A property of a set of formulas that implies that every formula is equivalent to a Boolean combination of formulas of this set.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $A subset M vDash T$ and let $Phi$ be a set of formulas in n variables with parameters in $A$. Suppose that for $p neq q$ in $S_n(A)$ there is $phi(overlinex)$ such that $p vdash phi$ iff $q vdash neg phi$. Then every formula $psi$ over $A$ in $x_1, ldots, x_n$ is equivalent to a Boolean combination of formulas in $Phi$.



I know I have to solve this with compactness and it really should not be that hard, but I struggle to compose a satisfying solution. My ansatz was to use that the $phi$ isolate the corresponding type, because elsewise the solution of $phi$ that is not a solution of the type would give us a different type that implies $phi$, which contradicts the assumption. Then I just wanted to look at all the types $q in S_n(A)$ with $psi in q$, which are all implied by some formula in $Phi$ and conclude with compactness, but I am not quite satisfied with the last step. Do you have any suggestions?










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $A subset M vDash T$ and let $Phi$ be a set of formulas in n variables with parameters in $A$. Suppose that for $p neq q$ in $S_n(A)$ there is $phi(overlinex)$ such that $p vdash phi$ iff $q vdash neg phi$. Then every formula $psi$ over $A$ in $x_1, ldots, x_n$ is equivalent to a Boolean combination of formulas in $Phi$.



    I know I have to solve this with compactness and it really should not be that hard, but I struggle to compose a satisfying solution. My ansatz was to use that the $phi$ isolate the corresponding type, because elsewise the solution of $phi$ that is not a solution of the type would give us a different type that implies $phi$, which contradicts the assumption. Then I just wanted to look at all the types $q in S_n(A)$ with $psi in q$, which are all implied by some formula in $Phi$ and conclude with compactness, but I am not quite satisfied with the last step. Do you have any suggestions?










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $A subset M vDash T$ and let $Phi$ be a set of formulas in n variables with parameters in $A$. Suppose that for $p neq q$ in $S_n(A)$ there is $phi(overlinex)$ such that $p vdash phi$ iff $q vdash neg phi$. Then every formula $psi$ over $A$ in $x_1, ldots, x_n$ is equivalent to a Boolean combination of formulas in $Phi$.



      I know I have to solve this with compactness and it really should not be that hard, but I struggle to compose a satisfying solution. My ansatz was to use that the $phi$ isolate the corresponding type, because elsewise the solution of $phi$ that is not a solution of the type would give us a different type that implies $phi$, which contradicts the assumption. Then I just wanted to look at all the types $q in S_n(A)$ with $psi in q$, which are all implied by some formula in $Phi$ and conclude with compactness, but I am not quite satisfied with the last step. Do you have any suggestions?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $A subset M vDash T$ and let $Phi$ be a set of formulas in n variables with parameters in $A$. Suppose that for $p neq q$ in $S_n(A)$ there is $phi(overlinex)$ such that $p vdash phi$ iff $q vdash neg phi$. Then every formula $psi$ over $A$ in $x_1, ldots, x_n$ is equivalent to a Boolean combination of formulas in $Phi$.



      I know I have to solve this with compactness and it really should not be that hard, but I struggle to compose a satisfying solution. My ansatz was to use that the $phi$ isolate the corresponding type, because elsewise the solution of $phi$ that is not a solution of the type would give us a different type that implies $phi$, which contradicts the assumption. Then I just wanted to look at all the types $q in S_n(A)$ with $psi in q$, which are all implied by some formula in $Phi$ and conclude with compactness, but I am not quite satisfied with the last step. Do you have any suggestions?







      logic model-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Sep 8 at 11:20









      Florian Felix

      356




      356




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          Let $Phi'=PhicupnegphicolonphiinPhi$. For $pin[psi]$ and $qin[neg psi]$, by the assumption we can find $phi_p,qinPhi'$ such that $phi_p,qin psmallsetminus q$. For fixed $pin[psi]$, $negpsivdashbigvee_qin[negpsi]negphi_p,q$, so by compactness among $phi_p,qcolon qin[neg psi]$ you can find finitely many $phi_p,icolon 1leq ileq n_p$ such that $negpsivdashbigvee_i=1^n_pnegphi_p,i$. By contraposition, $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,ivdash psi$ and note that $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,iin p$. Denote $theta_p:=bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,i$.



