Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Knaster–Tarski theorem

The Knaster–Tarski theorem states that if L is a complete lattice and f: L \to L is a monotone (order-preserving) function, then the set of fixed points of f (elements x \in L such that f(x) = x) is nonempty and itself forms a complete lattice under the order inherited from L. Moreover, the least fixed point of f is the infimum of all prefixed points (elements x where f(x) \geq x), and the greatest fixed point is the supremum of all postfixed points (elements x where f(x) \leq x). The theorem originated in a 1927 result by Bronisław Knaster, working under Alfred Tarski's supervision, which established the existence of fixed points for functions on the power set of a set ordered by . Tarski later generalized this to arbitrary complete in work from 1939, with the full lattice-theoretic version and applications detailed in his 1955 paper. Proofs typically rely on the completeness of the lattice to construct the least and greatest fixed points via infima and suprema, ensuring monotonicity preserves the order in iterations or closures. Beyond order theory, the theorem underpins fixed-point semantics in , particularly in for defining the meaning of recursive programs and inductive definitions on domains modeled as complete lattices. It guarantees the existence of least fixed points for semantic operators, enabling the computation of program behaviors through iterative approximations, such as transitive closures in relational models. Applications extend to for , logic programming for resolving negation and recursion, and where fixed points represent stable states or equilibria.

Background Concepts

Lattices and Order Theory

A partially ordered set, or poset, is a set P together with a binary relation \leq on P that is reflexive (x \leq x for all x \in P), antisymmetric (x \leq y and y \leq x imply x = y), and transitive (x \leq y and y \leq z imply x \leq z). This relation imposes an order on the elements, allowing some to be comparable while others may not be. A classic example is the power set \mathcal{P}(S) of a set S, ordered by set inclusion \subseteq, where A \leq B if and only if A \subseteq B. A extends the poset structure by requiring that every pair of elements has a least upper bound, called the join and denoted x \vee y, and a greatest lower bound, called the meet and denoted x \wedge y. can be finite, such as the of subsets of a under and , or infinite, like the of real numbers under the usual order with joins and meets defined appropriately for comparable pairs. These operations ensure that the order structure supports binary aggregation in a consistent manner. A complete lattice is a poset in which every subset has a supremum (least upper bound) and an infimum (greatest lower bound). Consequently, a complete lattice always includes a greatest element, denoted \top (the supremum of the empty set), and a least element, denoted \bot (the infimum of the empty set). The power set \mathcal{P}(S) under inclusion forms a complete lattice, with the supremum of a collection of subsets being their union and the infimum their intersection. Order theory, encompassing posets, lattices, and complete lattices, was systematically developed by Garrett Birkhoff in the 1930s and 1940s, most notably through his seminal 1940 book Lattice Theory, which established the algebraic framework for these structures and paved the way for applications in fixed-point theory.

Fixed Points and Monotone Functions

In a partially ordered set (L, \leq), consider a function f: L \to L. An element x \in L is a fixed point of f if f(x) = x. A function f: L \to L is (or order-preserving) if it respects the partial order, meaning that for all x, y \in L with x \leq y, it holds that f(x) \leq f(y). Monotone functions arise naturally in theory; for instance, on the power set \mathcal{P}(S) of a set S ordered by , the operation f(A) = A \cup B for a fixed B \subseteq S is monotone, as is the operator that adds all limits of sequences in a . Related to fixed points are pre-fixed points and post-fixed points. A pre-fixed point of f is an element x \in L such that f(x) \leq x, while a post-fixed point is an element x \in L such that x \leq f(x). These can be viewed as elements where the lattice order aligns with or exceeds the function's output, forming sets that are "closed under" f in the respective directions. These concepts apply fully in the context of complete lattices, where suprema and infima exist for arbitrary subsets.

