i have question about Mathematical Foundations
Let (D, ⊑) be a partial order, where D is a finite, non-empty set. An anti-chain is a set of elements, where any distinct two elements are incomparable. Prove that the minimum number ofanti-chains Si , for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, that are required to cover D, i.e., D = ∪ Si ( i= 1 to n ) , is equal to the length of the longest chain in D.
i have any idea about it.
How many equivalence classes in the RL relation for
{w in {a, b}* | (#a(w) mod m) = ((#b(w)+1) mod m)}
I am looking at a past test question which gives me the options
m(m+1)
2m
m^2
m^2+1
infinite
However, i claim that its m, and I came up with an automaton that I believe accepts this language which contains 3 states (for m=3).
Am I right?
Actually you're right. To see this, observe that the difference of #a(w) and #b(w), #a(w) - #b(w) modulo m, is all that matters; and there are only m possible values of this difference modulo m. So, m states are always sufficient to accept a language of this form: simply make the state corresponding to the appropriate difference the accepting state.
In your DFA, a2 corresponds to a difference of zero, a1 to a difference of one and a3 to a difference of two.
open import Data.Nat using (ℕ;suc;zero)
open import Data.Rational
open import Data.Product
open import Relation.Nullary
open import Data.Bool using (Bool;false;true)
halve : ℕ → ℚ
halve zero = 1ℚ
halve (suc p) = ½ * halve p
∃-halve : ∀ {a b} → 0ℚ < a → a < b → ∃[ p ] (halve p * b < a)
∃-halve {a} {b} 0<a a<b = h 1 where
h : ℕ → ∃[ p ] (halve p * b < a)
h p with halve p * b <? a
h p | .true because ofʸ b'<a = p , b'<a
h p | .false because ofⁿ ¬b'<a = h (suc p)
The termination checker fails in that last case and it is no wonder as the recursion obviously is neither well funded nor structural. Nevertheless, I am quite sure this should be valid, but have no idea how to prove the termination of ∃-halve. Any advice for how this might be done?
When you’re stuck on a lemma like this, a good general principle is to forget Agda and its technicalities for a minute. How would you prove it in ordinary human-readable mathematical prose, in as elementary way as possible?
Your “iterated halving” function is computing b/(2^p). So you’re trying to show: for any positive rationals a, b, there is some natural p such that b/(2^p) < a. This inequality is equivalent to 2^p > b/a. You can break this down into two steps: find some natural n ≥ b/a, and then find some p such that 2^p > n.
As mentioned in comments, a natural way to do find such numbers would be to implement the ceiling function and the log_2 function. But as you say, those would be rather a lot of work, and you don’t need them here; you just need existence of such numbers. So you can do the above proof in three steps, each of which is elementary enough for a self-contained Agda proof, requiring only very basic algebraic facts as background:
Lemma 1: for any rational q, there’s some natural n > q. (Proof: use the definition of the ordering on rationals, and a little bit of algebra.)
Lemma 2: for any natural n, there’s some natural p such that 2^p > n. (Proof: take e.g. p := (n+1); prove by induction on n that 2^(n+1) > n.)
Lemma 3: these together imply the theorem about halving that you wanted. (Proof: a bit of algebra with rationals, showing that the b/(2^p) < a is equivalent to 2^p > b/a, and showing that your iterated-halving function gives b/2^p.)
I have a regression related question, but I am not sure how to proceed. Consider the following dataset, with A, B, C, and D as the attributes (features) and a decision variable Dec for each row:
A B C D Dec
a1 b1 c1 d1 Y
a1 b2 c2 d2 N
a2 b2 c3 d2 N
a2 b1 c3 d1 N
a1 b3 c2 d3 Y
a1 b1 c1 d2 N
a1 b1 c4 d1 Y
Given such data, I want to figure out most compact rules for which Dec evaluates to Y.
For example, A=a1 AND B=b1 AND D=d1 => Y.
