Showing 1–15 of 15 results for author: Egrot, R

A corrected strategy for proving no finite variable axiomatisation exists for RRA

Authors: Rob Egrot, Robin Hirsch

Abstract: We show that if for all finite $c$ there is a pair of non-isomorphic finite digraphs satisfying some additional conditions, one of which is that they cannot be distinguished in a certain $c$-colour node colouring game, then there can be no axiomatisation of the class of representable relation algebras in any first-order theory of arbitrary quantifier-depth using only finitely many variables. This… ▽ More We show that if for all finite $c$ there is a pair of non-isomorphic finite digraphs satisfying some additional conditions, one of which is that they cannot be distinguished in a certain $c$-colour node colouring game, then there can be no axiomatisation of the class of representable relation algebras in any first-order theory of arbitrary quantifier-depth using only finitely many variables. This corrects the proposed strategy of Hirsch and Hodkinson, \emph{Relation algebras by games}, North-Holland (2002), Problem 1. However, even for $c=2$, no pair of non-isomorphic graphs indistinguishable in the game is currently known. △ Less

Submitted 3 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: This note is extracted from an earlier version of arXiv:2008.01329. A later version of this latter paper will omit this material

MSC Class: 03G15

First-order axiomatisations of representable relation algebras need formulas of unbounded quantifier depth

Authors: Rob Egrot, Robin Hirsch

Abstract: Using a variation of the rainbow construction and various pebble and colouring games, we prove that RRA, the class of all representable relation algebras, cannot be axiomatised by any first-order relation algebra theory of bounded quantifier depth. We also prove that the class At(RRA) of atom structures of representable, atomic relation algebras cannot be defined by any set of sentences in the lan… ▽ More Using a variation of the rainbow construction and various pebble and colouring games, we prove that RRA, the class of all representable relation algebras, cannot be axiomatised by any first-order relation algebra theory of bounded quantifier depth. We also prove that the class At(RRA) of atom structures of representable, atomic relation algebras cannot be defined by any set of sentences in the language of RA atom structures that uses only a finite number of variables. △ Less

Submitted 14 September, 2021; v1 submitted 4 August, 2020; originally announced August 2020.

Comments: v3 makes significant revisions. Some material from v2 has been moved to arXiv:2109.01357

MSC Class: 03G15

Seurat games on Stockmeyer graphs

Authors: Rob Egrot, Robin Hirsch

Abstract: We define a family of vertex colouring games played over a pair of graphs or digraphs $(G,H)$ by players $\forall$ and $\exists$. These games arise from work on a longstanding open problem in algebraic logic. It is conjectured that there is a natural number $n$ such that $\forall$ always has a winning strategy in the game with $n$ colours whenever $G\not\cong H$. This is related to the reconstruct… ▽ More We define a family of vertex colouring games played over a pair of graphs or digraphs $(G,H)$ by players $\forall$ and $\exists$. These games arise from work on a longstanding open problem in algebraic logic. It is conjectured that there is a natural number $n$ such that $\forall$ always has a winning strategy in the game with $n$ colours whenever $G\not\cong H$. This is related to the reconstruction conjecture for graphs and the degree-associated reconstruction conjecture for digraphs. We show that the reconstruction conjecture implies our game conjecture with $n=3$ for graphs, and the same is true for the degree-associated reconstruction conjecture and our conjecture for digraphs. We show (for any $k<ω$) that the 2-colour game can distinguish certain non-isomorphic pairs of graphs that cannot be distinguished by the $k$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm. We also show that the 2-colour game can distinguish the non-isomorphic pairs of graphs in the families defined by Stockmeyer as counterexamples to the original digraph reconstruction conjecture. △ Less

Submitted 14 September, 2021; v1 submitted 4 August, 2020; originally announced August 2020.

Comments: v3 makes significant additions

MSC Class: 05C60

Journal ref: Journal of Graph Theory 99, 278 - 311, 2022

Amalgamating poset extensions and generating free lattices

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: We investigate connections between the free lattice generated by a poset while preserving certain bounds and the canonical extension of a poset. Explicitly, we describe how the free lattice generated by a poset while preserving certain bounds can be constructed as a colimit of `intermediate structures' as they occur in the construction of a canonical extension of a poset. We investigate connections between the free lattice generated by a poset while preserving certain bounds and the canonical extension of a poset. Explicitly, we describe how the free lattice generated by a poset while preserving certain bounds can be constructed as a colimit of `intermediate structures' as they occur in the construction of a canonical extension of a poset. △ Less

Submitted 15 January, 2022; v1 submitted 21 July, 2019; originally announced July 2019.

