I want to prove that every locally confluent rewrite system is confluent. Since I know very little about rewrite systems and logic, I tried looking at it as a digraph with no external infinite paths and with the locally confluent property but I could only prove it in very specific cases such as when every path in the digraph has length two. Any hints to proving this would be very helpful.
2026-03-25 06:02:20.1774418540
a locally confluent and terminatting rewrite system is complete
108 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in DISCRETE-MATHEMATICS
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What's $P(A_1\cap A_2\cap A_3\cap A_4) $?
- The function $f(x)=$ ${b^mx^m}\over(1-bx)^{m+1}$ is a generating function of the sequence $\{a_n\}$. Find the coefficient of $x^n$
- Given is $2$ dimensional random variable $(X,Y)$ with table. Determine the correlation between $X$ and $Y$
- Given a function, prove that it's injective
- Surjective function proof
- How to find image of a function
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Solving discrete recursion equations with min in the equation
- Determine the marginal distributions of $(T_1, T_2)$
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in DIRECTED-GRAPHS
- Graph Theory with Directed Graph and Dominance Order
- Prove that the subgraph is a complete directed graph
- Digraph with no even cycle
- How can one construct a directed expander graph with varying degree distributions (not d-regular)?
- Maximum number of edges in a DAG with special condition
- question about the min cut max flow theorm
- Remove cycles from digraph without losing information (aka howto 'dagify' a digraph)
- Planarity of a “cell graph”
- Strongly regular digraph
- A procedure for sampling paths in a directed acyclic graph
Related Questions in REWRITING-SYSTEMS
- a locally confluent and terminatting rewrite system is complete
- In rewiring systems do definitions creates new rewrite laws or an alias? And is this a meaningful question?
- Need help isolating variables (average translational energy equation)
- Formula Rearrangement
- If a relation is terminating, then well-founded induction holds.
- Uniqueness of the result of rewritting an algebraic expression using distributivity rule
- Combinatorial applications of diamond lemma
- Homological invariance met03
- Prove confluence
- Special Sequences, homework
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The basic technique is essentially filling diamonds. Local confluence says that whenever we have $b\gets a\to c$ we obtain a $d$ such that $b\to^*d\gets^*c$. This is often drawn as a diamond with $a$ at the top and $d$ at the bottom. For confluence, we want to extend this to assuming $b\gets^* a\to^* c$, meaning we have multiple steps to get to $b$ and $c$. In this case it can be pictured as a grid of diamonds, where the assumption fills in all the inner diamonds until we get down to the $d$ we want at the bottom.
That's only a sketch, but it works... provided that we know that $b\gets a\to c$ implies there exists $b\to d\gets c$, with no multiple steps at the bottom of the diamond. With multiple steps, as in our assumption of local confluence, each diamond we complete produces even more diamonds to fill, which themselves may make more work than they solve. This is the purpose of the second assumption, termination, which ensures that the total amount of work to do is finite.
How can we write this formally? Every term has a tree (well, dag) of rewrites that stem from it. Since there are no infinite paths in this tree, we can assign an ordinal $h(a)$ to each term $a$ such that $a\to b$ implies $h(a)>h(b)$. An easy way to construct this measure is to set $$h(a)=\sup_{b \mathrm{\ s.t.\ }a\to b}h(b)+1.$$
Proof: By induction on $h(a)$. If $a=b$ then take $d=c$. If $a=c$ then take $d=b$. Otherwise we have $b\gets^* b'\gets a\to c'\to^* c$ (see figure), and from local confluence we have $b'\to^*d'\gets^*c'$. But now, since $a\to b'$ and $a\to c'$, we have $h(b')<h(a)$ and $h(c')<h(a)$, as well as $b\gets^*b'\to^*d'\gets^*c'\to^*c$, so from the induction hypothesis applied to $b'$ and $c'$, we have $e,f$ such that $b\to^*e\gets^*d'\to^*f\gets^*c$. Finally, since $a\to b'\to^*d'$ we have $h(a)>h(b)\ge h(d')$, so we can apply the inductive hypothesis once more on $e\gets^*d'\to^*f$ to get $d$ such that $e\to^*d\gets^*f$, and so $b\to^*e\to^*d\gets^*f\gets^* c$ and $d$ is as desired.
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} &&&& a\\ &&&\!\!\!\!\swarrow\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\searrow\!\!\!\!\\ && b' &&&& c'\\ &\!\!\!\!\swarrow^*\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\searrow^*\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\swarrow^*\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\searrow^*\!\!\!\!\\ b &&&& d' &&&& c\\ & \!\!\!\!\searrow^*\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\swarrow^*\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\searrow^*\!\!\!\! &&\!\!\!\!\swarrow^*\!\!\!\!\\ && e &&&& f\\ &&&\!\!\!\!\searrow^*\!\!\!\! && \!\!\!\!\swarrow^*\!\!\!\!\\ &&&& d \end{array}$$
An alternative to the proof using the ordinal function $h(a)$ is to proceed by contradiction, constructing an infinite path starting at $a$. Suppose that $a$ fails the theorem. If $b',c',d'$ all satisfy the inductive hypothesis then we are golden by the above proof. Otherwise one of these is a counterexample (say $d'$) and we have a path $a\to^+d'$ (where $\to^+$ means that the path consists of one or more reductions). We can state this as a theorem: for any counterexample point $a$, there exists another counterexample point $a'$ which is reachable from $a$ by one or more reductions. By iterating this we obtain an infinite path $a\to^+a'\to^+a''\to\dots$, contradicting termination.