I do understand every subset of a totally ordered set must be a total order as each a, b in the totally ordered set follows either aRb or bRa.
I don’t understand what the phrase “for the restriction of the order on X” means? Can anyone explain.
An order in a set X is a relation between elements of X, this is, a subset R of the Cartesian product X × X that satisfies the axioms of order (or total order, etc.).
If Y is a subset of X, the restriction to Y of the order on X is the intersection R ∩ Y×Y of the relation R with the subset Y×Y ⊆ X×X.
In other words, is the same order, but restricted to the subset Y.
Related
For an experiment I need to pseudo randomize a vector of 100 trials of stimulus categories, 80% of which are category A, 10% B, and 10% C. The B trials have at least two non-B trials between each other, and the C trials must come after two A trials and have two A trials following them.
At first I tried building a script that randomized a vector and sort of "popped" out the trials that were not where they should be, and put them in a space in the vector where there was a long series of A trials. I'm worried though that this is overcomplicated and will create an endless series of unforeseen errors that will need to be debugged, as well as it not being random enough.
After that I tried building a script which simply shuffles the vector until it reaches the criteria, which seems to require less code. However now that I have spent several hours on it, I am wondering if these criteria aren't too strict for this to make sense, meaning that it would take forever for the vector to shuffle before it actually met the criteria.
What do you think is the simplest way to handle this problem? Additionally, which would be the best shuffle function to use, since Shuffle in psychtoolbox seems to not be working correctly?
The scope of this question moves much beyond language-specific constructs, and involves a good understanding of probability and permutation/combinations.
An approach to solving this question is:
Create blocks of vectors, such that each block is independent to be placed anywhere.
Randomly allocate these blocks to get a final random vector satisfying all constraints.
Part 0: Category A
Since category A has no constraints imposed on it, we will go to the next category.
Part 1: Make category C independent
The only constraint on category C is that it must have two A's before and after. Hence, we first create random groups of 5 vectors, of the pattern A A C A A.
At this point, we have an array of A vectors (excluding blocks), blocks of A A C A A vectors, and B vectors.
Part 2: Resolving placement of B
The constraint on B is that two consecutive Bs must have at-least 2 non-B vectors between them.
Visualize as follows: Let's pool A and A A C A A in one array, X. Let's place all Bs in a row (suppose there are 3 Bs):
s0 B s1 B s2 B s3
Where s is the number of vectors between each B. Hence, we require that s1, s2 be at least 2, and overall s0 + s1 + s2 + s3 equal to number of vectors in X.
The task is then to choose random vectors from X and assign them to each s. At the end, we finally have a random vector with all categories shuffled, satisfying the constraints.
P.S. This can be mapped to the classic problem of finding a set of random numbers that add up to a certain sum, with constraints.
It is easier to reduce the constrained sum problem to one with no constraints. This can be done as:
s0 B s1 t1 B s2 t2 B s3
Where t1 and t2 are chosen from X just enough to satisfy constraints on B, and s0 + s1 + s2 + s3 equal to number of vectors in X not in t.
Implementation
Implementing the same in MATLAB could benefit from using cell arrays, and this algorithm for the random numbers of constant sum.
You would also need to maintain separate pools for each category, and keep building blocks and piece them together.
Really, this is not trivial but also not impossible. This is the approach you could try, if you want to step aside from brute-force search like you have tried before.
I'm rather confused about the definition of 3NF.
Let R be a relation with attribute set X.
Suppose Y -> A is a functional dependency where A is a non-prime attribute and Y is a subset of X.
If Y is a proper subset of any candidate key for R, then the relation is not in 3NF (and not even in 2NF) because this is a partial dependency, which is not permitted in 2NF (and by extension 3NF).
If Y is a non-prime attribute, the relation is not in 3NF because this is a transitive dependency of the non-prime attribute A on any candidate key through the non-prime attribute Y.
But what if Y is a set containing both prime and non-prime attributes? What if A is a subset of Y? What if Y contains only prime attributes, but those prime attributes come from different keys of R so that Y is not a proper subset of any particular key of R? What if Y contains only, but multiple non-prime attributes? Which of these cases violates the requirements of 3NF and why?
TL;DR Get definitions straight.
To know whether a case violates 3NF you have to look at the criteria used in some definition.
