Bokep Terbaru Bentuk tubuh Kepercayaan Papua

Bokep Terbaru Menyuarakan Jua

Bokep Terbaru "Setiap pejabat negara sudah melakukan sumpah jabatan pada saat dilantik, maka dalam menjalankan pekerjaan harus ingat dengan Tuhan, dan wajib mengikuti peraturan dalam undang-undang yang berlaku," katanya semacam dilansir Sela.

Bokep Terbaru Bagi Alberth yang saja Amir Konvensi Koneksi Umat manusia Beriktikad (FKUB) Kabupaten Jayapura itu pihaknya membujuk semoga mahajana kagak melayani provokasi analitis operasi ketetapan yang dilakukan akibat KPK atas Pembesar Lukas Enembe.

Bokep Terbaru "Kami meyakini KPK bertindak profesional terhadap Gubernur Lukas Enembe sebagaimana telah ditunjukkan lembaga antirasuah itu terhadap para kepala daerah (Bupati) di wilayah Papua yang pernah terlibat kasus korupsi," ujarnya.

Bokep Mutakhir Setelah ditetapkan laksana terdakwa gratifikasi sebanding Rp 1 miliar, waktu ini KPK menyelami kontribusi Gubernur Papua, Lukas Enembe analitis sebanyak telaahan manipulasi lainnya.

Bokep Mutakhir Responsif
Bokep Terbelakang Beliau jabar cara penegakan lembaga yang dilakukan kepada Gubernur ataupun untuk langgayan wedana di Papua ialah sesuai dasar sehingga patut diproses setakar proses yang jadi.

Bokep Mutakhir Doi memper-banyak pihaknya serta berhajat agar tokoh umum mesti memiliki tindakan karatan bersama mempersalahkan segenap yang dilakukan lagi kooperatif melalui paksa pendiri perintah ketika menamatkan masalah tiorem.

Bokep Terbelakang Segan Kekuasaan
Bokep Mutakhir Selain koope...

Transcript

1. On proving consistency of equational theories in bounded arithmetic Arnold Beckmann and Yoriyuki Yamagata
2. Polynomial hierarchy (PH) P NP Σ! " ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ PTIME decision problems, Σ# " Nondeterministic PTIME decision problems Nondeterministic computation using Σ!$% " -oracle Σ!"# $ ≠ Σ! $ ? e.g., P ≠NP?
3. Bounded formulas ∃𝑥% ≤ 𝑡%∀𝑥& ≤ 𝑡&𝜙 where 𝜙 ∈ Σ!$% ' Σ# ' Σ% ' Σ! ' ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ PTIME predicates 𝑃𝑢% … 𝑢( ∃𝑥 ≤ 𝑡% 𝑃𝑢% … 𝑢( P NP Σ! " ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ represented by 𝑡! 𝑥", … 𝑥# ≤ 𝑃( 𝑥" , … , 𝑥# ) where |𝑥| is a length of bits and 𝑃 is a polynomial
4. Bounded arithmetic BASIC + Σ! '-LIND S& # S& % S& ! ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ ⊆ BASIC + Σ# '-LIND BASIC + Σ% '-LIND Σ! '-LIND: Induction of formula 𝜙(𝑥) ∈ Σ! ' on the bit length of 𝑥
5. Bounded Arithmetic: Language Constant: 0 Functions: S, +, ×, | # |, ! " , # Relation: =, ≤, ≥ |𝑛|: bit length of b ! . : division by 2, round to zero 𝑎 # 𝑏 = 2|/|0|1| (note 2/ cannot be defined) Meaning
6. Bounded Arithmetic: bounded formulas ∀𝑥 ≤ 𝑡, ∃𝑥 ≤ 𝑡: bounded quantifiers ∀𝑥 ≤ |𝑡|, ∃𝑥 ≤ |𝑡|: sharply bounded quantifiers ∃𝑥# ≤ 𝑡# ∀𝑥" ≤ 𝑡" … ∃𝑥$ ≤ 𝑡$ 𝐴(𝑥# , … , 𝑥$ ) if 𝑘 is odd or ∃𝑥# ≤ 𝑡# ∀𝑥" ≤ 𝑡" … ∀𝑥$ ≤ 𝑡$ 𝐴(𝑥# , … , 𝑥$ ) if 𝑘 is even Σ$ %-formulas: roughly speaking,
7. Bounded Arithmetic: 𝑆2 3 • BASIC axioms: many, non-trivial axioms but omitted • Σ& % − 𝑃𝐼𝑁𝐷 𝐴 0 ∧ ∀𝑥(𝐴 𝑥 2 → 𝐴 𝑥 ) → ∀𝑥𝐴(𝑥) if 𝐴 𝑥 ∈ Σ& %
8. Relation of bounded arithmetic and PH Fact 1 𝑓 is a Σ23# 1 -definable function of 𝑆. 23# ⟺ 𝑓 is a Σ2 $-function Fact 2 S. 2 = 𝑆. 23# ⟹ 𝑆. ⊢ PH = Σ 234 $ where 𝑆. = ⋃ 𝑆. 2 Open Problem S" & ≠ 𝑆" &'#?