          Now $psivdashbigvee_pin[psi]theta_p$. Again by compactness we can find $p_1,ldots,p_kin[psi]$ such that $psivdashbigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. On the other hand, as we have seen, each $theta_p_j$ implies $psi$, hence their disjunction implies $psi$ as well, so $psi$ is actually equivalent to $bigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. Now recall that each $theta_p_j$ is a conjunction of elements of $Phi'$, and each element from $Phi'$ is either itself from $Phi$ or it is negation of an element from $Phi$.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            2
            down vote













            I like to think about this fact from the point of view of the topology on the type space. Recall that a basis for the usual topology on $S_n(A)$ is given by $[psi(x)] = pin S_n(A)mid psi(x)in p$.



            Let $Phi'$ be the closure of $Phi$ under complements. Define a topology $tau_Phi'$ on $S_n(A)$ by taking the family $[varphi(x)]mid varphi(x)in Phi'$ as a subbasis. This is weaker than (or equal to) the standard topology, and all the subbasic open sets are clopen. Since any two distinct points $pneq q$ are separated by a clopen set, $tau_Phi'$ is Hausdorff. Now we use a general topology fact:




            If $(X,tau_1)$ is Hausdorff, $(X,tau_2)$ is compact, and $tau_1subseteq tau_2$, then actually $tau_1 = tau_2$. See here for a proof (take the bijection to be the identity map $(X,tau_2)to (X,tau_1)$).




            Thus $tau_Phi'$ is actually equal to the standard topology. So for any formula $psi(x)$, we can express $[psi(x)]$ as an arbitrary union of finite intersections of subbasic clopen sets. Since $[psi(x)]$ is compact, we can make do with a finite union of finite intersections. So $psi(x)$ is equivalent to $bigvee_i=1^n bigwedge_j=1^m varphi_i,j(x)$, where each $varphi_i,j(x)$ is in $Phi$ or is the negation of a formula in $Phi$.



            Of course, SMM's answer is exactly what you get when you translate the compactness argument in the proof of the general topology fact into a compactness argument in terms of formulas.



            In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, this more abstract view can be useful, in that it can help you more easily find proofs of similar facts. For example, suppose you have a stronger separation condition: for any types $pneq q$, there is a finite conjunction $varphi_p(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ and a finite conjunction $varphi_q(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ such that $varphi_p(x)in p$, $varphi_q(x)in q$, and $varphi_p(x)land varphi_q(x)$ is inconsistent. Then you don't need to pass to $Phi'$ by closing under complements: the condition exactly says that $tau_Phi$ is Hausdorff. And you can conclude that every formula is equivalent to a positive Boolean combination (no negation) of formulas in $Phi$.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2909526%2fa-property-of-a-set-of-formulas-that-implies-that-every-formula-is-equivalent-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted










              Let $Phi'=PhicupnegphicolonphiinPhi$. For $pin[psi]$ and $qin[neg psi]$, by the assumption we can find $phi_p,qinPhi'$ such that $phi_p,qin psmallsetminus q$. For fixed $pin[psi]$, $negpsivdashbigvee_qin[negpsi]negphi_p,q$, so by compactness among $phi_p,qcolon qin[neg psi]$ you can find finitely many $phi_p,icolon 1leq ileq n_p$ such that $negpsivdashbigvee_i=1^n_pnegphi_p,i$. By contraposition, $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,ivdash psi$ and note that $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,iin p$. Denote $theta_p:=bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,i$.



