Skip to content Skip to navigation

Connexions

You are here: Home » Content » Relations and Logic: interpretations

Navigation

Content Actions

  • Download module PDF
  • Add to ...
    Add the module to:
    • My Favorites
    • A lens
    • An external social bookmarking service
    • My Favorites (What is 'My Favorites'?)
      'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark modules and collections directly in Connexions. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need a Connexions account to use 'My Favorites'.
    • A lens (What is a lens?)

      Definition of a lens

      Lenses

      A lens is a custom view of Connexions content. You can think of it as a fancy kind of list that will let you see Connexions through the eyes of organizations and people you trust.

      What is in a lens?

      Lens makers point to Connexions materials (modules and collections), creating a guide that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

      Who can create a lens?

      Any individual Connexions member, a community, or a respected organization.

    • External bookmarks
  • E-mail the authors

Recently Viewed

This feature requires Javascript to be enabled.

Relations and Logic: interpretations

Module by: Ian Barland, John Greiner, Phokion Kolaitis, Moshe Vardi, Matthias Felleisen

Summary: Interpretations map relation-symbols to an actual relation.

Needing Interpretations to Evaluate Formulas

You might have noticed something funny: we said safe(a) depended on the board, but that prime(18) was false. Why are some some relations different than others? To add to the puzzling, there was a caveat in some fine-print from the previous section: “prime(18) is false under the standard interpretation of prime”. Why these weasel-words? Everybody knows what prime is, don't they? Well, if our domain is matrices of integers (instead of just integers), we might suddenly want a different idea “prime”.

Consider the formula E(x,x)E(x,x) true for all xx in a domain? Well, it depends not only on the domain, but also on the specific binary relation EE actually stands for:

  • for the domain of integers where EE is interpreted as “both are even numbers”, E(x,x)E(x,x) is false for some xx.
  • for the domain 2468 2 4 6 8 where EE is interpreted as “sum to an even number”, E(x,x)E(x,x) is true for every xx.
  • for the domain of integers where EE is interpreted as “greater than”, E(x,x)E(x,x) is false for some xx (indeed, it's false for every xx).
  • for the domain of people where EE is interpreted as “is at least as tall as”, E(x,x)E(x,x) is true for every xx.

Thus a formula's truth depends on the interpretation of the (syntactic, meaning-free) relation symbols in the formula.

Definition 1: Interpretation
The interpretation of a formula is a domain, together with a mapping from the formula's relation symbols to specific relations on the domain.
One analogy is “Programs are to data, as formulas are to interpretations”. (In particular, the formula is a like a boolean function — it takes its input (interpretation), and returns true or false.)

Some non-standard interpretations (optional)

prime factorization

Note that there are other possible interpretations of “primeprime”. For example, since one can multiply integer matrices, there might be a useful concept of “prime matrices”.

For example: Consider only the numbers F = {1,5,9,13,…} — that is, F = {4k+1 | k in N}. It's easy to verify that multiplying two of these numbers still results in a number of the form 4k+1. Thus it makes sense to talk of factoring such numbers: We'd say that 45 factors into 5⋅9, but 9 is considered prime since it doesn't factor into smaller elements of F.

Interestingly, within F, we lose unique factorization: 441 = 9⋅49 = 21⋅21, where each of 9, 21, and 49 are prime, relative to F! (Mathematicians will then go and look for exactly what property of a multiplication function are needed, to guarantee unique factorization.)

The point is, that all relations in logical formula need to be interpreted. Usually, for numbers, we use a standard interpretation, but one can consider those formulas in different, non-standard interpretations!

The Poincare Disc

A long outstanding problem was that of Euclid's parallel postulate: Given a line and a point not on the line, how many lines parallel to the first go through that point? Euclid took this as an axiom (unable to prove that it followed from his other axioms). Non-Euclidean geometries of Lobachevsky and Riemann took different postulates, and got different geometries. However, it was not clear whether these geometries were sound — whether one could derive two different results that were inconsistent with each other.

Poincare developed a method of showing that certain non-Euclidean geometries were consistent (or at least, as consistent as Euclidean geometry. Remember that in Euclidean geometry, the concepts “point” and “line” are left undefined, and axioms are built on top of them (e.g. “two different lines have at most one point in common”). While it's usually left to common sense to interpret “point”, “line”, and “a point is on a line”, any interpretation which satisfies the axioms means that all theorems of geometry will hold.

