English

Finite Representability of Semigroups with Demonic Refinement

Logic in Computer Science 2021-05-31 v1 Logic

Abstract

Composition and demonic refinement \sqsubseteq of binary relations are defined by \begin{align*} (x, y)\in (R;S)&\iff \exists z((x, z)\in R\wedge (z, y)\in S) R\sqsubseteq S&\iff (dom(S)\subseteq dom(R) \wedge R\restriction_{dom(S)}\subseteq S) \end{align*} where dom(S)={x:y(x,y)S}dom(S)=\{x:\exists y (x, y)\in S\} and Rdom(S)R\restriction_{dom(S)} denotes the restriction of RR to pairs (x,y)(x, y) where xdom(S)x\in dom(S). Demonic calculus was introduced to model the total correctness of non-deterministic programs and has been applied to program verification. We prove that the class R(,;)R(\sqsubseteq, ;) of abstract (,)(\leq, \circ) structures isomorphic to a set of binary relations ordered by demonic refinement with composition cannot be axiomatised by any finite set of first-order (,)(\leq, \circ) formulas. We provide a fairly simple, infinite, recursive axiomatisation that defines R(,;)R(\sqsubseteq, ;). We prove that a finite representable (,)(\leq, \circ) structure has a representation over a finite base. This appears to be the first example of a signature for binary relations with composition where the representation class is non-finitely axiomatisable, but where the finite representations for finite representable structures property holds.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2009.06970,
  title  = {Finite Representability of Semigroups with Demonic Refinement},
  author = {Robin Hirsch and Jaš Šemrl},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06970},
  year   = {2021}
}
R2 v1 2026-06-23T18:33:06.956Z