I would prefer specifying the thresholds for the Precision of these rules, so that I can filter them out as per my requirement. For example, I would like to see all rules which provide at least 90% precision. This can provide me better compaction of the rules. The above mentioned rule provides 100% precision, whereas B=b1 AND D=d1 => Y has 66% precision (it errs on the 4th row).
Vaguely, I can see that this is similar to building a decision tree and finding out paths which end in Y. If I understand correctly, building a regression model would provide me the attributes which matter the most, but I need combinations of actual values from the attributes which lead to Y.
The attribute values are multi-valued, but that is not a hard constraint. I can even assume them to be boolean.
Is there any library in existing tools such as Weka or R that can help me?
Regards
I don't think this is a regression problem. This seems like a classification problem where you are trying to classify Y or N. You could build ensemble learners like Adaboost and see how the decisions vary from tree to tree or you could do something like elastic net logistic regression and see what the final weights are.
I have tried to go about this problem in several ways, and looked in several places with no answer. the question is as follow:
[Question]
Given two regular languages (may be referred to as finitely described languages ,idk) L1 and L2, we define a new language as such:
L = {w1w2| there are two words, x,y such that : xw1 is in L1, w2y is in L2}
I am supposed to use to show that L is regular, however I have the following restrictions:
I must use Equivalence class, and no other way
I cannot use Rank(L), as in show a limit to the number of equivalence class, instead I must show them
I may use the Closure properties that all regular languages hold
I am not expecting a full proof (though that would be appreciated) but an explanation to how to go about such a thing.
thanks in advance.
L = {w1w2| there are two words, x,y such that : xw1 is in L1, w2y is in L2} is regular if L1 and L2 are regular languages.
Lsuff = { w1 | xw1 ∈ L1 }
Lpref = { w2 | w2y ∈ L2 }
And,
L = LsuffLpref
We can easily proof by construction Finite Automata for L.
Suppose Finite Automata(FA) for L1 is M1 and FA for L2 is M2.
[SOLUTION]
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata(NFA) for L can be drawn by introducing NULL-transition (^-edge) form every state in M1 to every state in M2. then NFA can be converted into DFA.
e.g.
L1 = {ab ,ac} and L2 = {12, 13}
L = {ab, ac, 12, 13, a12, a2, ab12, ab2, a13, a3, ab13, ab3, ............}
Note: w1 and w2 can be NULL
M1 =is consist of Q = {q0,q1,qf} with edges:
q0 ---a----->q1,
q1 ---b/c--->qf
Similarly :
M2 =is consist of Q = {p0,p1,pf} with edges:
p0 ---1----->p1,
p1 ---2/3--->pf
Now, NFA for L called M will be consist of Q = {q0,q1,qf, p0,p1,pf} Where Final state of M is pf and edges are:
q0 ---a----->q1,
q1 ---b/c--->qf,
p0 ---1----->p1,
p1 ---2/3--->pf,
q0 ----^----> p0,
q1 ----^----> p0,
qf ----^----> p0,
q0 ----^----> p1,
q1 ----^----> p1,
qf ----^----> p1,
q0 ----^----> pf,
q1 ----^----> pf,
qf ----^----> pf
^ means NULL-Transition.
Now, A NFA can easily convert into DFA.(I leave it for you)
[ANSWER]
DFA for L is possible hence L is Regular Language.
I will highly encourage you to draw DFA/NFA figures, then concept will be clear.>
Note
I am writing this answer, because I believe that the current available doesn't really satisfy the post requirements, i.e.
I must use Equivalence class, and no other way
Answer
A more direct and simple approach is to not construct a DFA/NFA because of time reasons, but to just check if #EquivalenceClasses < ∞ holds. Specifically, you would have the following ones here:
[w1] = {all w1 in L1}
[e]
[w1w2] = L
So ind(R), the index of the equivalence relation, is 3, therefore finite. Hence, L is regular. Q.E.D.
To make it more clear, just have a look at the definition of the equivalence relation for languager, i.e. R_L.
Moreover, regular languages are closed under concatenation. De facto you just need to concatenate the two DFA/NFA's into one.