Algebraic independence

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 377-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia F. Knight
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Closure ◽  
Algebraic Independence ◽  
Independent Set ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Similarity Type ◽  
Limit Cardinal ◽  
Free Set ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
The Universe

This paper is concerned with algebraic independence in structures that are relatively simple for their size. It is shown that for κ a limit cardinal, if a structure of power at least κ is ∞ω-equivalent to a structure of power less than κ, then must contain an infinite set of algebraically independent elements. The same method of proof yields the fact that if σ is an Lω1ω-sentence (not necessarily complete) and σ has a model of power ℵω then some model of σ contains an infinite algebraically independent set.All structures are assumed to be of countable similarity type. Letters , etc. will be used to denote either a structure or the universe of the structure. If X ⊆ , the algebraic closure of X (in ), denoted by Cl(X), is the union of all finite sets that are weakly definable (in ) by Lωω-formulas with parameters from X. A set S is algebraically independent if for each a in S, a ∉ Cl(S – {a}). An algebraically independent set is sometimes called a “free” set (in [3] and [4], for example).It is known (see [5]) that any structure of power ℵn must have a set of n algebraically independent elements, and there are structures of power ℵn with no independent set of size n + 1. In power ℵω every structure will have arbitrarily large finite algebraically independent sets. However, it is consistent with ZFC that some models of power ℵω do not have any infinite algebraically independent set. Devlin [4] showed that if V = L, then for any cardinal κ, if every structure of power κ has an infinite algebraically independent set, then κ has a certain large cardinal property that ℵω can never possess.

scholarly journals Time and Life in the Relational Universe: Prolegomena to an Integral Paradigm of Natural Philosophy

Philosophies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abir Igamberdiev
Keyword(s):  
Probability Function ◽  
Natural Philosophy ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Spatiotemporal Structure ◽  
Internal Logic ◽  
Decision Making System ◽  
Relational Domains ◽  
Relational Order ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
The Universe

Relational ideas for our description of the natural world can be traced to the concept of Anaxagoras on the multiplicity of basic particles, later called “homoiomeroi” by Aristotle, that constitute the Universe and have the same nature as the whole world. Leibniz viewed the Universe as an infinite set of embodied logical essences called monads, which possess inner view, compute their own programs and perform mathematical transformations of their qualities, independently of all other monads. In this paradigm, space appears as a relational order of co-existences and time as a relational order of sequences. The relational paradigm was recognized in physics as a dependence of the spatiotemporal structure and its actualization on the observer. In the foundations of mathematics, the basic logical principles are united with the basic geometrical principles that are generic to the unfolding of internal logic. These principles appear as universal topological structures (“geometric atoms”) shaping the world. The decision-making system performs internal quantum reduction which is described by external observers via the probability function. In biology, individual systems operate as separate relational domains. The wave function superposition is restricted within a single domain and does not expand outside it, which corresponds to the statement of Leibniz that “monads have no windows”.

Greedy Algorithms

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond Greenlaw ◽  
H. James Hoover ◽  
Walter L. Ruzzo
Keyword(s):  
Greedy Algorithms ◽  
Independent Set ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Sequential Algorithm ◽  
Maximal Independent Set ◽  
Maximum Independent Set ◽  
Greedy Method ◽  
Numerical Order ◽  
Selection Of

We consider the selection of two basketball teams at a neighborhood playground to illustrate the greedy method. Usually the top two players are designated captains. All other players line up while the captains alternate choosing one player at a time. Usually, the players are picked using a greedy strategy. That is, the captains choose the best unclaimed player. The system of selection of choosing the best, most obvious, or most convenient remaining candidate is called the greedy method. Greedy algorithms often lead to easily implemented efficient sequential solutions to problems. Unfortunately, it also seems to be that sequential greedy algorithms frequently lead to solutions that are inherently sequential — the solutions produced by these algorithms cannot be duplicated rapidly in parallel, unless NC equals P. In the following subsections we will examine this phenomenon. We illustrate some of the important aspects of greedy algorithms using one that constructs a maximal independent set in a graph. An independent set is a set of vertices of a graph that are pairwise nonadjacent. A maximum independent set is such a set of largest cardinality. It is well known that finding maximum independent sets is NP-hard. An independent set is maximal if no other vertex can be added while maintaining the independent set property. In contrast to the maximum case, finding maxima? independent sets is very easy. Figure 7.1.1 depicts a simple polynomial time sequential algorithm computing a maximal independent set. The algorithm is a greedy algorithm: it processes the vertices in numerical order, always attempting to add the lowest numbered vertex that has not yet been tried. The sequential algorithm in Figure 7.1.1, having processed vertices 1,... , j -1, can easily decide whether to include vertex j. However, notice that its decision about j potentially depends on its decisions about all earlier vertices — j will be included in the maximal independent set if and only if all j' less than j and adjacent to it were excluded.