9. 𝑻 ⊢ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬(𝑬) Theory 𝑬 𝑻 ⊬ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬(𝑬) ? PV w/o induction + propositional logic + BASIC axioms 𝑇 = 𝑆$ " (Buss and Ignjatocvic 1995) 𝑇 = 𝑆$ $ (Yamagata 2018) 𝑇 = 𝑆& % PV w/o induction + substitution 𝑇 = 𝑆$ " (Beckmann 2002) PV w/o induction, w/o substitution An approach using consistency proofs New Make ? weaker as possible Strong theory Weak theory
10. Pure Equational Theory w/ Substitution 𝑓 𝜀, 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! = 𝑔A 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! 𝑓 0𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! = 𝑔B 𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! , 𝑓(𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! ) 𝑓 1𝑥 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! = 𝑔# 𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! , 𝑓(𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑥! ) Recursive definitions ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑡 𝑡 = 𝑢 ⊢ 𝑢 = 𝑡 𝑡 = 𝑢, 𝑢 = 𝑠 ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑠 𝑡 = 𝑢 ⊢ 𝑠(𝑡) = 𝑠(𝑢) Equational rules 𝑡 𝑥 = 𝑢 𝑥 ⊢ 𝑡 𝑠 = 𝑢(𝑠) Substitution Binary string
11. Consistency proof using truth values 1. Define Val( 𝑡 , 𝜌): the value of 𝑡 under assignment 𝜌 2. Define “𝑡 = 𝑢 is true” by “Val 𝑡 , 𝜌 = Val( 𝑢 , 𝜌)” 3. Prove if 𝑡# = 𝑢# , … , 𝑡C = 𝑢C ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑢 and 𝑡# = 𝑢# , … , 𝑡C = 𝑢C are true, then 𝑡 = 𝑢 is true 4. Beause 0 = 1 is not true, ⊢ 0 = 1 never be proven A problem of this approach is Val( 𝑡 , 𝜌) is not PTIME However, we exploit the fact that “polynomial approximation” of Val( 𝑡 , 𝜌) is enough to show the consistency
12. A bit of domain theory: dcpo 𝑃 dcpo 𝑃 is a poset which has a supremum of any directed set 𝑝# 𝑝. 𝑆 = p# ⊔ 𝑝. ∈ 𝑆 H 𝑆
13. compact element 𝑝 ⨆𝑆 ⊒ p ⟹ ∃𝑞 ∈ 𝑆, 𝑞 ⊒ p 𝑞 𝑆 = H 𝑆 p
14. Algebraicity of 𝑃 𝑃 is algebraic ⇔ 𝑝 = ⨆{ 𝑞 ∣ 𝑞 ⊑ 𝑝, 𝑞: compact } for for any 𝑝 ∈ 𝑃 𝑝 𝑞# 𝑞. 𝑞4 𝑞D compact elements
15. Scott domain Nonempty poset 𝑃 is called “Scott domain” if •𝑃 is a dcpo •𝑃 is bounded complete, i.e., all bounded subsets have a supremum • 𝑃 is algebraic
