Using linear logic to reason about sequent systems
... • The Forum specifications do not deal with context explicitly (side formulas): they only mention the formulas that are directly involved in the inference rule. • The distinction between additive and multiplicative inference rules is achieved using the appropriate linear logic connective. • Object-l ...
... • The Forum specifications do not deal with context explicitly (side formulas): they only mention the formulas that are directly involved in the inference rule. • The distinction between additive and multiplicative inference rules is achieved using the appropriate linear logic connective. • Object-l ...
A SIMPLE PROOF OF SOME GENERALIZED PRINCIPAL IDEAL
... minimal primes, as required for the first statement. The second statement follows at once. 3. Heights of determinantal ideals The formulas for the heights of determinantal ideals that follow from Theorem 2.2 are often sharp. But under an additional hypothesis on M , Kwieciński ([8, Theorem 1]) gave ...
... minimal primes, as required for the first statement. The second statement follows at once. 3. Heights of determinantal ideals The formulas for the heights of determinantal ideals that follow from Theorem 2.2 are often sharp. But under an additional hypothesis on M , Kwieciński ([8, Theorem 1]) gave ...
Interleaved scope for games and automata
... is significantly different from the case of the simple, well-nested, monolithic scope familiar from examples like λa.(-). Nevertheless, our solution below seems pleasingly simple. Definition 1 (Syntax).(1) Fix a countably infinite set of atoms a, b, c, · · · ∈ A. (2) A permutation π ∈ Perm is a bije ...
... is significantly different from the case of the simple, well-nested, monolithic scope familiar from examples like λa.(-). Nevertheless, our solution below seems pleasingly simple. Definition 1 (Syntax).(1) Fix a countably infinite set of atoms a, b, c, · · · ∈ A. (2) A permutation π ∈ Perm is a bije ...
Model answers
... is clear that u(H) = H ′ so that we have a bijection between the set of subgroups H of G which contain N and the set of subgroups of G/N . Now suppose that H is normal in G. We check H/N is normal in G. Let gN ∈ G/N and hN ∈ H/N . Then ghg −1 ∈ H as H is normal and we have (gN )(hN )(gN )−1 = (gN )( ...
... is clear that u(H) = H ′ so that we have a bijection between the set of subgroups H of G which contain N and the set of subgroups of G/N . Now suppose that H is normal in G. We check H/N is normal in G. Let gN ∈ G/N and hN ∈ H/N . Then ghg −1 ∈ H as H is normal and we have (gN )(hN )(gN )−1 = (gN )( ...
