LARA

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
sav08:herbrand_universe_for_equality [2008/04/02 20:40]
vkuncak
sav08:herbrand_universe_for_equality [2008/04/02 21:43]
vkuncak
Line 11: Line 11:
 call the resulting formula $F'$. call the resulting formula $F'$.
  
-Consider Herbrand model $(GT,I_H)$ for the set $\{F'​\} \cup AxEq$. ​ The relation $I_H(eq)$ splits $GT$ into two sets: the set of terms eq with $a$, and the set of terms eq with $b$.+Consider Herbrand model $I_H = (GT,\alpha_H)$ for the set $\{F'​\} \cup AxEq$. ​ The relation $\alpha_H(eq)$ splits $GT$ into two sets: the set of terms eq with $a$, and the set of terms eq with $b$.  The idea is to consider these two partitions as domain of new interpretation,​ denoted $([GT], \alpha_Q)$.
  
 ===== Constructing Model for Formulas with Equality ===== ===== Constructing Model for Formulas with Equality =====
  
-Let $S$ be a set of formulas in first-order logic with equality and $S'$ result of replacing '​='​ with '​eq'​ in $S$.  Suppose that $S \cup AxEq$ is satisfiable. ​ Let $(GT,I_H)$ be Herbrand model for $S \cup AxEq$. ​ We construct a new model using //​quotient//​ construction,​ described as follows.  +Let $S$ be a set of formulas in first-order logic with equality and $S'$ result of replacing '​='​ with '​eq'​ in $S$.  Suppose that $S \cup AxEq$ is satisfiable. ​ Let $(GT,I_H)$ be Herbrand model for $S \cup AxEq$. ​ We construct a new model using //​quotient//​ construction,​ described as follows ​
- +
-For each element $t \in GT$, define +
-\[ +
-    [t] = \{ s \mid (s,t) \in I_H(eq) \} +
-\] +
-Let +
-\[ +
-    [GT] = \{ [t] \mid t \in GT \} +
-\] +
-The constructed model will be $([GT],​I_Q)$ where  +
-\[ +
-    I_Q(f) = \{ ([t_1],​\ldots,​[t_n],​ [f(t_1,​\ldots,​t_n)]) \mid t_1,​\ldots,​t_n \in GT \} +
-\] +
-\[ +
-    I_Q(R) = \{ ([t_1],​\ldots,​[t_n]) \mid (t_1,​\ldots,​t_n) \in I_H(R) \} +
-\] +
- +
-In particular, when $R$ is $eq$ we have +
- +
-$I_Q(eq) = $ ++| $\{ ([t_1],​[t_2]) \mid (t_1,t_2) \in I_H(eq) \} = \{ (a,a) \mid a \in [GT] \}$ +
- +
-that is, the interpretation of eq in $([GT],​I_Q)$ is equality. +
-+++
  
  
Line 47: Line 24:
   * $S' \cup AxEq$ has a model (where $AxEq$ are [[Axioms for Equality]] and $S'$ is result of replacing '​='​ with '​eq'​ in $S$)   * $S' \cup AxEq$ has a model (where $AxEq$ are [[Axioms for Equality]] and $S'$ is result of replacing '​='​ with '​eq'​ in $S$)
   * $S$ has a model whose domain is the quotient $[GT]$ of ground terms under some congruence   * $S$ has a model whose domain is the quotient $[GT]$ of ground terms under some congruence
-