scholarly journals Large cardinals and definable well-orders on the universe

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 641-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Brooke-Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Large Cardinals ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Proper Class ◽  
The Universe

AbstractWe use a reverse Easton forcing iteration to obtain a universe with a definable well-order, while preserving the GCH and proper classes of a variety of very large cardinals. This is achieved by coding using the principle , at a proper class of cardinals κ. By choosing the cardinals at which coding occurs sufficiently sparsely, we are able to lift the embeddings witnessing the large cardinal properties without having to meet any non-trivial master conditions.

Almost strongly minimal theories. I

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
John T. Baldwin
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Closure ◽  
Natural Extension ◽  
Stone Space ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Simple Class ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Natural Expansion ◽  
Minimal Formula

In [1] the notions of strongly minimal formula and algebraic closure were applied to the study of ℵ1-categorical theories. In this paper we study a particularly simple class of ℵ1-categorical theories. We characterize this class in terms of the analysis of the Stone space of models of T given by Morley [3].We assume familiarity with [1] and [3], but for convenience we list the principal results and definitions from those papers which are used here. Our notation is the same as in [1] with the following exceptions.We deal with a countable first order language L. We may extend the language L in several ways. If is an L-structure, there is a natural extension of L obtained by adjoining to L a constant a for each (the universe of ). For each sentence A(a1, …, an) ∈ L(A) we say satisfies A(a1, …, an) and write if in Shoenfield's notation If is an L-structure and X is a subset of , then L(X) is the language obtained by adjoining to L a name x for each is the natural expansion of to an L(X)-structure. A structure is an inessential expansion [4, p. 141] of an L-structure if for some .

scholarly journals Hypergraph Independent Sets

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
JONATHAN CUTLER ◽  
A. J. RADCLIFFE
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Independent Set ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Extremal Problems ◽  
Regularity Lemma ◽  
Uniform Hypergraph ◽  
Fixed Size

The study of extremal problems related to independent sets in hypergraphs is a problem that has generated much interest. There are a variety of types of independent sets in hypergraphs depending on the number of vertices from an independent set allowed in an edge. We say that a subset of vertices isj-independentif its intersection with any edge has size strictly less thanj. The Kruskal–Katona theorem implies that in anr-uniform hypergraph with a fixed size and order, the hypergraph with the mostr-independent sets is the lexicographic hypergraph. In this paper, we use a hypergraph regularity lemma, along with a technique developed by Loh, Pikhurko and Sudakov, to give an asymptotically best possible upper bound on the number ofj-independent sets in anr-uniform hypergraph.

On P-points over a measurable cardinal

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
A. Kanamori
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embedding ◽  
Inner Model ◽  
Measurable Cardinals ◽  
The Universe

This paper continues the study of κ-ultrafilters over a measurable cardinal κ, following the sequence of papers Ketonen [2], Kanamori [1] and Menas [4]. Much of the concern will be with p-point κ-ultrafilters, which have become a focus of attention because they epitomize situations of further complexity beyond the better understood cases, normal and product κ-ultrafilters.For any κ-ultrafilter D, let iD: V → MD ≃ Vκ/D be the elementary embedding of the universe into the transitization of the ultrapower by D. Situations of U < RKD will be exhibited when iU(κ) < iD(κ), and when iU(κ) = iD(κ). The main result will then be that if the latter case obtains, then there is an inner model with two measurable cardinals. (As will be pointed out, this formulation is due to Kunen, and improves on an earlier version of the author.) Incidentally, a similar conclusion will also follow from the assertion that there is an ascending Rudin-Keisler chain of κ-ultrafilters of length ω + 1. The interest in these results lies in the derivability of a substantial large cardinal assertion from plausible hypotheses on κ-ultrafilters.