Your question is rather like asking, I know an even number is one that is divisible by 2 or one whose decimal representation ends in 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8, but what if it's three times a square? Well, you have to use the definition--show that the given conditions imply that it's divisible by two or that its decimal representation ends in one of those digits. Why do you even care about other properties than the ones in the definition?
When some FDs (functional dependencies) hold, others must also hold. We say the latter are implied by the former. So when given FDs hold usually tons of others also hold. So one or more arbitrary FDs holding doesn't necessarily tell you anything about any normal forms might hold. Eg when U is a superset of V, U → V must hold; such FDs are called trivial because they are implied by any collection of FDs. Eg when U → V, every superset of U determines every subset of V. Armstrong's axioms are some rules that can be mechanically applied to find all FDs that hold. There are algorithms to find a canonical/minimal/irreducible cover for a given set, a set of FDs that imply all those in it with no proper subset that does. There are also algorithms to determine whether a relation satisfies certain NFs (normal forms), and to decompose them into components with higher NFs when they're not.
Sometimes we think there is a case that the definition doesn't handle but really we have got the definition wrong.
The definition you are trying to refer to for a relation being in 3NF actually requires that there be no transitive functional dependence of a non-prime attribute on a candidate key.
In your non-3NF example you should say there is a transitive FD, not "this is a transitive FD", because the violating FD is of the form CK → A not Y → A. Also, U → V is transitive when there is an X where U → X AND X → V AND NOT X → V. It doesn't matter whether X is a prime attribute.
PS It's not very helpful to ask "why" something is or isn't so in mathematics. We describe a situation in terms of some givens, and a bunch of things follow. We can say that if certain of the givens weren't so then that thing wouldn't be so. But if certain other givens weren't so then it might also not be so. We can give a proof that something is or isn't so as "why" but it's not the only proof.
I am reading about Universal hashing on integers. The prerequisite and mandatory precondition seems to be that we choose a prime number p greater than the set of all possible keys.
I am not clear on this point.
If our set of keys are of type int then this means that the prime number needs to be of the next bigger data type e.g. long.
But eventually whatever we get as the hash would need to be down-casted to an int to index the hash table. Doesn't this down-casting affect the quality of the Universal Hashing (I am referring to the distribution of the keys over the buckets) somehow?
If our set of keys are integers then this means that the prime number
needs to be of the next bigger data type e.g. long.
That is not a problem. Sometimes it is necessary otherwise the hash family cannot be universal. See below for more information.
But eventually whatever we get as the hash would need to be
down-casted to an int to index the hash table.
Doesn't this down-casting affect the quality of the Universal Hashing
(I am referring to the distribution of the keys over the buckets)
somehow?
The answer is no. I will try to explain.
Whether p has another data type or not is not important for the hash family to be universal. Important is that p is equal or larger than u (the maximum integer of the universe of integers). It is important that p is big enough (i.e. >= u).
A hash family is universal when the collision probability is equal or
smaller than 1/m.
So the idea is to hold that constraint.
The value of p, in theory, can be as big as a long or more. It just needs to be an integer and prime.
u is the size of the domain/universe (or the number of keys). Given the universe U = {0, ..., u-1}, u denotes the size |U|.
m is the number of bins or buckets
p is a prime which must be equal or greater than n
the hash family is defined as H = {h(a,b)(x)} with h(a,b)(x) = ((a * x + b) mod p) mod m. Note that a and b are randomly chosen integers (from all possible integers, so theoretically can be larger than p) modulo a prime p (which can make them either smaller or larger than m, the number of bins/buckets); but here too the data type (domain of values does not matter). See Hashing integers on Wikipedia for notation.
Follow the proof on Wikipedia and you conclude that the collision probability is _p/m_ * 1/(p-1) (the underscores mean to truncate the decimals). For p >> m (p considerably bigger than m) the probability tends to 1/m (but this does not mean that the probability would be better the larger p is).
In other terms answering your question: p being a bigger data type is not a problem here and can be even required. p has to be equal or greater than u and a and b have to be randomly chosen integers modulo p, no matter the number of buckets m. With these constraints you can construct a universal hash family.
Maybe a mathematical example could help
Let U be the universe of integers that correspond to unsigned char (in C for example). Then U = {0, ..., 255}
Let p be (next possible) prime equal or greater than 256. Note that p can be any of these types (short, int, long be it signed or unsigned). The point is that the data type does not play a role (In programming the type mainly denotes a domain of values.). Whether 257 is short, int or long doesn't really matter here for the sake of correctness of the mathematical proof. Also we could have chosen a larger p (i.e. a bigger data type); this does not change the proof's correctness.