Statement and Proof

Formal Statement

The Knaster–Tarski theorem, discovered by Bronisław Knaster in 1927 (working under 's supervision) in a special case for power sets and later generalized by to s, asserts the existence of fixed points for functions on such structures. Let (L, \leq) be a and f: L \to L a , meaning that x \leq y implies f(x) \leq f(y). Then f has a least fixed point \bigsqcap \mathrm{Fix}(f) and a greatest fixed point \bigsqcup \mathrm{Fix}(f), where \mathrm{Fix}(f) = \{x \in L \mid f(x) = x\} is the set of all fixed points of f, \bigsqcup denotes the supremum, and \bigsqcap denotes the infimum. Equivalently, the least fixed point of f is the supremum of the set of pre-fixed points \{x \in L \mid x \leq f(x)\}, and the greatest fixed point is the infimum of the set of post-fixed points \{x \in L \mid f(x) \leq x\}.

Proof Outline

The proof of the Knaster–Tarski theorem proceeds by constructing the least and greatest fixed points of a f on a L, leveraging the lattice's to ensure the existence of suprema and infima. A key lemma establishes that the set of pre-fixed points P = \{ x \in L \mid x \leq f(x) \} is closed under arbitrary joins: for any subset S \subseteq P, if s = \bigsqcup S, then monotonicity of f implies f(s) = f(\bigsqcup S) \geq \bigsqcup \{ f(t) \mid t \in S \} \geq \bigsqcup S = s, so s \in P. Dually, the set of post-fixed points Q = \{ x \in L \mid f(x) \leq x \} is closed under arbitrary meets. To show that the set of fixed points \operatorname{Fix}(f) is nonempty, construct the least fixed point as \mu f = \bigsqcup P. Since P is nonempty (containing the bottom element \bot \leq f(\bot)) and closed under joins by the lemma, \mu f exists. Applying f yields f(\mu f) \geq \mu f by the above, so \mu f \in P; moreover, f(\mu f) \leq \mu f because \mu f is the least upper bound of P and f(\mu f) \in P (since \mu f \leq f(\mu f) implies f(\mu f) \leq f(f(\mu f)) by monotonicity), hence \mu f = f(\mu f). Thus, \mu f \in \operatorname{Fix}(f). The greatest fixed point is obtained dually: \nu f = \bigsqcap Q, where Q is nonempty (containing the top element) and closed under meets, yielding \nu f = f(\nu f) as the greatest element of \operatorname{Fix}(f). Tarski's 1955 argument relies on the completeness of the lattice to guarantee these suprema and infima without explicit transfinite induction, instead using the closure properties to directly verify the fixed-point equalities.

Fixed Points and Consequences

Least and Greatest Fixed Points

The Knaster–Tarski theorem guarantees the existence of a least fixed point and a greatest fixed point for any f on a L. The least fixed point, denoted \mathrm{lfp}(f), is constructed as the greatest lower bound (infimum) of the set of all prefixed points, that is, \mathrm{lfp}(f) = \inf \{ x \in L \mid f(x) \leq x \}. Similarly, the greatest fixed point, denoted \mathrm{gfp}(f), is the least upper bound (supremum) of the set of all postfixed points, \mathrm{gfp}(f) = \sup \{ x \in L \mid x \leq f(x) \}. These fixed points satisfy \mathrm{lfp}(f) \leq \mathrm{gfp}(f), and every fixed point x of f lies between them, meaning \mathrm{lfp}(f) \leq x \leq \mathrm{gfp}(f). In general, the fixed points are not unique; the set of all fixed points forms a bounded by \mathrm{lfp}(f) and \mathrm{gfp}(f). This holds particularly in finite s, where the theorem applies directly without additional assumptions, and all fixed points reside within this interval. A simple example illustrates these concepts on the power set \mathcal{P}(\{1,2\}), ordered by . Consider the f(A) = A \cup \{1\}. The prefixed points are \{1\} and \{1,2\}, so \mathrm{lfp}(f) = \{1\}. The postfixed points are all subsets, so \mathrm{gfp}(f) = \{1,2\}. The fixed points are \{1\} and \{1,2\}, both between \mathrm{lfp}(f) and \mathrm{gfp}(f), demonstrating non-uniqueness.