The Poincare disc is one such interpretation: “point” is taken to mean “a point in the upper half of the unit disc”, and “line” is taken to mean “a circular arc which meets the unit disc at right angles”. This preserves all the axioms (for instance, two different lines have at most one point in common), except for the parallel postulate. Indeed, for a given line and a point not on it, there are an infinite number of parallel (that is, non-intersecting) lines.

The critical point of his interpretation of a non-Euclidean geometry is this: it is embedded in Euclidean geometry! If there is any inconsistency in this non-Euclidean lines, then that could be parlayed into an inconsistency within Euclidean logic dealing with arcs in the unit disc. Thus, his interpretations gives a proof that the strange non-Euclidean geometry is as sound as our familiar Euclidean geometry.

P vs NP and Oracles

A well-known problem in computer science — “P vs NP” — asks whether (for a given problem) it is truly more difficult to find a short solution (when one exists) (“NP”), than it is to verify a short purported solution handed to you (“P”). For example, “Given a set of people and how strong each person is, can you partition them into two tug-of-war teams which are exactly evenly matched?” Certainly it seems easier to check that a pair of proposed rosters has equal strength (and, verify that everybody really is on one team or the other) than to have to come up with two perfectly-matched teams. But conceivably, the two tasks might be equally-difficult up to some acceptable (polynomial time) overhead. While everyone assumes that P is easier than NP, nobody has been able to prove it.

An interesting variant of the problem lets both the problem-solver and the purported-answer-verifier each have access to a particular oracle — a program that will gives instant yes/no answers to some other problem (say, “given any set of numbers, yes or no: is there an even-sized subset whose total is exactly the same as some odd sized subset?”).

It has been shown that there is some oracle which makes the problem-solver's job provably tougher than the proof-verifier's job, and also there is some other oracle problem-solver's job provably no-tougher than the proof-verifier's job.

This means that any proof of P being different from NP has to be subtle enough so that when P and NP are re-interpreted as “P and NP with respect to a particular oracle”, the proof will no longer go through. Unfortunately, this eliminates all the routine methods of proof; we know that solving this problem will take some new attack.

Using Formulas to Classify Interpretations (Optional)

In the previous section, having a formula was rather useless until we had a particular interpretation for it. But we can view that same idea backwards: Given a formula, what are all the interpretations for which the formula is true?

For instance, consider a formula expressing that an array is sorted ascendingly: For all numbers ii,jj, (<ijelementielementj)(< i j elementi elementj). But if we now broaden our mind about what relations/functions the symbols elementelement, <<, <=<=, and then wonder about the set of all structures/interpretations which make this formula true, we might find that our notion of sorting is broader than we first thought. (Or equivalently, we might decide that the notion “ascending” applies to more structures than we first suspected).

Similarly, mathematicians create some formulas about functions being associative and having an identity element, and then look at all structures which have those properties; this is how they define (say) Groups.

Encoding functions as Relations

What about adding functions, to our language, in addition to relations? Well, functions are just a way of relating input(s) to an output. For example, 3 and 9 are related by the square function, as are 9 and 81, and 0,0. Is any binary relation a function? No — for instance {(9,81), (9,17)} is not a function, because there is no unique output related to the input 9.

How can we enforce uniqueness? The following sentence asserts that for each element xx of the domain, RR associates at most one value with xx: For all xx, yy and zz of the domain,

((R(x,y)R(x,z))(y=z))((R(x,y)R(x,z))(yz)) (1)
This is a common trick, for to describe uniqueness: if yy and zz each have some property, then they must be equal. (We have not yet specified that for every element of the domain, there is at least one element associated with it; we'll get to that later.)

Exercise 1

We just used a binary relation to model a unary function. Carry on this idea, by using a ternary relation to start to model a binary function. In particular, write a formula stating that for every pair of elements ww, xx in the domain, the relation SS associates at most one value with that pair.

Solution 1

For all ww, xx, yy and zz of the domain,

((S(w,x,y)S(w,x,z))(y=z))((S(w,x,y)S(w,x,z))(yz)) (2)

Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?

Send feedback