              Now $psivdashbigvee_pin[psi]theta_p$. Again by compactness we can find $p_1,ldots,p_kin[psi]$ such that $psivdashbigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. On the other hand, as we have seen, each $theta_p_j$ implies $psi$, hence their disjunction implies $psi$ as well, so $psi$ is actually equivalent to $bigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. Now recall that each $theta_p_j$ is a conjunction of elements of $Phi'$, and each element from $Phi'$ is either itself from $Phi$ or it is negation of an element from $Phi$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted










                Let $Phi'=PhicupnegphicolonphiinPhi$. For $pin[psi]$ and $qin[neg psi]$, by the assumption we can find $phi_p,qinPhi'$ such that $phi_p,qin psmallsetminus q$. For fixed $pin[psi]$, $negpsivdashbigvee_qin[negpsi]negphi_p,q$, so by compactness among $phi_p,qcolon qin[neg psi]$ you can find finitely many $phi_p,icolon 1leq ileq n_p$ such that $negpsivdashbigvee_i=1^n_pnegphi_p,i$. By contraposition, $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,ivdash psi$ and note that $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,iin p$. Denote $theta_p:=bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,i$.



                Now $psivdashbigvee_pin[psi]theta_p$. Again by compactness we can find $p_1,ldots,p_kin[psi]$ such that $psivdashbigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. On the other hand, as we have seen, each $theta_p_j$ implies $psi$, hence their disjunction implies $psi$ as well, so $psi$ is actually equivalent to $bigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. Now recall that each $theta_p_j$ is a conjunction of elements of $Phi'$, and each element from $Phi'$ is either itself from $Phi$ or it is negation of an element from $Phi$.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote



                  accepted







                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote



                  accepted






                  Let $Phi'=PhicupnegphicolonphiinPhi$. For $pin[psi]$ and $qin[neg psi]$, by the assumption we can find $phi_p,qinPhi'$ such that $phi_p,qin psmallsetminus q$. For fixed $pin[psi]$, $negpsivdashbigvee_qin[negpsi]negphi_p,q$, so by compactness among $phi_p,qcolon qin[neg psi]$ you can find finitely many $phi_p,icolon 1leq ileq n_p$ such that $negpsivdashbigvee_i=1^n_pnegphi_p,i$. By contraposition, $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,ivdash psi$ and note that $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,iin p$. Denote $theta_p:=bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,i$.



                  Now $psivdashbigvee_pin[psi]theta_p$. Again by compactness we can find $p_1,ldots,p_kin[psi]$ such that $psivdashbigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. On the other hand, as we have seen, each $theta_p_j$ implies $psi$, hence their disjunction implies $psi$ as well, so $psi$ is actually equivalent to $bigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. Now recall that each $theta_p_j$ is a conjunction of elements of $Phi'$, and each element from $Phi'$ is either itself from $Phi$ or it is negation of an element from $Phi$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Let $Phi'=PhicupnegphicolonphiinPhi$. For $pin[psi]$ and $qin[neg psi]$, by the assumption we can find $phi_p,qinPhi'$ such that $phi_p,qin psmallsetminus q$. For fixed $pin[psi]$, $negpsivdashbigvee_qin[negpsi]negphi_p,q$, so by compactness among $phi_p,qcolon qin[neg psi]$ you can find finitely many $phi_p,icolon 1leq ileq n_p$ such that $negpsivdashbigvee_i=1^n_pnegphi_p,i$. By contraposition, $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,ivdash psi$ and note that $bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,iin p$. Denote $theta_p:=bigwedge_i=1^n_pphi_p,i$.