Key Consequences

The Knaster–Tarski theorem is self-dual: when applied to the order-dual of a L, the roles of the least fixed point and greatest fixed point are interchanged, reflecting the symmetry between joins and meets in lattice theory. This duality arises because the proof of the existence of the greatest fixed point, obtained as the supremum of all postfixed points \{x \in L \mid x \leq f(x)\}, is the order-dual of the construction for the least fixed point as the infimum of all prefixed points \{x \in L \mid f(x) \leq x\}. A fundamental consequence is that the set \mathrm{Fix}(f) = \{x \in L \mid f(x) = x\} of all fixed points of a monotone function f: L \to L forms a complete lattice under the order inherited from L. The join of any subset W \subseteq \mathrm{Fix}(f) is the least fixed point of f restricted to the principal upset generated by the supremum of W, ensuring that suprema and infima exist within \mathrm{Fix}(f). This structure implies that \mathrm{Fix}(f) is nonempty and closed under arbitrary joins and meets from L. The fixed-point operators themselves are monotone: if f, h: L \to L are monotone with f \leq h pointwise (i.e., f(x) \leq h(x) for all x \in L), then \mathrm{lfp}(f) \leq \mathrm{lfp}(h) and \mathrm{gfp}(f) \geq \mathrm{gfp}(h). functions on complete lattices are closed under , preserving monotonicity, and for monotone f, g: L \to L, the least fixed points satisfy \mathrm{lfp}(f \circ g) \leq \mathrm{lfp}(g) \leq \mathrm{lfp}(f \circ g \circ f). This inequality follows from the monotonicity of the fixed-point operator and the fact that \mathrm{lfp}(g) is a prefixed point for f \circ g, while f \circ \mathrm{lfp}(g) provides an upper bound adjusted by the composition. In the context of inductive definitions, the least fixed point \mathrm{lfp}(f) of a f on the corresponds to the smallest set closed under f, obtained as the of the iterative applications f^n(\emptyset) for n \geq 0 (or transfinite iterations in general). This construction formalizes inductive closure, where any set generated by applying the rules in f starting from the yields the minimal solution satisfying the inductive specification.

Variations

Weaker Versions

The finite version establishes that every on a finite admits at least one fixed point, obtained via application starting from the bottom element, which must stabilize due to the finiteness of the structure. This approach requires only monotonicity and the finite nature of the , bypassing the need to assume or verify full a priori, as the remains within finitely many steps. Although finite are inherently complete, this method highlights a constructive path to fixed points without transfinite constructions. A further weakening appears in the context of chain-complete posets, where every non-empty chain admits a supremum and infimum. Here, a f possesses a fixed point provided there exists an element p satisfying p \leq f(p). This condition replaces the completeness requirement of the full theorem while ensuring existence through the supremum of prefixed points. Bourbaki's variant from the addresses upper semi-s equipped with a element, under which inflationary functions—those satisfying x \leq f(x) for all x—admit fixed points. Known as the Bourbaki–Witt theorem, this result applies to chain-complete posets more broadly, guaranteeing a fixed point for such functions without demanding a full structure. These weaker formulations trade the guarantees of least and greatest fixed points, along with the completeness of the fixed-point sublattice, for reduced structural assumptions on the underlying . In particular, they ensure only the of some fixed point, potentially requiring additional conditions like inflationarity to apply, and may fail to identify extremal solutions without further restrictions.

