Characterizing Definability of Second-Order Generalized Quantifiers

  • Juha Kontinen
  • Jakub Szymanik
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6642)

Abstract

We study definability of second-order generalized quantifiers. We show that the question whether a second-order generalized quantifier \({\mathcal{Q}}_1\) is definable in terms of another quantifier \({\mathcal{Q}}_2\), the base logic being monadic second-order logic, reduces to the question if a quantifier \({\mathcal{Q}}^{\star}_1\) is definable in \({\rm FO}({\mathcal{Q}}^{\star}_2,<,+,\times)\) for certain first-order quantifiers \({\mathcal{Q}}^{\star}_1\) and \({\mathcal{Q}}^{\star}_2\). We use our characterization to show new definability and non-definability results for second-order generalized quantifiers. In particular, we show that the monadic second-order majority quantifier Most1 is not definable in second-order logic.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mostowski, A.: On a generalization of quantifiers. Fund. Math. 44, 12–36 (1957)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lindström, P.: First order predicate logic with generalized quantifiers. Theoria 32, 186–195 (1966)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Väänänen, J.: Generalized quantifiers, an introduction. In: Väänänen, J. (ed.) ESSLLI 1997. LNCS, vol. 1754, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebbinghaus, H.D., Flum, J.: Finite model theory. In: Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peters, S., Westerståhl, D.: Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fagin, R.: Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets. In: Complexity of Computation (Proc. SIAM-AMS Sympos. Appl. Math., New York, 1973). SIAM–AMS Proc., vol. VII, pp. 43–73. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1974)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burtschick, H.J., Vollmer, H.: Lindström quantifiers and leaf language definability. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 9(3), 277–294 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andersson, A.: On second-order generalized quantifiers and finite structures. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 115(1-3), 1–32 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kontinen, J.: Definability of second order generalized quantifiers. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kontinen, J.: Definability of second order generalized quantifiers. Arch. Math. Logic 49(3), 379–398 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kontinen, J.: The hierarchy theorem for second order generalized quantifiers. J. Symbolic Logic 71(1), 188–202 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bovet, D.P., Crescenzi, P., Silvestri, R.: A uniform approach to define complexity classes. Theor. Comput. Sci. 104(2), 263–283 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peichl, T., Vollmer, H.: Finite automata with generalized acceptance criteria. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 4, 179–192 (2001)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galota, M., Vollmer, H.: A generalization of the Büchi-Elgot-Trakhtenbrot-theorem. In: Fribourg, L. (ed.) CSL 2001 and EACSL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2142, pp. 355–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Büchi, J.R., Elgot, C.C.: Decision problems of weak second order arithmetics and finite automata, Part I. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 5, 834 (1958)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Büchi, J.R.: On a decision method in restricted second-order arithmetic. In: Proceedings Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Sciences 1960. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1962)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trakhtenbrot, B.A.: Finite automata and logic of monadic predicates. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 140, 326–329 (1961) (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    More, M., Olive, F.: Rudimentary languages and second-order logic. Math. Logic Quart. 43(3), 419–426 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torán, J.: Structural properties of the counting hierarchies. PhD thesis, Facultat d’Informatica de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kontinen, J., Szymanik, J.: A remark on collective quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(2), 131–140 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szymanik, J.: Quantifiers in TIME and SPACE. Computational Complexity of Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Immerman, N.: Descriptive complexity. In: Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Springer, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stockmeyer, L.J.: The polynomial-time hierarchy. Theor. Comput. Sci. 3(1), 1–22 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parberry, I., Schnitger, G.: Parallel computation with threshold functions. J. Comput. System Sci. 36(3), 278–302 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barrington, D.A.M., Immerman, N., Straubing, H.: On uniformity within \({\rm NC}^{1}\). J. Comput. System Sci. 41(3), 274–306 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kontinen, J., Niemistö, H.: Extensions of MSO and the monadic counting hierarchy. Information and Computation 209(1), 1–19 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kontinen, J.: A logical characterization of the counting hierarchy. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 10(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Furst, M.L., Saxe, J.B., Sipser, M.: Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy. Math. Systems Theory 17(1), 13–27 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ajtai, M.: \(\Sigma ^{1}_{1}\)-formulae on finite structures. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 24(1), 1–48 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barrington, D.A.M., Immerman, N., Lautemann, C., Schweikardt, N., Thérien, D.: First-order expressibility of languages with neutral letters or: The Crane Beach conjecture. J. Comput. System Sci. 70(2), 101–127 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smolensky, R.: Algebraic methods in the theory of lower bounds for Boolean circuit complexity. In: Proc. 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 77–82. ACM Press, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winter, Y.: Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. The MIT Press, London (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hesse, W., Allender, E., Barrington, D.A.M.: Uniform constant-depth threshold circuits for division and iterated multiplication. J. Comput. System Sci. 65(4), 695–716 (2002); Special issue on complexity (2001) (Chicago, IL)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juha Kontinen
    • 1
  • Jakub Szymanik
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations