Quote from AntC on July 10, 2021, 2:14 am

Quote from Vadim on July 9, 2021, 6:53 pm

This development hinges on well known uniqueness of the lattice top [latex]R_{01}[/latex] and bottom [latex]R_{10}[/latex]. We investigate the uniqueness of the unary operation of tuple set complement, also known as TTM appendix A <NOT>. We use, however, postfix single quote -- the choice influenced by Prover9 already having a built-in operation with that name.

No Prover9 doesn't have a function. What's built in is the syntax. That doesn't make it a function until you've defined it (by giving equations). Suffixed graphics are unreadable. It looks like a caterpillar has fallen into the inkwell then crawled across the page. I've asked before for you not to use this unreadable stuff. Please use meaningful names like I do -- absPCompl( ) or absolutePseudoComplement( ). It's like you (and LMH) don't want to communicate. So I won't.

 

Quote from AntC on July 10, 2021, 2:49 am

Quote from Vadim on July 9, 2021, 6:53 pm

exists x exists y exists z x ^ (y v z) != (x ^ y) v (x ^ z).

Now the model checker minimal counterexample domain size is 12! This is remarkable, because the minimal non-distributive relational lattice with complement operation is of size 6.

Anthony, what is the minimal domain size in your approach when you add this non-distributivity condition?

With that as goal, and my axioms (which are not yours), Mace hits a memory limit at model size 17, after ~20 seconds. Changing the != to = hits the memory limit also at size 17. Either of these forms:

• x ^ (y v z) = (x ^ y) v (x ^ z). or x ^ (y v z) != (x ^ y) v (x ^ z).
• x v (y ^ z) = (x v y) ^ (x v z). or x v (y ^ z) != (x v y) ^ (x v z).

Mace finds a counter-model size 6 (the same model in each case).

That corresponds to the first model here, for a single attribute B Bool other than Dee, Dum.

function(R00, [0]),
function(R002, [0]),
function(R01, [1]),
function(R10, [3]),
function(R11, [4]),
function(R112, [4]),
function(R1half, [2]),
function(R1half2, [2]),

relation(cover(_,_), [        % see definition in my axioms in previous thread
0,0,0,1,0,0,
1,0,0,0,1,0,
0,0,0,1,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,1,0,0,1,
0,0,0,1,0,0])

Quote from AntC on July 10, 2021, 3:00 am

Quote from Vadim on July 9, 2021, 6:53 pm

This development hinges on well known uniqueness of the lattice top [latex]R_{01}[/latex] and bottom [latex]R_{10}[/latex]. We investigate the uniqueness of the unary operation of tuple set complement, also known as TTM appendix A <NOT>. We use, however, postfix single quote -- the choice influenced by Prover9 already having a built-in operation with that name. In this notation

R00 = R01'.

Some of your axioms use R10'. That's tuple complement of lattice bottom; which should be R11. Is it? That is, is tuple complement sufficiently defined to prove that? I don't follow your caterpillar-scratchings, but I guess if you're failing to fix tuple complement; you're also failing to fix R00 or R11.

 

Quote from Vadim on July 10, 2021, 4:04 pm

You can increase Mace 4 memory. However, if model search progresses too fast and runs out of memory, that is likely to be an error in the input. For example, if I remove existential quantification in the non-distributivity condition above then the model checker quickly goes up to domain size 76 running out of memory.

After analyzing the aforementioned model of size 12 I have added the condition that the interval between R00 and R01 doesn't contain any other lattice elements

x = x v R01' -> x = R01' | x = R01.
x = x v R01` -> x = R01` | x = R01.

Currently, the model checker runs for 16 hours, up to the model size 15.

Quote from AntC on November 12, 2023, 9:21 am

Quote from Vadim on July 9, 2021, 6:53 pm

... An interesting development happens when we add explicit non-distributivity condition:

exists x exists y exists z x ^ (y v z) != (x ^ y) v (x ^ z).