Generalizations and Extensions

One significant extension of the Knaster–Tarski theorem arises in , where generalized it to complete partial orders (CPOs), also known as ω-complete posets, to support of programming languages. In a CPO with a least ⊥, a f admits a least fixed point given by the supremum of the ω-chain ⊥ ≤ f(⊥) ≤ f²(⊥) ≤ ⋯, constructed via Kleene's for continuous functions. In probabilistic settings, the theorem extends to complete s of probability measures, such as those formed by Markov kernels, enabling fixed-point characterizations of behaviors in stochastic processes. For instance, in generalized semi-Markov processes, a functional on the lattice of pseudometrics over measures yields a greatest fixed point representing metric bisimulations, independent of discount factors. Post-2000 developments in leverage this to define semantics for recursive expectations and reachability probabilities in Markov decision processes, using least fixed points of operators on measure spaces. For non-monotone functions, extensions such as approximation fixpoint theory () provide a framework for fixed points in non-monotonic logics using bilattices and stable models. This supports non-monotonic reasoning in knowledge representation and has been applied in 2020s literature for optimizing neural logic programs and recurrent graph neural networks, where iterative approximations yield equilibria despite non-monotonicity. Category-theoretic generalizations reformulate the theorem in terms of adjunctions that preserve fixed points, particularly in topoi where monotone maps on chain-complete posets admit fixed points via the Bourbaki-Witt principle. This links the original result to categorical limits, ensuring adjunctions between categories of domains preserve least and greatest fixed points in denotational models.

Computation Methods

Iterative Algorithms

The Knaster–Tarski iteration provides a constructive to compute the least fixed point of a f on a (L, \leq) by starting from the bottom element \bot and iteratively applying f. Define the sequence x_0 = \bot and x_{n+1} = f(x_n) for finite ordinals n; this produces a non-decreasing x_0 \leq x_1 \leq \cdots. In finite lattices, the chain stabilizes after at most |L| steps, yielding the least fixed point as the limit, since the sequence cannot increase indefinitely without repeating elements due to finiteness. The dual construction computes the greatest fixed point by starting from the top element \top and defining y_0 = \top, y_{n+1} = f(y_n), producing a non-increasing chain that stabilizes in finite lattices to the greatest fixed point. These iterations leverage the monotonicity of f to ensure the limits are fixed points, with the least fixed point being the infimum of all prefixed points and the greatest being the supremum of all postfixed points. For infinite complete lattices, the iteration extends to transfinite ordinals via : define f^\alpha(\bot) for ordinal \alpha, where f^0(\bot) = \bot, f^{\alpha+1}(\bot) = f(f^\alpha(\bot)) at successors, and f^\lambda(\bot) = \bigvee_{\alpha < \lambda} f^\alpha(\bot) at limit ordinals \lambda. The sequence f^\alpha(\bot) is non-decreasing and bounded above, so by completeness, it stabilizes at some ordinal \alpha where f^\alpha(\bot) = f(f^\alpha(\bot)), which is the least fixed point. The dual transfinite descending sequence from \top converges to the greatest fixed point. This process exhausts the necessary ordinals, potentially up to the height of the lattice. In finite lattices of size n, assuming f and lattice operations are computable in polynomial time in the input size, the iterative algorithm runs in polynomial time overall, as it requires at most n iterations each taking polynomial time in the input size (e.g., \Theta(n) for explicit representation). For compact representations like power sets where n = 2^m with input size m, basic iteration can take exponential time, though the effective number of iterations equals the lattice height (often O(m)). More advanced methods, such as path-following or divide-and-conquer, can reduce query complexity to polylogarithmic in specific representations like product lattices, but the basic iteration suffices for general finite cases.