                  Now $psivdashbigvee_pin[psi]theta_p$. Again by compactness we can find $p_1,ldots,p_kin[psi]$ such that $psivdashbigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. On the other hand, as we have seen, each $theta_p_j$ implies $psi$, hence their disjunction implies $psi$ as well, so $psi$ is actually equivalent to $bigvee_j=1^ktheta_p_j$. Now recall that each $theta_p_j$ is a conjunction of elements of $Phi'$, and each element from $Phi'$ is either itself from $Phi$ or it is negation of an element from $Phi$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Sep 8 at 14:26









                  SMM

                  2,03049




                  2,03049




















                      up vote
                      2
                      down vote













                      I like to think about this fact from the point of view of the topology on the type space. Recall that a basis for the usual topology on $S_n(A)$ is given by $[psi(x)] = pin S_n(A)mid psi(x)in p$.



                      Let $Phi'$ be the closure of $Phi$ under complements. Define a topology $tau_Phi'$ on $S_n(A)$ by taking the family $[varphi(x)]mid varphi(x)in Phi'$ as a subbasis. This is weaker than (or equal to) the standard topology, and all the subbasic open sets are clopen. Since any two distinct points $pneq q$ are separated by a clopen set, $tau_Phi'$ is Hausdorff. Now we use a general topology fact:




                      If $(X,tau_1)$ is Hausdorff, $(X,tau_2)$ is compact, and $tau_1subseteq tau_2$, then actually $tau_1 = tau_2$. See here for a proof (take the bijection to be the identity map $(X,tau_2)to (X,tau_1)$).




                      Thus $tau_Phi'$ is actually equal to the standard topology. So for any formula $psi(x)$, we can express $[psi(x)]$ as an arbitrary union of finite intersections of subbasic clopen sets. Since $[psi(x)]$ is compact, we can make do with a finite union of finite intersections. So $psi(x)$ is equivalent to $bigvee_i=1^n bigwedge_j=1^m varphi_i,j(x)$, where each $varphi_i,j(x)$ is in $Phi$ or is the negation of a formula in $Phi$.



                      Of course, SMM's answer is exactly what you get when you translate the compactness argument in the proof of the general topology fact into a compactness argument in terms of formulas.



                      In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, this more abstract view can be useful, in that it can help you more easily find proofs of similar facts. For example, suppose you have a stronger separation condition: for any types $pneq q$, there is a finite conjunction $varphi_p(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ and a finite conjunction $varphi_q(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ such that $varphi_p(x)in p$, $varphi_q(x)in q$, and $varphi_p(x)land varphi_q(x)$ is inconsistent. Then you don't need to pass to $Phi'$ by closing under complements: the condition exactly says that $tau_Phi$ is Hausdorff. And you can conclude that every formula is equivalent to a positive Boolean combination (no negation) of formulas in $Phi$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        I like to think about this fact from the point of view of the topology on the type space. Recall that a basis for the usual topology on $S_n(A)$ is given by $[psi(x)] = pin S_n(A)mid psi(x)in p$.



                        Let $Phi'$ be the closure of $Phi$ under complements. Define a topology $tau_Phi'$ on $S_n(A)$ by taking the family $[varphi(x)]mid varphi(x)in Phi'$ as a subbasis. This is weaker than (or equal to) the standard topology, and all the subbasic open sets are clopen. Since any two distinct points $pneq q$ are separated by a clopen set, $tau_Phi'$ is Hausdorff. Now we use a general topology fact:




                        If $(X,tau_1)$ is Hausdorff, $(X,tau_2)$ is compact, and $tau_1subseteq tau_2$, then actually $tau_1 = tau_2$. See here for a proof (take the bijection to be the identity map $(X,tau_2)to (X,tau_1)$).




                        Thus $tau_Phi'$ is actually equal to the standard topology. So for any formula $psi(x)$, we can express $[psi(x)]$ as an arbitrary union of finite intersections of subbasic clopen sets. Since $[psi(x)]$ is compact, we can make do with a finite union of finite intersections. So $psi(x)$ is equivalent to $bigvee_i=1^n bigwedge_j=1^m varphi_i,j(x)$, where each $varphi_i,j(x)$ is in $Phi$ or is the negation of a formula in $Phi$.