Comments: Version 2 is significantly rewritten and streamlined

MSC Class: 06B25; 06B23

Recursive axiomatisations from separation properties

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: We define a fragment of monadic infinitary second-order logic corresponding to an abstract separation property. We use this to define the concept of a separation subclass. We use model theoretic techniques and games to show that separation subclasses whose axiomatisations are recursively enumerable in our second-order fragment can also be recursively axiomatised in their original first-order langu… ▽ More We define a fragment of monadic infinitary second-order logic corresponding to an abstract separation property. We use this to define the concept of a separation subclass. We use model theoretic techniques and games to show that separation subclasses whose axiomatisations are recursively enumerable in our second-order fragment can also be recursively axiomatised in their original first-order language. We pin down the expressive power of this formalism with respect to first-order logic, and investigate some questions relating to decidability and computational complexity. As applications of these results, by showing that certain classes can be straightforwardly defined as separation subclasses, we obtain first-order axiomatisability results for these classes. In particular we apply this technique to graph colourings and a class of partial algebras arising from separation logic. △ Less

Submitted 21 January, 2021; v1 submitted 29 June, 2019; originally announced July 2019.

Comments: Version 3 includes extended exposition and some rewriting for clarity

MSC Class: 0C398

Journal ref: Journal of Symbolic Logic 86, 1228 - 1258, 2021

Order polarities

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: We define an order polarity to be a polarity $(X,Y,R)$ where $X$ and $Y$ are partially ordered, and we define an extension polarity to be a triple $(e_X,e_Y,R)$ such that $e_X:P\to X$ and $e_Y:P\to Y$ are poset extensions and $(X,Y,R)$ is an order polarity. We define a hierarchy of increasingly strong coherence conditions for extension polarities, each equivalent to the existence of a pre-order st… ▽ More We define an order polarity to be a polarity $(X,Y,R)$ where $X$ and $Y$ are partially ordered, and we define an extension polarity to be a triple $(e_X,e_Y,R)$ such that $e_X:P\to X$ and $e_Y:P\to Y$ are poset extensions and $(X,Y,R)$ is an order polarity. We define a hierarchy of increasingly strong coherence conditions for extension polarities, each equivalent to the existence of a pre-order structure on $X\cup Y$ such that the natural embeddings, $ι_X$ and $ι_Y$, of $X$ and $Y$, respectively, into $X\cup Y$ preserve the order structures of $X$ and $Y$ in increasingly strict ways. We define a Galois polarity to be an extension polarity where $e_X$ and $e_Y$ are meet- and join-extensions respectively, and we show that for such polarities there is a unique pre-order on $X\cup Y$ such that $ι_X$ and $ι_Y$ satisfy particularly strong preservation properties. We define morphisms for polarities, providing the class of Galois polarities with the structure of a category, and we define an adjunction between this category and the category of $Δ_1$-completions and appropriate homomorphisms. We formalize the theory of extension polarities and prove a duality principle to the effect that if a statement is true for all extension polarities then so too must be its dual statement. △ Less

Submitted 25 February, 2020; v1 submitted 15 January, 2019; originally announced January 2019.

Comments: Version 2 is a significant rewrite of the original. The results are the same, except that Section 8 has been removed to somewhat reduce the length of the document

MSC Class: 03G10; 06B23

Recursive axiomatizations for representable posets

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: We use model theoretic techniques to construct explicit first-order axiomatizations for the classes of posets that can be represented as systems of sets, where the order relation is given by inclusion, and existing meets and joins of specified countable cardinalities correspond to intersections and unions respectively. We use model theoretic techniques to construct explicit first-order axiomatizations for the classes of posets that can be represented as systems of sets, where the order relation is given by inclusion, and existing meets and joins of specified countable cardinalities correspond to intersections and unions respectively. △ Less

Submitted 30 January, 2019; v1 submitted 21 June, 2018; originally announced June 2018.