Practical Computation Examples

One practical application of the Knaster–Tarski theorem arises in computing reachability in directed graphs, where the power set of nodes forms a complete lattice under inclusion. Consider a graph with node set A and edge relation E; let S be the starting set of nodes. Define the monotonic function f: \mathcal{P}(A) \to \mathcal{P}(A) by f(X) = S \cup X \cup \{ y \mid \exists x \in X \text{ such that } (x, y) \in E \}, which includes the initial nodes and adds all successors of nodes in X. The least fixed point of f, starting from the empty set \emptyset and iterating f, yields the set of all nodes reachable from S, as each iteration incorporates nodes reachable in one more step until stabilization. In program analysis, the theorem underpins dataflow analysis over abstract domains, which are complete lattices, to compute program invariants. For instance, in live variables analysis, the lattice elements represent sets of variables alive at program points, with the monotonic transfer function propagating liveness information backward through the control flow graph. Iterating from the bottom element (empty sets) converges to the least fixed point, identifying precisely the variables that may be used before definition along any path, as guaranteed by the theorem for finite-height lattices. Similarly, in interval analysis for range inference, abstract values are intervals forming a lattice under inclusion, and the transfer function updates bounds monotonically; iteration from \bot (e.g., empty or singleton intervals) computes the least fixed point approximating variable ranges. A numerical illustration of fixed-point iteration appears in abstract interpretation for loop bounds, using the interval lattice under inclusion. For the loop x := 0; while (x <= 1000) do x := x + 1;, the abstract transfer function f monotonically updates the interval for x from an initial \bot = [0, 0]. Iterating yields: f([0, 0]) = [0, 1], f([0, 1]) = [0, 2], and so on, requiring 1001 steps to reach the least fixed point [0, 1000], demonstrating slow convergence in non-well-founded domains but termination per the Knaster–Tarski theorem. Symbolic methods in abstract interpretation frameworks leverage the theorem for efficient computation in practice. The Astrée analyzer, for example, applies fixed-point iterations over reduced product domains (e.g., intervals combined with polyhedra) to verify absence of runtime errors in C code, using widening operators to accelerate convergence while preserving soundness, as in analyses of large synchronous programs exceeding 300,000 lines.

Applications

Denotational Semantics

In the Scott-Strachey framework developed in the 1970s, denotational semantics assigns meanings to programming language constructs by mapping programs to elements of mathematical structures known as domains, which are modeled as complete lattices. This approach leverages the Knaster–Tarski theorem to guarantee the existence of fixed points for monotone semantic functions defined on these lattices, providing a rigorous foundation for interpreting program behaviors. A key application arises in defining the semantics of iterative constructs like while-loops, where the meaning is given as the least fixed point of a semantic function that captures the loop's unfolding. For a while-loop "while b do c", the semantic function F is monotone on the lattice of possible behaviors, and the Knaster–Tarski theorem ensures that F has a least fixed point, which denotes the loop's overall effect, including termination and non-termination cases. This fixed-point semantics extends naturally to recursive procedure definitions, where the meaning of a recursive function is the least fixed point \mathrm{lfp}(F) of a functional F that approximates the recursion through successive unfoldings, allowing the theorem to resolve the self-referential nature of recursion in a lattice of partial functions. To bridge the gap between theoretical fixed points and computability, domains in this framework are often taken as ω-complete partial orders (ω-cpos), where every ascending ω-chain has a least upper bound, and semantic functions are required to be continuous—meaning they preserve these suprema. The applies to the complete lattice structure, but continuity ensures that the least fixed point can be approximated by finite iterations starting from the bottom element, aligning with the step-by-step execution of programs. This finite approximation property makes the semantics computationally meaningful, as the meaning emerges as the limit of observable behaviors after finitely many steps. A representative example is the denotational semantics of the factorial function defined recursively as \mathrm{fact}(0) = 1 and \mathrm{fact}(n) = n \times \mathrm{fact}(n-1) for n > 0. In the ω-cpo of s from natural numbers to natural numbers ordered pointwise, the semantic functional F maps a g to the function that behaves as the identity on 0 and applies multiplication by n composed with g(n-1) otherwise; by the Knaster–Tarski theorem (via ), the least fixed point \mathrm{lfp}(F) yields the total function computing factorials, with the empty function as the bottom element approximated iteratively.

