Keyboard shortcuts

Press or to navigate between chapters

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

Coding-Dependent Orders on Finite Interpretations

Abstract

Any chosen finite interpretation can receive the unique shortest prefix codeword.

Theorem 1.1 (Any chosen finite interpretation can be uniquely shortest).

Proof. Machine-checked in Lean as D5/S3/ConceptDynamics/Coding/InterpretationOrderCoding.exists_prefix_code_with_chosen_unique_shortest (✓ std3). ∎

Source. Repository-derived.

Commentary.

The finite interpretation family is indexed by Fin n, and the chosen index itself witnesses that the family is nonempty. The code is injective and its range is prefix-free.

The coding alphabet is Bool x Fin n, so it is allowed to depend on the interpretation family. The chosen interpretation receives a one-symbol word. Every other interpretation receives a two-symbol word whose first symbol separates it from the chosen word and whose second symbol records its index.

Consequently, shortest code length cannot select an objective interpretation while the coding language is unconstrained: any designated interpretation can be made uniquely shortest. Restricting to acceptable universal languages and comparing only up to an invariance constant are boundary conditions motivated by this result; they are not formalized as additional conclusions here.

Repository search found and directly reused IsPrefixFree from D5/S0/Computability/Coding/PrefixFreeCode. Pinned Mathlib provides the list prefix relation but no prefix-code predicate or theorem assigning a unique shortest codeword to a chosen labelled member. The repository Kraft converse is adjacent but returns an unlabelled list of codewords, so it does not prove this selected-member result.

References