Comments: Minor edits

MSC Class: 03C98; 06A11

Categories of frame-completions and join-specifications

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: Given a poset $P$, a join-specification $\mathcal U$ for $P$ is a set of subsets of $P$ whose joins are all defined. The set $\mathcal I_{\mathcal U}$ of downsets closed under joins of sets in $\mathcal U$ forms a complete lattice, and is, in a sense, the free $\mathcal U$-join preserving join-completion of $P$. The main aim of this paper is to address two questions. First, given a join-specificat… ▽ More Given a poset $P$, a join-specification $\mathcal U$ for $P$ is a set of subsets of $P$ whose joins are all defined. The set $\mathcal I_{\mathcal U}$ of downsets closed under joins of sets in $\mathcal U$ forms a complete lattice, and is, in a sense, the free $\mathcal U$-join preserving join-completion of $P$. The main aim of this paper is to address two questions. First, given a join-specification $\mathcal U$, when is $\mathcal I_{\mathcal U}$ a frame? And second, given a poset $P$, what is the structure of its set of frame-generating join-specifications? To answer the first question we provide a number of equivalent conditions, and we use these to investigate the second. In particular, we show that the set of frame-generating join-specifications for $P$ forms a complete lattice ordered by inclusion, and we describe its meet and join operations. We do the same for the set of `maximal' such join-specifications, for a natural definition of `maximal'. We also define functors from these lattices, considered as categories, into a suitably defined category of frame-completions of $P$, and construct right adjoints for them. △ Less

Submitted 2 June, 2018; originally announced June 2018.

Comments: 33 pages

MSC Class: 06A15; 06D22

Closure operators, frames, and neatest representations

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: Given a poset $P$ and a standard closure operator $Γ:\wp(P)\to\wp(P)$ we give a necessary and sufficient condition for the lattice of $Γ$-closed sets of $\wp(P)$ to be a frame in terms of the recursive construction of the $Γ$-closure of sets. We use this condition to show that given a set $\mathcal{U}$ of distinguished joins from $P$, the lattice of $\mathcal{U}$-ideals of $P$ fails to be a frame… ▽ More Given a poset $P$ and a standard closure operator $Γ:\wp(P)\to\wp(P)$ we give a necessary and sufficient condition for the lattice of $Γ$-closed sets of $\wp(P)$ to be a frame in terms of the recursive construction of the $Γ$-closure of sets. We use this condition to show that given a set $\mathcal{U}$ of distinguished joins from $P$, the lattice of $\mathcal{U}$-ideals of $P$ fails to be a frame if and only if it fails to be $σ$-distributive, with $σ$ depending on the cardinalities of sets in $\mathcal{U}$. From this we deduce that if a poset has the property that whenever $a\wedge(b\vee c)$ is defined for $a,b,c\in P$ it is necessarily equal to $(a\wedge b)\vee (a\wedge c)$, then it has an $(ω,3)$-representation. This answers a question from the literature. △ Less

Submitted 17 November, 2017; v1 submitted 7 February, 2017; originally announced February 2017.

Comments: Revised versions make minor corrections and slight changes to exposition

MSC Class: 06A15

No finite axiomatizations for posets embeddable into distributive lattices

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: Let $m$ and $n$ be cardinals with $3\leq m,n\leqω$. We show that the class of posets that can be embedded into a distributive lattice via a map preserving all existing meets and joins with cardinalities strictly less than $m$ and $n$ respectively cannot be finitely axiomatized. Let $m$ and $n$ be cardinals with $3\leq m,n\leqω$. We show that the class of posets that can be embedded into a distributive lattice via a map preserving all existing meets and joins with cardinalities strictly less than $m$ and $n$ respectively cannot be finitely axiomatized. △ Less

Submitted 17 November, 2017; v1 submitted 4 October, 2016; originally announced October 2016.

Comments: Revised versions make minor changes to the exposition in some places

MSC Class: 03C98; 06A11

Non-elementary classes of representable posets

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: A poset is $(ω,C)$-representable if it can be embedded into a field of sets in such a way that all existing joins, and all existing \emph{finite} meets are preserved. We show that the class of $(ω,C)$-representable posets cannot be axiomatized in first order logic using the standard language of posets. We generalize this result to $(α,β)$-representable posets for certain values of $α$ and $β$. A poset is $(ω,C)$-representable if it can be embedded into a field of sets in such a way that all existing joins, and all existing \emph{finite} meets are preserved. We show that the class of $(ω,C)$-representable posets cannot be axiomatized in first order logic using the standard language of posets. We generalize this result to $(α,β)$-representable posets for certain values of $α$ and $β$. △ Less

Submitted 11 April, 2017; v1 submitted 18 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Comments: This revised version edits and expands some of the explanatory passages, primarily in the introduction but also elsewhere, and also lightly edits the references. Some proofs have been shortened, though the key ingredients remain the same. The main results are unchanged. This paper is to appear in Proceedings of the AMS. The latest revision corrects some typos