Game Theory and Economics

In supermodular games, where players' strategy sets form a under componentwise order and the best-response correspondence is , the Knaster–Tarski theorem guarantees the existence of a greatest fixed point, which yields a pure-strategy . This approach leverages the structure to ensure equilibrium without relying on probabilistic mixed strategies, providing a robust existence result for games exhibiting strategic complementarities. The theorem also underpins the concept of rationalizable strategies, defined as the greatest fixed point of the best-response on the of strategy profiles. Introduced by Pearce, this fixed point captures all strategies that survive iterated elimination of strictly dominated actions, offering a refinement broader than yet grounded in of . In infinite extensive games without , coalgebraic formulations model strategy profiles as elements of a , with subgame-perfect equilibria corresponding to fixed points of a , ensured by the Knaster–Tarski theorem. In economic models, the theorem supports fixed-price equilibria within by structuring the space of price vectors and allocations as a . For instance, in economies with occupational choice and , monotone mappings on compact sets of probability measures over agent types yield fixed points representing equilibrium distributions, aligning prices with excess demands. Recent extensions apply this framework to quitting games with infinite horizons, where the largest invariant strategy set—crucial for equilibrium payoffs—is the greatest fixed point on a of behavioral strategies, facilitating computation in contexts involving Bayesian updating.