16. Function space as Scott domain 𝑓: 𝑃 → 𝑄 is monotone if 𝑎 ⊑ 𝑏 ⇒ 𝑓 𝑎 ⊑ 𝑓 𝑏 𝑓: monotone is (Scott) continuous if 𝑓 ⨆𝑆 = ⨆𝑓(𝑆) Definition Fact 𝑃 → 𝑄 (set of continuous maps) forms a Scott domain by 𝑓 ⊑ 𝑔(∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑃, 𝑓 𝑎 ⊑ 𝑔(𝑎)) A continuous map is approximated by compact elements Meaning
17. Consistent set 𝑆 𝑆 : a finite set of pairs of compact elements 𝑎 ↦ 𝑏 satisfying 𝑎# ↦ 𝑏# , 𝑎" ↦ 𝑏" ∈ 𝑆 and ∃𝑐, 𝑎# , 𝑎" ⊑ 𝑐 then ∃𝑑, 𝑏# , 𝑏" ⊑ 𝑑 𝑎! 𝑎" 𝑐 𝑏! 𝑏" 𝑑
18. Compact elements of 𝑃 → 𝑄 𝑓 ∈ 𝑃 → 𝑄 is compact if there is a consistent set 𝑆 and 𝑓 𝑥 = ⨆{ 𝑏 ∣ 𝑎 ↦ 𝑏 ∈ 𝑆 ∧ 𝑎 ⊑ 𝑥} 𝑎! 𝑎" 𝑥 𝑏! 𝑏" 𝑓(𝑥)
19. Our strategy to prove 𝑆2 ` ⊢ PETS • Define a domain • Show compacts elements approximating standard functions are enough to interpret a given deduction in PETS • Represents compacts elements by consistent sets • Show all operations on consistent sets are PTIME 𝐥(𝑠): number of symbols in an object 𝑠 (formula etc.) Definition
20. Scott domain 𝔻 ∗ 𝜀 0 ∗ 1 ∗ 0𝜀 00 ∗ 01 ∗ 1𝜀 10 ∗ 11 ∗ ∗ : unknown value, the order (⊑) is a refinement relation
21. Size measure Size measure 𝐠 𝐠 𝑣 = number of symbols in 𝑣 ∈ 𝔻 𝐠 𝜌 = max {𝐠 𝑣 ∣ 𝑣 = 𝜌 𝑥 for some 𝑥 ∈ dom(𝜌)} for assignment 𝜌 𝐠 𝑓 = max {𝐠 𝑣 , 𝐠 𝑤 ∣ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 ∈ 𝑓} for a consistent set 𝑓 Fact 𝐥(𝑣) ≤ 𝑃 𝐠 𝑣 , 𝜌 ≤ 𝑃 𝐠 𝜌 , #dom 𝜌 𝐥(𝑓) ≤ 𝑃 𝐠 𝑓 , #𝑓, ar 𝑓 where #𝑓 is a cardinality of 𝑓 and ar 𝑓 is arity of 𝑓
22. Frame 𝐹 ∈ 𝔽 Frame 𝐹 : assignments of a consistent sets to a function symbol other than 𝜀, 0, 1 𝔽 has an order by a pointwise order Definition Size measure 𝐠 𝐹 = max {𝐠 f ∣ 𝑓 ∈ dom(𝐹))} for 𝐹 ∈ 𝔽 𝐥(𝐹) ≤ 𝑃(#dom 𝐹 , max{#𝐹 𝑓 ∣ 𝑓 ∈ dom(𝐹)}, 𝐠 𝐹 , max{ar 𝑓 ∣ 𝑓 ∈ dom 𝐹 })
23. Term evaluation Val 𝜀 , 𝐹, 𝜌 = 𝜀, Val 𝑥 , 𝐹, 𝜌 = 𝜌 𝑥 Val 0𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 = 0 Val 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 Val 1𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 = 1 Val 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 Val 𝑓(𝑡) , 𝐹, 𝜌 = F 𝑓 (Val 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 where 𝐹 ∈ 𝔽 Definition Fact 1. Val 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 is monotone resp. 𝐹 and 𝜌 by point-wise order 2. 𝐠 Val 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 ≤ max 𝐠 𝜌 , 𝐠 𝐹 + 𝐥(𝑡) 3. Val 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 is PTIME resp. 𝑡 , 𝐹, 𝜌 4. Val 𝑡(𝑠) , 𝐹, 𝜌 = Val 𝑡(𝑥) , 𝐹, 𝜌[𝑥 ↦ Val 𝑠 , 𝐹, 𝜌 ]