MSC Class: 06A11; 03G10

Representable posets

Authors: Rob Egrot

Abstract: A poset is representable if it can be embedded in a field of sets in such a way that existing finite meets and joins become intersections and unions respectively (we say finite meets and joins are preserved). More generally, for cardinals $α$ and $β$ a poset is said to be $(α,β)$-representable if an embedding into a field of sets exists that preserves meets of sets smaller than $α$ and joins of se… ▽ More A poset is representable if it can be embedded in a field of sets in such a way that existing finite meets and joins become intersections and unions respectively (we say finite meets and joins are preserved). More generally, for cardinals $α$ and $β$ a poset is said to be $(α,β)$-representable if an embedding into a field of sets exists that preserves meets of sets smaller than $α$ and joins of sets smaller than $β$. We show using an ultraproduct/ultraroot argument that when $2\leqα,β\leq ω$ the class of $(α,β)$-representable posets is elementary, but does not have a finite axiomatization in the case where either $α$ or $β=ω$. We also show that the classes of posets with representations preserving either countable or all meets and joins are pseudoelementary. △ Less

Submitted 30 August, 2016; v1 submitted 16 March, 2016; originally announced March 2016.

Comments: The revised version adds a note clearing up a loose end from the background discussion in the introduction

MSC Class: 06A06

Journal ref: J. Appl. Log. 16, 60-71 (2016)

Meet-completions and ordered domain algebras

Authors: Rob Egrot, Robin Hirsch

Abstract: Using the well-known equivalence between meet-completions of posets and standard closure operators we show a general method for constructing meet-completions for isotone poset expansions. With this method we find a meet-completion for ordered domain algebras which simultaneously serves as the base of a representation for such algebras, thereby proving that ordered domain algebras have the finite r… ▽ More Using the well-known equivalence between meet-completions of posets and standard closure operators we show a general method for constructing meet-completions for isotone poset expansions. With this method we find a meet-completion for ordered domain algebras which simultaneously serves as the base of a representation for such algebras, thereby proving that ordered domain algebras have the finite representation property. We show that many of the equations defining ordered domain algebras are preserved in this completion but associativity, (D2) and (D6) can fail. △ Less

Submitted 23 February, 2015; originally announced February 2015.

Preserving meets in meet-dense poset completions

Authors: Robert Egrot

Abstract: Defining P* to be the complete lattice of upsets (ordered by reverse inclusion) of a poset P we give necessary and sufficient conditions on a subset S of P* for P to admit a meet-completion e from P to Q where e preserves the infimum of an upwardly closed set from P if and only if it is in S. We show that given S satisfying these conditions the set M of these completions forms a topped weakly lowe… ▽ More Defining P* to be the complete lattice of upsets (ordered by reverse inclusion) of a poset P we give necessary and sufficient conditions on a subset S of P* for P to admit a meet-completion e from P to Q where e preserves the infimum of an upwardly closed set from P if and only if it is in S. We show that given S satisfying these conditions the set M of these completions forms a topped weakly lower semimodular lattice. In particular, when P is finite M is a lower semimodular lattice, and a lower bounded homomorphic image of a free lattice. We provide an example where M does not have a bottom element. △ Less

Submitted 15 March, 2016; v1 submitted 16 January, 2012; originally announced January 2012.

Comments: This paper has some serious errors and I do not have confidence in the truth of its main results

MSC Class: 06A15 (Primary) 06B23 (Secondary)

Completely Representable Lattices

Authors: Robert Egrot, Robin Hirsch

Abstract: It is known that a lattice is representable as a ring of sets iff the lattice is distributive. CRL is the class of bounded distributive lattices (DLs) which have representations preserving arbitrary joins and meets. jCRL is the class of DLs which have representations preserving arbitrary joins, mCRL is the class of DLs which have representations preserving arbitrary meets, and biCRL is defined to… ▽ More It is known that a lattice is representable as a ring of sets iff the lattice is distributive. CRL is the class of bounded distributive lattices (DLs) which have representations preserving arbitrary joins and meets. jCRL is the class of DLs which have representations preserving arbitrary joins, mCRL is the class of DLs which have representations preserving arbitrary meets, and biCRL is defined to be the intersection of jCRL and mCRL. We prove CRL is a strict subset of biCRL which is a strict subset of both jCRL and mCRL. Let L be a DL. Then L is in mCRL iff L has a distinguishing set of complete, prime filters. Similarly, L is in jCRL iff L has a distinguishing set of completely prime filters, and L is in CRL iff L has a distinguishing set of complete, completely prime filters. Each of the classes above is shown to be pseudo-elementary and hence closed under ultraproducts. The class CRL is not closed under elementary equivalence, hence it is not elementary. △ Less

Submitted 29 August, 2016; v1 submitted 11 January, 2012; originally announced January 2012.

Comments: This revised version corrects a small error in the statement of proposition 2.16 that appeared in the published version

MSC Class: 06D05 (Primary) 03G10 (Secondary)

Journal ref: Algebra universalis Volume 67 (2012) , pp 205-217