The next possible prime number would be 257.
We say we have 25 buckets, i.e. m = 25. This means a hash family would be universal if the collision probability is equal or less than 1/25, i.e. approximately 0.04.
Put in the values for _p/m_ * 1/(p-1): _257/25_ * 1/256 = 10/256 = 0.0390625 which is smaller than 0.04. It is a universal hash family with the chosen parameters.
We could have chosen m = u = 256 buckets. Then we would have a collision probability of 0.003891050584, which is smaller than 1/256 = 0,00390625. Hash family is still universal.
Let's try with m being bigger than p, e.g. m = 300. Collision probability is 0, which is smaller than 1/300 ~= 0.003333333333. Trivial, we had more buckets than keys. Still universal, no collisions.
Implementation detail example
We have the following:
x of type int (an element of |U|)
a, b, p of type long
m we'll see later in the example
Choose p so that it is bigger than the max u (element of |U|), p is of type long.
Choose a and b (modulo p) randomly. They are of type long, but always < p.
For an x (of type int from U) calculate ((a*x+b) mod p). a*x is of type long, (a*x+b) is also of type long and so ((a*x+b) mod p is also of type long. Note that ((a*x+b) mod p)'s result is < p. Let's denote that result h_a_b(x).
h_a_b(x) is now taken modulo m, which means that at this step it depends on the data type of m whether there will be downcasting or not. However, it does not really matter. h_a_b(x) is < m, because we take it modulo m. Hence the value of h_a_b(x) modulo m fits into m's data type. In case it has to be downcasted there won't be a loss of value. And so you have mapped a key to a bin/bucket.
If L is a regular language, then there exists a constant n (which depends on L) such that for every string w in the language L, such that the length of w is greater than or equal to n, we can divide w into three strings, w = xyz.
w = length of string. n = Number of States.
Why should we pick w greater than or equal to n?
and what is Pumping length?
If you look at the complete statement of the lemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_lemma_for_regular_languages), you can see that it is actually stating that every string is formed by a prefix x, a part that can be repeated any number of times y and a suffix z. Now it is obvious that, in the shortest case (when the repeating part is taken only once), the length of w equals the number of states needed for the language. This Wikipedia image is very useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pumping-Lemma_xyz_svg.svg
You seem to be misunderstanding the lemma (which you also have not stated completely), and mixing aspects of a proof with what you did state. The lemma says that for every regular language L, there is a constant p such that every string of at least p symbols that belongs to L has a non-empty substring of length no greater than p that can be "pumped", always yielding another element of L. The constant p is the (a) "pumping length".
This can be proved by observing that if a language is regular then there is a finite state automaton that accepts it, and taking p to be the number of states in that automaton (details omitted).
That does not imply, however, that the number of states in the smallest FSA the recognizes a given regular language is the smallest possible pumping length for that language. For instance, consider the language consisting of the union of { an } and { bn } for all n. You need a four-state FSA to recognize this language, but its minimum pumping length is 1.
I have read much in textbooks and browsed a lot of pages on the internet but I can't understand how functions/operators like min, max, count, ... that aggregate over a relation/table or groups of tuples/rows in a relation/table are built with basic operations such as ∪ (union), ∩ (intersection), x (join), - (minus), π (projection), ....
Can anyone show me how to express these functions/operators with relational algebra?
Computing functions in relation algebra are not fully included yet.
In relational algebra the aggregation operation over a schema (A1, A2, ... An) is written as follows:
G1, G2, ..., Gm g f1(A1'), f2(A2'), ..., fk(Ak') (r)
where each Aj', 1 ≤ j ≤ k, is one of the original attributes Ai, 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
The attributes preceding the g are grouping attributes, which function like a "group by" clause in SQL. Then there are an arbitrary number of aggregation functions applied to individual attributes. The operation is applied to an arbitrary relation r. The grouping attributes are optional, and if they are not supplied, the aggregation functions are applied across the entire relation to which the operation is applied.
Let's assume that we have a table named Account with three columns, namely Account_Number, Branch_Name and Balance. We wish to find the maximum balance of each branch. This is accomplished by Branch_NameGMax(Balance)(Account). To find the highest balance of all accounts regardless of branch, we could simply write GMax(Balance)(Account).