I agree the (non-)distributivity characteristics are critical to describing relational lattice(s). This previous post illustrates a N5 non-distributive lattice. Your axiom here merely saying there must be some non-distributivity isn't specific enough. I've tried a combination of these:

• The 'Fundamental Empty Relations Axiom': x ^ R00 != x <-> x v R00 = R01.
• The Litak et al three axioms. Note two of them mention R00.
• An axiom spec'ing that the sub-lattice of empty relvals form a distributive lattice:
  (x ^ R00) v ((y ^ R00) ^ (z ^ R00)) = ((x ^ R00) v (y ^ R00)) ^ ((x ^ R00) v (z ^ R00)).
  In which (x ^ R00) etc means some arbitrary relval x, 'emptified'.
• An axiom spec'ing that any sub-lattice of relvals with the same heading form a distributive lattice:
  x ^ R00 = y ^ R00 & y ^ R00 = z ^ R00 -> x v (y ^ z) = (x v y) ^ (x v z).
  In which x ^ R00 = y ^ R00 etc means 'emptified' x equals 'emptified' y -- that is, they have the same Heading.
  (This axiom is implied by the Litak et al's.)
• What I've added is an axiom stating for all relvals other than DEE, DUM/ R01, R00: there must be at least two other distinct relvals with the same Heading [**]:
  x ^ R00 != R00 -> (exists y (exists z ( (y ^ R00 = x ^ R00 & z ^ R00 = x ^ R00) & ((x != y & x != z) & y != z ) ) ) ).
  Again x ^ R00 = y ^ R00 etc means 'emptified' x equals 'emptified' y; but x != y means they're distinct relvals. [***]

Litak et al would hate these axioms: they use implications, they use existential quant, they use disequalities.

Although I'd experimented previously with those (or something like them); I'd assumed they wouldn't be effective until I'd 'fixed' R00/DUM. Instead now, I've taken the attitude: they're all part of the properties of R00; perhaps in combination they'll constrain the model enough to be useful.

So, standard tactic: take a copy of the six axioms mentioning R00; change R00 to R002 throughout, so we've 'competing' definitions; _{get a proof that R00 = R002. (whisper it)}

Given my track record of messing up proofs and prematurely announcing results, I'm very hesitant. Furthermore, using R00 to define follow-on operators like NotMatching, Remove is failing to yield proofs of uniqueness. (But not finding counter-models either.)

Would somebody like to reproduce my results, please.

Notes:

• [**] The requirement all relvals with non-empty Heading must have at least three relvals -- that is, an Attribute type with at least two values -- is pragmatically not an annoyance: Bool is the smallest cardinality type. (The worked example I linked to has a single attribute REL {B Bool} {...}.) But it offends against the theoretical purity of the model: we should be able to model Attribute types with a single or even no value (Unit, Void). Of course a D can include such types; it just can't write them to a relval. (Unit's OK providing it's not the only Attribute.)
• [***] Note that last axiom doesn't require there to be relvals with non-empty Heading. So just {DEE, DUM} is a valid model -- rather satisfying. It says if there's a relval with non-empty Heading, there must be at least two more. [****] (This is less restrictive than Vadim's axiom I quoted.)
• [****] For this reason, I don't need/don't define lattice bottom (R10 aka Dumpty the empty relval with all possible Attributes) nor the 'full as possible' relval (R11 with all possible Attributes, all possible tuples). It's a big relief not to have to rely on such Domain Dependence.

Quote from AntC on November 18, 2023, 7:06 am

Quote from AntC on November 12, 2023, 9:21 am

• The 'Fundamental Empty Relations Axiom': x ^ R00 != x <-> x v R00 = R01.

BTW, the Litak axioms (+ the usual behaviour for ^, v) don't seem sufficient to prove this.

I can't see any adequate account of Relational lattices could allow an element in between DUM, DEE. (Essentially that's how I distinguish DUM: it's the only empty relation immediately adjacent to DEE.)