Calendar

Sep
26
Mon
3.6: Implicit diff.
Sep 26 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Sep
28
Wed
3.7: Related rates
Sep 28 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Sep
29
Thu
Logic Seminar: William DeMeo @ Keller 303
Sep 29 @ 1:30 pm – Sep 29 @ 2:20 pm

TITLE: The Algebraic Approach to Determining the Complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problems

SPEAKER: William DeMeo

ABSTRACT: The “CSP-dichotomy conjecture” of Feder and Vardi asserts that every constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) is in P or is NP-complete. Sometime around the late 1990′s it was observed that a CSP is naturally associated with a general (universal) algebra via a certain Galois connection, and that this connection makes it possible to use algebraic methods to determine the complexity class of a CSP. This led to the “algebraic CSP-dichotomy conjecture” which, after more than a decade of substantial research, has been reduced to the following conjecture: the CSP associated with a finite idempotent algebra A is tractable if and only if the variety generated by A has a Taylor term.

In this talk we try to give most of the background required to understand the algebraic approach to CSP. We give some concrete examples that demonstrate how one uses properties of a universal algebra to determine the complexity class of a CSP. If time permits, we will highlight some of our most recent discoveries that have helped resolve the dichotomy conjecture for most idempotent varieties.

The talk should be fairly self-contained for anyone greater than or equal to a math or cs graduate student. Roughly speaking, if you have heard of the complexity classes P and NP and if you know what a universal algebra is, then you should understand most of this talk.

Sep
30
Fri
3.8: Differentials
Sep 30 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
3
Mon
4.1: Critical points
Oct 3 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
5
Wed
4.2: MVT
Oct 5 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
6
Thu
Logic Seminar: David Ross @ Keller Hall 303
Oct 6 @ 1:30 pm – Oct 6 @ 2:30 pm

TITLE: Asymptotic Fixed Points, Part I.

ABSTRACT: By a standard exercise, a uniform contraction on a complete metric
space has a fixed point. Easy examples show that this fails if the
contraction is not uniform. I will discuss some recent results where the
uniform property is replaced by asymptotic conditions on the contraction.
These results are most easily framed and proved using methods from
nonstandard analysis, so I will also briefly brief review those methods. If
there is interest, I will actually prove some of the fixed-point results in
a second seminar (hence the “Part I.”)

Oct
7
Fri
4.3: Curve sketching
Oct 7 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
10
Mon
4.3 cont’d
Oct 10 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
12
Wed
4.4: More curve sketching
Oct 12 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
14
Fri
Midterm 2
Oct 14 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
17
Mon
4.4 cont’d: graph x(x+3)^2
Oct 17 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
18
Tue
André Nies: A gentle introduction to randomness and $K$-triviality
Oct 18 @ 1:30 pm – Oct 18 @ 2:20 pm

Keller 303
Introduction for grad students and other beginners, as a prequel to Thursday’s talk.

Oct
19
Wed
4.5: Applied optimization
Oct 19 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
20
Thu
Logic Seminar: André Nies
Oct 20 @ 1:30 pm – Oct 20 @ 2:30 pm

Speaker: André Nies (University of Auckland), Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Title: Structure within the class of $K$-trivial sets

Abstract: The $K$-trivial sets are antirandom in the sense that the initial segment complexity in terms of prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity $K$ grows as slowly as possible. Since 2002, many alternative characterisations of this class have been found: properties such as low for $K$, low for Martin-Löf (ML) randomness, and basis for ML randomness, which state in one way or the other that the set is close to computable.

Initially the class looked quite amorphous. More recently, internal structure has been found. Bienvenu et al. (JEMS 2016) showed that there is a “smart” $K$-trivial set, in the sense that any ML-random computing it must compute all $K$-trivials. Greenberg, Miller and Nies (submitted) showed that there is a dense hierarchy of subclasses. Even more recent results with Turetsky combine the two approaches using cost functions.

The talk gives an overview and ends with open questions (of which there remain many).

Location: Keller Hall 303

Oct
21
Fri
4.5 cont’d
Oct 21 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
24
Mon
4.5 cont’d
Oct 24 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
26
Wed
4.6: Newton’s method
Oct 26 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
27
Thu
Logic Seminar: David Ross part II
Oct 27 @ 1:30 pm – Oct 27 @ 2:30 pm

TITLE: Asymptotic Fixed Points, Part II

ABSTRACT: Continuing the earlier seminar, I will give nonstandard proofs for
one or more (depending on time) results like the
one below (which consolidates and generalizes a number of recent results in
the area).

Suppose

$(X,d)$ is a complete metric space,

$T:Xto X$ is continuous,

$phi, phi_n:[0,infty)to[0,infty)$, and
$phi_n$ converges to $phi$ uniformly on the range of $d$,

$phi$ is semicontinuous and satisfies $phi(s)0$,

$d(T^nx,T^ny)lephi_n(d(x,y))$ for all $x,yin X$ and $ninmathbb N$.

Moreover, suppose that for any $x,y$, $phi(t)lesssim t$ on infinite
elements of
$${^*d(T^nx,T^my) : m, n text{ hyperintegers}}.$$
Then $T$ has a unique fixed point $x_infty$, and for every $xin X, limlimits_{ntoinfty}T^n(x)=x_infty$. Moreover, this convergence is
uniform on bounded subsets of $X$.

Oct
28
Fri
4.7: Diff.eqs.
Oct 28 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Oct
31
Mon
5.1: Sigma notation
Oct 31 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
2
Wed
5.2: Riemann sums
Nov 2 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
4
Fri
5.3: Definite integral
Nov 4 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
7
Mon
Review
Nov 7 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
9
Wed
Midterm 3 (Ch.4+5.1,5.2)
Nov 9 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
14
Mon
5.4: FTC
Nov 14 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
16
Wed
5.5: Substitution
Nov 16 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
18
Fri
Review
Nov 18 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
21
Mon
5.6: Area between curves
Nov 21 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am
Nov
23
Wed
Review
Nov 23 @ 9:30 am – 10:30 am