24. Model 𝑀 ∈ 𝕄 𝑀 ∈ 𝔽 is a model if for each recursive axiom of 𝑓, Val 𝑓 𝜀, 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val( 𝑔A 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌) Val 𝑓 0𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val(⌈𝑔B 𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑓(𝑥, 𝑥# , … ⌉, 𝑀, 𝜌) Val 𝑓 1𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val(⌈𝑔# 𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑓(𝑥, 𝑥# , … ⌉, 𝑀, 𝜌) Remark: 𝑀 ∈ 𝔽 is Π# B Definition Theorem Model exists ∵ Empty frame 𝐹 is a model
25. Consistency proof Theorem 1 If PETS ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑠 and ∀𝑀 ∈ 𝕄, ∃𝑀(, 𝑀(( ∈ 𝕄 s.t. Val 𝑡 , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀(, 𝜌 Val 𝑡 , 𝑀′′, 𝜌 ⊒ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀, 𝜌 Theorem is Π) * Theorem cannot be an induction hypothesis
26. (𝜅, 𝒟)-Model 𝑀 ∈ 𝕄(𝜅, 𝒟) 𝑀 ∈ 𝔽 is a (𝜅, 𝒟)- model if 𝐠 𝑀 , … ≤ 𝜅 and Val 𝑓 𝜀, 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val( 𝑔A 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌) Val 𝑓 0𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val(⌈𝑔B 𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑓(𝑥, 𝑥# , … ⌉, 𝑀, 𝜌) Val 𝑓 1𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val(⌈𝑔# 𝑥, 𝑥# , … , 𝑓(𝑥, 𝑥# , … ⌉, 𝑀, 𝜌) for each recursive axiom in a derivation 𝒟 and 𝐠 𝜌 ≤ 𝜅 Definition (𝜅, 𝒟)-Model is Π# %-notion
27. Bounded version of theorem Theorem 2 ∀ 𝒟 : derivation, ∀𝑈: integer, 𝑈 ≥ 𝐥 𝒟 ∀ 𝒟* : sub-derivation of 𝒟, s. t. 𝒟* ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑠 ∀𝑀 ∈ 𝕄 𝜅, 𝒟 , 𝜅 ≤ 𝑈 − 𝐥(𝒟* ) ∀𝜌: assignment, 𝐠 𝜌 ≤ 𝑈 − 𝐥(𝒟* ) ∃𝑀(, 𝑀(( ∈ 𝕄(𝜅 + 𝐥 𝒟* , 𝒟) s.t. M ⊑ 𝑀( ∧ Val 𝑡 , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀(, 𝜌 M ⊑ 𝑀(( ∧ Val 𝑡 , 𝑀′′, 𝜌 ⊒ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀, 𝜌 The proof is induction on 𝒟* inside of 𝑆" ) I.H. Π) % Π# %
28. Consistency proof in 𝑆2 † Corollary PETS is consistent Assume 𝒟 ⊢ 0 = 1 Let 𝑈 = 𝐥 𝒟 + 𝑂(0), 𝒟* = 𝒟, 𝑀: empty frame, 𝜌: empty By theorem 2, 0 ⊑ 1 Contradiction
29. Proof strategy Induction on 𝒟* 1. Case analysis on the last rule of 𝒟* 2. Construct from 𝑀 to 𝑀(, 𝑀′′ 3. Check the 𝐠 𝑀′ , 𝐠 𝑀′′ ≤ 𝐠 𝑀 + 𝐥(𝒟* ) ← We omit this part Because the theorem 2 is Π) %-statement, the proof is carried out in 𝑆" )