Elementary embeddings and infinitary combinatorics

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Kunen
Keyword(s):  
Measurable Cardinal ◽  
Large Cardinal ◽  
Elementary Embeddings ◽  
The Universe

One of the standard ways of postulating large cardinal axioms is to consider elementary embeddings,j, from the universe,V, into some transitive submodel,M. See Reinhardt–Solovay [7] for more details. Ifjis not the identity, andκis the first ordinal moved byj, thenκis a measurable cardinal. Conversely, Scott [8] showed that wheneverκis measurable, there is suchjandM. If we had assumed, in addition, that, thenκwould be theκth measurable cardinal; in general, the wider we assumeMto be, the largerκmust be.

Independent Gödel sentences and independent sets

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
A. M. Dawes ◽  
J. B. Florence
Keyword(s):  
Positive Integer ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Simple Set ◽  
Logical Notion ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Element Set

In this paper we investigate some of the recursion-theoretic problems which are suggested by the logical notion of independence.A set S of natural numbers will be said to be k-independent (respectively, ∞-independent) if, roughly speaking, in every correct system there is a k-element set (respectively, an infinite set) of independent true sentences of the form x ∈ S. S will be said to be effectively independent (respectively, absolutely independent) if given any correct system we can generate an infinite set of independent (respectively, absolutely independent) true sentences of the form x ∈ S.We prove that(a) S is absolutely independent ⇔S is effectively independent ⇔S is productive;(b) for every positive integer k there is a Π1 set which is k-independent but not (k + 1)-independent;(c) there is a Π1 set which is k-independent for all k but not ∞-independent;(d) there is a co-simple set which is ∞-independent.We also give two new proofs of the theorem of Myhill [1] on the existence of an infinite set of Σ1 sentences which are absolutely independent relative to Peano arithmetic. The first proof uses the existence of an absolutely independent Π1 set of natural numbers, and the second uses a modification of the method of Gödel and Rosser.

scholarly journals The independence polynomial of inverse commuting graph of dihedral groups

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-120
Author(s):  
Aliyu Suleiman ◽  
Aliyu Ibrahim Kiri
Keyword(s):  
Identity Element ◽  
Independent Set ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Dihedral Groups ◽  
Independence Polynomial ◽  
Independence Polynomials ◽  
Commuting Graph ◽  
Central Elements ◽  
Vertex Set

Set of vertices not joined by an edge in a graph is called the independent set of the graph. The independence polynomial of a graph is a polynomial whose coefficient is the number of independent sets in the graph. In this research, we introduce and investigate the inverse commuting graph of dihedral groups (D2N) denoted by GIC. It is a graph whose vertex set consists of the non-central elements of the group and for distinct  x,y, E D2N, x and y are adjacent if and only if xy = yx = 1  where 1 is the identity element. The independence polynomials of the inverse commuting graph for dihedral groups are also computed. A formula for obtaining such polynomials without getting the independent sets is also found, which was used to compute for dihedral groups of order 18 up to 32.

scholarly journals Recognizing Maximal Unfrozen Graphs with respect to Independent Sets is CO-NP-complete

2005 ◽  
Vol Vol. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nesrine Abbas ◽  
Joseph Culberson ◽  
Lorna Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Independent Set ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Complete Problems ◽  
International Audience ◽  
Np Complete

International audience A graph is unfrozen with respect to k independent set if it has an independent set of size k after the addition of any edge. The problem of recognizing such graphs is known to be NP-complete. A graph is maximal if the addition of one edge means it is no longer unfrozen. We designate the problem of recognizing maximal unfrozen graphs as MAX(U(k-SET)) and show that this problem is CO-NP-complete. This partially fills a gap in known complexity cases of maximal NP-complete problems, and raises some interesting open conjectures discussed in the conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document