SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1203.0841

How much could we cover a set by c.e sets?

Abstract

"How much c.e. sets could cover a given set?" in this paper we are going to answer this question. Also, in this approach some old concepts come into a new arrangement. The major goal of this article is to introduce an appropriate definition for this purpose. Introduction In Computability Theory (Recursion Theory) in the first step we wish to recognize the sets which could be enumerated by Turing machines (equivalently, algorithms) and in the next step we will compare these sets by some reasonable order (Like Turing degree). Also sometimes with some extra information (Oracles) a class of non c.e. sets show the same behavior as c.e. sets (Post hierarchy and related theorems). Here we try another approach: "Let A be an arbitrary set and we wish to recognize how much this set might be covered by a c.e. set?" Although in some sense this approach could be seen in some definitions of Recursion Theory, but at the best of our knowledge it didn't considered as an approach yet, even though it is able to shed a light on some subjects of Computability of sets. Defining this approach is not quite straightforward and there are some obstacles to define them. To overcome these difficulties we modify the definitions. We have an alternative problem here when we consider recursive sets and not c.e. sets. In this case, the problem would be: "Let A be an arbitrary set and we wish to know that how much this set might be covered by a recursive Set?" Here, we try the first definition and the first problem.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Farzad Didehvar, Mohsen Mansouri, Zahra Taheri. 2012-03-05. How much could we cover a set by c.e sets?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0841

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Beyond the Turing threshold: Productive grammars generate essentially undecidable languages

Emil Post's productive sets are not even semi-computable, let alone computable, being thus essentially incomputable. Accordingly, formal languages whose set of words is a (completely) productive set are essentially undecidable. In this article, I elaborate on Post productivity from the viewpoint of formal language theory: I design formal grammars that emulate the construction of productive sets of natural numbers and are thus beyond Turing-decidability.

cs.FL

RAGTIMER 1.0: Rapid Rare-Event Partial State Space Construction for Stochastic VAS (extended version)

Transient reachability analysis of rare events in Continuous-Time Stochastic Vector Addition Systems (CTSVAS) such as Chemical Reaction Networks (CRNs) has proven a formidable challenge to cutting-edge tools. Underlying a CTSVAS is a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC), and CTMC transient reachability analysis calls for Probabilistic Model Checking (PMC). This analysis requires the explicit representation of a model's entire state space. Rare events occur with extremely low probability, compounding the challenge of probabilistic analysis. In CRNs, it is imperative to verify the probability of rare events; even a low concentration of a species can have pathological consequences. This paper presents the RAGTIMER 1.0 tool, which efficiently builds a partial state space for a CTSVAS by enumerating traces to a rare event of interest and expanding them to exploit concurrency and cycles, providing a guaranteed lower bound on the probability of a rare event. Guaranteed lower bounds are particularly useful in synthetic biological applications because they indicate how and when a rare event can be experimentally observed. RAGTIMER is an attractive alternative to existing rare event analysis methods for CTSVAS models. It outperforms existing PMC tools and refutes multiple probability estimates from rare-event stochastic simulation on multiple challenging CRN models. RAGTIMER uses optimized data structures, a simple input format, and memory-safe Rust code to improve the scalability and accessibility of PMC for industry professionals.

cs.FL

Execution-Time Opacity Logic: A Logic for Ensuring ET-Opacity in Timed Systems

Ensuring confidentiality in Cyber-Physical Systems is critical, especially when attackers exploit execution times to infer sensitiveinformation. Traditional opacity models are inadequate for timed systems, as verifying opacity in Timed Automata is undecidable. To address this challenge, we propose Execution-Time Opacity Logic (ETOL), a new formalism that specifies opacity by requiring that for every execution satisfying a secret formula, there exists another execution of the same duration that does not satisfy it. ETOL guarantees that timing observations cannot reveal confidential agent activities. We present a decidable and efficient verification framework based on zone-based model checking, supported by a dedicated algorithm that systematically identifies duration-equivalent executions. Our approach is validated through an ATM case study, showing that ETOL enables efficient verification of execution-time confidentiality under timing attacks. We also developed a prototype tool for the ETOL logic that supports symbolic model checking over timed systems. It allows users to verify ETOL formulas based on clock-constrained execution paths.

cs.FL