Re: Post production system

1. Could you give a link to a definition of the Post production system? Does Post canonical system sound similar?

2. Is the empty string a wff and theorem? If so, then it should probably be the axiom.

3. I don't see where the problem statement says that all A's must follow B's.

Re: Post production system

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**emakarov** 1. Could you give a link to a definition of the Post production system? Does

Post canonical system sound similar?

Here is a link to the definition:

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/2...production.jpg

Quote:

3. I don't see where the problem statement says that all A's must follow B's.

No, it doesn't say. That's why I'm a bit confused about what notation to use. It could be

or .

Which one should I use? :confused:

Quote:

2. Is the empty string a wff and theorem? If so, then it should probably be the axiom.

Yes, for i=j=0, we have 1. So the empty string is a theorem.

Re: Post production system

Re: Post production system

Thanks. One still needs to know the possible shape of inference rules. If rules can be arbitrary, then we could have an empty string (or B) as an axiom and just one inference rule: from the empty string derive any string that has the number of A's that is divisible by 3. Alternatively, consider the same axiom and two rules: given a string, insert a B in an arbitrary place, and given a string, insert 3 A's in arbitrary places. The problem does ask for simple rules, but "simple" is a little ambiguous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

**demode** It is a theorem but I don't think the empty string is a well-formed formula (with strings from the given alphabet, in this case {A,B}). Isn't it?

All theorems are wffs by definition, so the empty string can't be a theorem and not a wff. It's a question of definition, not mathematics: either you are considering all strings or only nonempty ones.

Quote:

But for this problem can't we take the axiom to be

. And use only one rule of inference:

1. From

infer

.

And since all of the theorems are of the form

, the can be derived using that rule. Right?

I don't think you can derive . I am wondering if the original problem requires *all*, or only some, strings where the number of A's is divisible by 3 to be theorems (presumable, all). More importantly, ABABA should also be a theorem.