30. Proof in 𝑆2 †: recursive definition ⊢ 𝑓 0𝑥 = 𝑔(𝑥, 𝑓 𝑥 ) 𝑀 𝑀′′ 𝑀(( 𝑓 ≔ 𝑀 𝑓 ∪ {0𝑣 ↦ 𝑀 𝑔 𝑣, 𝑀 𝑓 𝑣 } where 𝑣 = 𝜌(𝑥) 𝑀 𝑀# = 𝑀
31. Proof in 𝑆2 †: transitivity rule 𝑡 = 𝑢 𝑢 = 𝑠 𝑡 = 𝑠 𝑀 𝑀! 𝑀′ 𝑀 𝑀′
32. Proof in 𝑆2 † : compatibility rule 𝑡 = 𝑢 𝑠 𝑡 = 𝑠 𝑢 𝑀 𝑀′ 𝑀 𝑀′ Val 𝑠 𝑡 , 𝑀, 𝜌 = Val 𝑠 𝑥 , 𝑀, 𝜌 𝑥 ↦ Val 𝑡 , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑠 𝑥 , 𝑀, 𝜌 𝑥 ↦ Val 𝑢 , 𝑀E, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑠 𝑢 , 𝑀E, 𝜌
33. Proof in 𝑆2 † : substitution rule !(#)%&(#) ! ' %& ' 𝑀 𝑀′ 𝑀 𝑀′ Val 𝑡 𝑠 , 𝑀, 𝜌 = Val 𝑡 𝑥 , 𝑀, 𝜌 𝑥 ↦ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑢 𝑥 , 𝑀′, 𝜌 𝑥 ↦ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑢 𝑥 , 𝑀E, 𝜌 𝑥 ↦ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀E, 𝜌 = Val 𝑢 𝑠 , 𝑀E, 𝜌
34. Reduction from 𝑆2 † to 𝑆2 2 ⊢ " 0$ = &($, " $ ) ! !′′ !!! " ≔ ! " ∪ {0' ↦ ! ) ', ! " ' } where ' = -(/) ! !! = ! Observation: specific set of constructions are used in the proof updates Replace “∀𝑀 ∈ 𝕄 𝜅, 𝒟 ” to “∀ 𝜎: seq. of updates” and 𝑀 to 𝑀* ∗ 𝜎 Π# % Σ# %
35. Update 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 on a frame 𝐹 (Σ` Ž) 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 is update if • 𝑓: function symbol, 𝑣,𝑤 ∈ 𝔻 • 𝐠 𝑣, 𝑤 ≤ 𝜅 • there is an axiom 𝑓 ̅ 𝑡 = 𝑢 used in 𝒟 • there is an assignment 𝜌 satisfying 𝑣& = 𝜌(𝑡& ) for 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ ar 𝑓 and 𝑤 = Val 𝑢 , 𝐹, 𝜌 Fixed 𝐠 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 = max 𝐠 ̅ 𝑣 , 𝐠 w 𝐠 𝜎 = max 𝐠 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 ∈ 𝜎} for a seq. of updates 𝜎
36. • 𝐹 be a 𝜅-model of 𝒟 • 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 on a frame 𝐹 • 𝐹E = 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 → 𝑤 then 𝐹E is a 𝜅-model of 𝒟 and 𝐠 𝐹E = max{𝐠 𝐹 , 𝐠 y 𝒗), 𝐠(𝑤 } Proposition 𝐹E = 𝐹 ∗ 𝑓: ̅ 𝑣 ↦ 𝑤 is defined by • 𝐹E 𝑓 = 𝐹 𝑓 ∪ ̅ 𝑣 → 𝑤 otherwise same to 𝐹 𝐹 ∗ 𝜎 for seq. of updates 𝜎 is defined similarly Definition Model update
37. Consistency proof inside 𝑆2 2 Theorem 3 ∀ 𝒟 : derivation, ∀𝑈: integer, 𝑈 ≥ 𝐥 𝒟 , ∀𝑀 ∈ 𝕄 𝑈 − 𝐥 𝒟 , 𝒟 ∀ 𝒟* : sub-derivation of 𝒟, 𝒟* ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑠 ∀𝜌: assignment and ∀𝜎: updates, 𝐠 𝜎 , 𝐠 𝜌 ≤ 𝑈 − 𝐥 𝒟* , ∃𝜎(, 𝜎((, 𝐠 𝜎′ , 𝐠 𝜎′′ ≤ max 𝐠 𝜎 , 𝐠 𝜌 , 𝐠 𝐹 + 𝐥 𝒟* Val 𝑡 , 𝑀 ∗ 𝜎, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀 ∗ 𝜎 ∗ 𝜎′, 𝜌 Val 𝑡 , 𝑀,∗ 𝜎 ∗ 𝜎((, 𝜌 ⊒ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀 ∗ 𝜎, 𝜌 I.H. Π" % Σ# %
