∧ b = a, as usual.Definition. A Finch implication algebra is a poset with a partial ordering ≤, least and greatest elements 0 and 1 which is orthocomplemented by N. In addition, it has a binary operation → satisfying the following:An orthomodular lattice gives a Finch implication algebra by defining → byA Finch implication algebra can be changed into an orthomodular lattice by defining the meet ∧ and join ∨ byThe orthocomplementation is unchanged in both cases.

The least extension of a closure operator on a sublattice

1967 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy O. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Complete Lattice ◽  
Closure Operator ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Closure Operators ◽  
Image Position

Introduction. We recall (see Morgan Ward (3), Birkhoff (1), p. 49) that a closure operator on a complete lattice ℒ is a mapping f from ℒ into ℒ satisfying the conditionsfor all X, Y ∈ ℒ. The set of all closure operators on ℒ is itself a complete lattice with respect to the partial ordering in which f1 ≤ f2 if and only if f1(X) ≥ f2(X) for all X ∈ ℒ for every subset ℱ of and every element X ∈ ℒ we have.

The consistency of the axiom of universality for the ordering of cardinalities

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 502-509
Author(s):  
Marco Forti ◽  
Furio Honsell
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Partially Ordered Set ◽  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Ordered Set ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Generic Extension ◽  
Ground Model ◽  
Partially Ordered ◽  
Transfer Method ◽  
Image Position

T. Jech [4] and M. Takahashi [7] proved that given any partial ordering R in a model of ZFC there is a symmetric submodel of a generic extension of where R is isomorphic to the injective ordering on a set of cardinals.The authors raised the question whether the injective ordering of cardinals can be universal, i.e. whether the following axiom of “cardinal universality” is consistent:CU. For any partially ordered set (X, ≼) there is a bijection f:X → Y such that(i.e. x ≼ y iff ∃g: f(x) → f(y) injective). (See [1].)The consistency of CU relative to ZF0 (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory without foundation) is proved in [2], but the transfer method of Jech-Sochor-Pincus cannot be applied to obtain consistency with full ZF (including foundation), since CU apparently is not boundable.In this paper the authors define a model of ZF + CU as a symmetric submodel of a generic extension obtained by forcing “à la Easton” with a class of conditions which add κ generic subsets to any regular cardinal κ of a ground model satisfying ZF + V = L.

scholarly journals ⋏-distributive Boolean matrices

1965 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. S. Blyth
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Image Position

In this paper we shall be concerned with the set Mn(B) of n x n matrices whose elements belong to a given Boolean algebra B(≤, ∪,∩,').It is well known that Mn(B) also forms a Boolean algebra with respect to the partial ordering ≼ defined byin which union (⋎), intersection (⋏) and complementation (*) are given by

Jump embeddings in the Turing degrees

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Hinman ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
First Order ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
Image Set ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Order Structures

Since its introduction in [K1-Po], the upper semilattice of Turing degrees has been an object of fascination to practitioners of the recursion-theoretic art. Starting from relatively simple concepts and definitions, it has turned out to be a structure of enormous complexity and richness. This paper is a contribution to the ongoing study of this structure.Much of the work on Turing degrees may be formulated in terms of the embeddability of certain first-order structures in a structure whose universe is some set of degrees and whose relations, functions, and constants are natural degree-theoretic ones. Thus, for example, we know that if {P, ≤P) is a partial ordering of cardinality at most ℵ1 which is locally countable—each point has at most countably many predecessors—then there is an embeddingwhere D is the set of all Turing degrees and <T is Turing reducibility. If (P, ≤P) is a countable partial ordering, then the image of the embedding may be taken to be a subset of R, the set of recursively enumerable degrees. Without attempting to make the notion completely precise, we shall call embeddings of the first sort global, in contrast to local embeddings which impose some restrictions on the image set.

Simple Identification of Electron Diffraction Ring Patterns

1969 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 160-161
Author(s):  
Carolyn Nohr ◽  
Ann Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Electron Diffraction ◽  
Diffraction Ring ◽  
Image Position

Texts on electron diffraction recommend that the camera constant of the electron microscope be determine d by calibration with a standard crystalline specimen, using the equation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document