How does \sigma \leq \mu relate to the subset relation and ordering of sets?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gnome
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the notation \(\sigma \leq \mu\) in the context of computable functions and its implications for the subset relation and ordering of sets. Participants explore the definitions and relationships between these functions, particularly focusing on how the notation relates to the concept of functions as sets of ordered pairs.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the use of \(\leq\) to signify a subset relation, expressing confusion over how it leads to the conclusion that if \(\sigma(y)\) is defined, then \(\sigma(y) = \mu(y)\).
  • Another participant asserts that \(\leq\) means "less than or equal to" and is synonymous with the subset relation, suggesting that it is common to partially order sets by inclusion.
  • A further contribution clarifies that if \(\sigma\) is a subset of \(\mu\), then the ordered pairs \((y, \sigma(y))\) and \((y, \mu(y))\) must both belong to \(\mu\), leading to the implication that \(\sigma(y) = \mu(y)\).
  • One participant expresses frustration about the time elapsed since previous discussions on the topic, indicating a struggle to retain the information shared in earlier posts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the interpretation of the notation \(\sigma \leq \mu\) and its implications. While some assert a clear relationship between the subset relation and the ordering of sets, others express confusion and seek clarification.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of functions as sets of ordered pairs and the implications of the subset relation in this context. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

gnome
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
1
This one is from "A Programming Approach to Computability" , by A.J. Kfoury, Robert Moll, & Michael Arbib (1982), on page 77.
3 Example Let [itex]\sigma:N \rightarrow N[/itex] and [itex]\mu:N \rightarrow N[/itex] be two computable functions such that [itex]\sigma \leq \mu[/itex]. This means that whenever [itex]\sigma (y)[/itex] is defined, so is [itex]\mu (y)[/itex], and in this case we must have [itex]\sigma (y) = \mu (y)[/itex]. Thus [itex]\sigma[/itex] is a subset of [itex]\mu[/itex] when considered as a set of ordered pairs of natural numbers.
How do they get all that out of [itex]\sigma \leq \mu[/itex] ?


[This section continues as follows:
Now define [itex]\psi_3[/itex] by the specification:

[tex]\psi_3(x,y) = \left \{ \begin{array} {cc} \mu(y), &\text{if} \;\phi_x(x)\downarrow \\<br /> \sigma (y), &otherwise \end{array}\right[/tex]

At first glance, the second line asks us to return a value [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] based on the assumption that computation Px on x runs on forever. But on closer inspection, we realize that [itex]\sigma \leq \mu[/itex] tells us that if [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] is defined it equals [itex]\mu(y)[/itex]. Thus we can compute [itex]\psi_3(x,y)[/itex] as follows: Start the computations of [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] and of Px at the same time. If a result [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] is returned, halt--for then [itex]\sigma (y) = \mu (y)[/itex] is the desired answer, no matter whether or not Px halts on x. But if Px halts on x before a result [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] is returned, stop computing [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] and start computing [itex]\mu(y)[/itex]. If and when this computation halts, the [itex]\mu(y)[/itex] then returned is the desired answer.


Are these guys kidding, or what?

In every previous instance that I have found in this book, they used [itex]\leq[/itex] to represent "less than or equal to". Here, I guess maybe they are using it to signify "is a subset of". But even if that's the case, how do they conclude (in the second paragraph), that "if [itex]\sigma(y)[/itex] is defined, it equals [itex]\mu(y)[/itex]"?

I can't say that I like this stuff, but I'm determined to understand it if I can, so any suggestions will be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It means "less than or equal to" here too. And it is synonymous with the subset relation!

It is common to partially order sets by inclusion, so the subset relation is the order on sets.


Are you familiar with the definition of a function as a set of ordered pairs?
 
[itex](a,b) \in f \mbox{ and }(a,c) \in f \mbox{ implies } b=c.[/itex]

here, that becomes

[itex](y,\sigma(y)) \in \sigma \mbox{ and } (y,\mu(y)) \in \mu[/itex]?

and if [itex]\sigma \subseteq \mu[/itex], then:

[itex](y,\sigma(y)) \in \mu \mbox{ and } (y,\mu(y)) \in \mu \mbox{ so } \sigma(y)=\mu(y)[/itex]?
 
That was 5 months ago. And this:
>>It is common to partially order sets by inclusion, so the subset relation is the order on sets.
was 2 years ago.

How'm I supposed to remember that?

Well, now it all falls into place. Thanks Hurkyl.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K