38. Reduction from 𝑆2 2 to 𝑆2 ` • Observation: Construction of 𝜎E, 𝜎EE from 𝜎 obtained from 𝒟B • Explicitly construct 𝜎E, 𝜎EE from 𝜎 • This removes existential quantifier ∃𝜎E, 𝜎EE... • I.H. becomes Π# 1
39. Instructions A sequence showing how 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 are modified by passing through a derivation Instruction: • A 𝑡 ⟶ 𝑢 , A 𝑡 ⟵ 𝑢 for any recursive axiom 𝑡 = 𝑢 • S ↑ 𝑠, ⁄ 𝑡 𝑥 , S ↓ 𝑠, ⁄ 𝑡 𝑥 , 𝑠, 𝑡: terms, 𝑥: variable Definition
40. Apply instructions to a model Φ A 𝑡 ⟶ 𝑢 , 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 ≔ 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 Φ A 𝑓(0𝑥) ⟵ 𝑔(𝑥, 𝑓 𝑥 ) , 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 ≔ 𝐹, 𝜎 ∗ 𝑓: 0𝑣 ↦ 𝑤, 𝜌 𝑣 = 𝜌 𝑥 𝑤 = 𝐹 ∗ 𝜎 𝑔 𝑣, 𝐹 ∗ 𝜎 𝑓 𝑣 Φ S ↑ 𝑠, ⁄ 𝑡 𝑥 , 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 ≔ 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 𝑥 ⟼ Val 𝑡, 𝐹 ∗ 𝜎, 𝜌 Φ S ↓ 𝑠, ⁄ 𝑡 𝑥 , 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 ≔ 𝐹, 𝜎, 𝜌 ↾+
41. Instruction seq. for a derivation 𝒟 𝑡 = 𝑢 Inst 𝒟 Inst(𝒟)
42. Instruction seq. for a defining axiom ⊢ 𝑓(0𝑥) = 𝑔(𝑥, 𝑓 𝑥 ) A[𝑓(𝑡) → 𝑢] A[𝑓(𝑡) ← 𝑢]
43. ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑡 The construction of Inst(𝒟) is same to Inst(𝒟) From here, we omit Inst(𝒟) Instruction seq. for a derivation
44. 𝑡 = 𝑢 𝑢 = 𝑡 𝜏 Instruction seq. for a derivation 𝜏
45. 𝑡 = 𝑢 𝑢 = 𝑠 𝑢 = 𝑠 𝜏# 𝜏" 𝜏! ∷ 𝜏" Instruction seq. for a derivation
46. 𝑡 = 𝑢 𝑠 𝑡 = 𝑠(𝑢) 𝜏 𝜏 Instruction seq. for a derivation
47. 𝑡(𝑥) = 𝑢(𝑥) 𝑡 𝑠 = 𝑢(𝑠) 𝜏 S ↑ 𝑡, ⁄ 𝑠 𝑥 :𝜏: S ↓ 𝑢, ⁄ 𝑠 𝑥 Instruction seq. for a derivation
48. Main lemma 𝑀 ∈ 𝕄 𝜅, 𝒟 , 𝜌: assign., 𝑀(, 𝜎′, 𝜌( = Φ 𝜏, 𝑀, 𝜎, 𝜌 • 𝐠 𝜎′ , 𝐠 𝜌( ≤ max(𝐠 𝑀 , 𝐠 𝜎 , 𝐠 𝜌 ) + 𝐥(𝜏) • Φ 𝜎 ∷ 𝜏, 𝑀, 𝜌 = Φ(𝜎, Φ 𝜏, 𝑀, 𝜌 ) • If 𝑀′, 𝜎′, 𝜌′ = Φ(Inst 𝒟 , 𝑀, 𝜎, 𝜌), then 𝜌( = 𝜌 • If 𝑀((, 𝜎′′, 𝜌(( = Φ Inst 𝒟 , 𝑀, 𝜎, 𝜌 , then 𝜌(( = 𝜌 Lemma
49. Consistency proof inside 𝑆2 ` Theorem 4 ∀ 𝒟 : derivation, ∀𝑈: integer, 𝑈 ≥ 𝐥 𝒟 , ∀𝑀 ∈ 𝕄 𝑈 − 𝐥 𝒟 , 𝒟 ∀ 𝒟* : sub-derivation of 𝒟, 𝒟* ⊢ 𝑡 = 𝑠 ∀𝜌: assignment and ∀𝜎: updates, 𝐠 𝜎 , 𝐠 𝜌 ≤ 𝑈 − 𝐥 𝒟* , 𝑀, 𝜎(, 𝜌( ≔ Φ Inst 𝒟* , 𝑀, 𝜎, 𝜌 , 𝑀, 𝜎((, 𝜌′′ ≔ Φ Inst 𝒟* , 𝑀, 𝜎, 𝜌 Val 𝑡 , 𝑀 ∗ 𝜎, 𝜌 ⊑ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀 ∗ 𝜎 ∗ 𝜎′, 𝜌 Val 𝑡 , 𝑀,∗ 𝜎 ∗ 𝜎((, 𝜌 ⊒ Val 𝑠 , 𝑀 ∗ 𝜎, 𝜌 I.H. Π# %