References

  1. [1]
    A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications - MSP
    A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem. In this section we formulate and prove an elementary fixpoint theorem which holds in arbitrary complete lattices.
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Knaster-Tarski Theorem
    Sep 12, 2014 · This note presents a proof of the famous Knaster-Tarski theorem [1]. ... Figure 1: Pictorial Depiction of the Knaster-Tarski Theorem. Proof ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Supplementary Lecture A The Knaster–Tarski Theorem
    (y). The Knaster–Tarski theorem is a useful theorem describing how least fix- points of monotone operators can be obtained either “from above,” as in Page 8 42 ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Denotational Semantics
    Another, different, fixed point theorem more often attributed to Tarski (or Knaster-Tarski) gives the exis- tence of fixed point of monotone functions on ...
  5. [5]
    Garrett Birkhoff (1911 - 1996) - Biography - MacTutor
    He worked on two important texts. The first to be published was Lattice Theory which appeared in 1940. The second was his famous work Survey of Modern Algebra ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Fixed Point Theorems1
    Nov 11, 2022 · Definition 1. Given a set X and a function f : X → X, x∗ ∈ X is a fixed point of f iff f(x∗) = x∗. Many existence problems in economics ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Tarski's Fixed Point Theorem*
    A function 𝐹 ∶ ℘𝑋 → ℘𝑋 is monotone if it preserves inclusion: if 𝐴⊆𝐵⊆𝑋, then 𝐹(𝐴) ⊆ 𝐹(𝐵) ⊆. 𝑋. For monotone 𝐹 on ℘𝑋, a pre-fixed point of 𝐹 is a set 𝐴⊆𝑋 such ...Missing: theory | Show results with:theory
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Lattice Theory - Purdue Engineering
    Nov 18, 2015 · Extensivity. • f(x) = x ∪ {a} is monotonic and extensive. • f(x) = x - {a} is monotonic but not extensive. • f(x) = {a} - x is neither. • What ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Chapter 5: Fixed Points - IDA.LiU.SE
    An x ∈ A such that f(x) ≤ x is called a pre-fixed point of f. Similarly, x ∈ A is called a post-fixed point of f iff x ≤ f(x). Example 1. As defined ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] a short and constructive proof of tarski's fixed-point theorem
    The first is Tarski's fixed-point theorem: If F is a monotone function on a non-empty complete lattice, the set of fixed points of F forms a non-empty complete ...
  11. [11]
    A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications.
    A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications. Alfred Tarski. Download PDF + Save to My Library. Pacific J. Math. 5(2): 285-309 (1955).
  12. [12]
    Introduction to Lattices and Order - B. A. Davey, H. A. Priestley
    This new edition of Introduction to Lattices and Order presents a radical reorganization and updating, though its primary aim is unchanged.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] CS 6110 S17 Lecture 7 Inductive Definitions and Least Fixed Points ...
    Let us prove the Knaster–Tarski theorem in the special case of chain-continuous operators, which will allow us to avoid introducing transfinite ordinals (not ...
  14. [14]
    None
    ### Summary of Weaker Versions of Knaster-Tarski Theorem from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.13065.pdf
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Continuous lattices - ResearchGate
    Every monotonic function on a complete lattice into itself has a. Zeast fixed point. (Cf. Birkhoff ... will be explained in another paper (Scott (1972)).Missing: domain | Show results with:domain
  16. [16]
    [PDF] FOUNDATIONS OF PROBABILISTIC PROGRAMMING
    Mar 2, 2021 · This book covers what probabilistic programs compute, how to reason about them, and their applications in machine learning and security.
  17. [17]
    [PDF] On the Bourbaki-Witt Principle in Toposes
    Jan 4, 2012 · The usual formulation of Tarski's theorem states just that every monotone map has a fixed point; here we reformulate it to make it more similar ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] CS611 Lecture 7 Inductive Definitions and the Knaster–Tarski ...
    Sep 13, 2006 · It guarantees that the “from below” construction converges to a fixpoint after only ω steps, where ω is the first transfinite ordinal. 3.1 ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Computational Models and Complexities of Tarski's Fixed Points∗
    For a lexicographic ordering lattice, it can be viewed as a componentwise ordering lattice with dimension one by an appropriate polynomial time transformation ...Missing: Knaster- | Show results with:Knaster-
  20. [20]
    [PDF] The Randomized Query Complexity of Finding a Tarski Fixed Point ...
    The algorithm has query access to the function f and the task is to find an ε-approximate fixed point of f using as few queries as possible. The existence ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] CDM [1ex]Iteration III - Carnegie Mellon University
    For example, consider a directed graph G on n points. There is a natural. Reachability Problem for G: is there a path from a to b? ... Knaster-Tarski theorem. Try ...<|separator|>
  22. [22]
    [PDF] A Tutorial on Program Analysis
    Fixpoint Theorem of Knaster-Tarski: Every monotonic function f on a complete lattice L has a least fixpoint lfp(f) and a greatest fixpoint gfp(f).
  23. [23]
    [PDF] static analysis by abstract interpretation - Xavier Leroy
    Jan 17, 2020 · In other cases, Knaster-Tarski iteration terminates but takes too long. x := 0; while x <= 1000 do x := x + 1. Starting from x# = [0,0], it ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] The ASTRÉE Analyzer
    Abstract. ASTRÉE is an abstract interpretation-based static program analyzer aiming at proving automatically the absence of run time errors.Missing: Knaster- Tarski
  25. [25]
    [PDF] DATA TYPES AS LATTICES
    Data types in programming languages are modeled as elements of spaces of partial objects, presented as lattices, within a domain of subsets of integers.<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Denotational Semantics - People
    Chapter 6 presents least fixed point semantics, which is used for determining the meaning of iterative and recursive definitions. The related semantic domain ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] SEMANTICS WITH APPLICATIONS A Formal Introduction
    SEMANTICS WITH APPLICATIONS. A Formal Introduction c Hanne Riis Nielsonc ... Example 4.48 Consider the denotational semantics of the factorial statement:.
  28. [28]
    Coalgebraic analysis of subgame-perfect equilibria in infinite games ...
    Jul 23, 2015 · We present a novel coalgebraic formulation of infinite extensive games. We define both the game trees and the strategy profiles by possibly ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Algorithms for Computing Equilibrium Payoffs in Quitting Games
    Jun 15, 2022 · The existence of this largest invariant set is guaranteed by Knaster-Tarski's Theorem ... Tarski (1955) A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its ...<|control11|><|separator|>