                        Of course, SMM's answer is exactly what you get when you translate the compactness argument in the proof of the general topology fact into a compactness argument in terms of formulas.



                        In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, this more abstract view can be useful, in that it can help you more easily find proofs of similar facts. For example, suppose you have a stronger separation condition: for any types $pneq q$, there is a finite conjunction $varphi_p(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ and a finite conjunction $varphi_q(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ such that $varphi_p(x)in p$, $varphi_q(x)in q$, and $varphi_p(x)land varphi_q(x)$ is inconsistent. Then you don't need to pass to $Phi'$ by closing under complements: the condition exactly says that $tau_Phi$ is Hausdorff. And you can conclude that every formula is equivalent to a positive Boolean combination (no negation) of formulas in $Phi$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote









                          I like to think about this fact from the point of view of the topology on the type space. Recall that a basis for the usual topology on $S_n(A)$ is given by $[psi(x)] = pin S_n(A)mid psi(x)in p$.



                          Let $Phi'$ be the closure of $Phi$ under complements. Define a topology $tau_Phi'$ on $S_n(A)$ by taking the family $[varphi(x)]mid varphi(x)in Phi'$ as a subbasis. This is weaker than (or equal to) the standard topology, and all the subbasic open sets are clopen. Since any two distinct points $pneq q$ are separated by a clopen set, $tau_Phi'$ is Hausdorff. Now we use a general topology fact:




                          If $(X,tau_1)$ is Hausdorff, $(X,tau_2)$ is compact, and $tau_1subseteq tau_2$, then actually $tau_1 = tau_2$. See here for a proof (take the bijection to be the identity map $(X,tau_2)to (X,tau_1)$).




                          Thus $tau_Phi'$ is actually equal to the standard topology. So for any formula $psi(x)$, we can express $[psi(x)]$ as an arbitrary union of finite intersections of subbasic clopen sets. Since $[psi(x)]$ is compact, we can make do with a finite union of finite intersections. So $psi(x)$ is equivalent to $bigvee_i=1^n bigwedge_j=1^m varphi_i,j(x)$, where each $varphi_i,j(x)$ is in $Phi$ or is the negation of a formula in $Phi$.



                          Of course, SMM's answer is exactly what you get when you translate the compactness argument in the proof of the general topology fact into a compactness argument in terms of formulas.



                          In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, this more abstract view can be useful, in that it can help you more easily find proofs of similar facts. For example, suppose you have a stronger separation condition: for any types $pneq q$, there is a finite conjunction $varphi_p(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ and a finite conjunction $varphi_q(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ such that $varphi_p(x)in p$, $varphi_q(x)in q$, and $varphi_p(x)land varphi_q(x)$ is inconsistent. Then you don't need to pass to $Phi'$ by closing under complements: the condition exactly says that $tau_Phi$ is Hausdorff. And you can conclude that every formula is equivalent to a positive Boolean combination (no negation) of formulas in $Phi$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          I like to think about this fact from the point of view of the topology on the type space. Recall that a basis for the usual topology on $S_n(A)$ is given by $[psi(x)] = pin S_n(A)mid psi(x)in p$.



                          Let $Phi'$ be the closure of $Phi$ under complements. Define a topology $tau_Phi'$ on $S_n(A)$ by taking the family $[varphi(x)]mid varphi(x)in Phi'$ as a subbasis. This is weaker than (or equal to) the standard topology, and all the subbasic open sets are clopen. Since any two distinct points $pneq q$ are separated by a clopen set, $tau_Phi'$ is Hausdorff. Now we use a general topology fact:




                          If $(X,tau_1)$ is Hausdorff, $(X,tau_2)$ is compact, and $tau_1subseteq tau_2$, then actually $tau_1 = tau_2$. See here for a proof (take the bijection to be the identity map $(X,tau_2)to (X,tau_1)$).




                          Thus $tau_Phi'$ is actually equal to the standard topology. So for any formula $psi(x)$, we can express $[psi(x)]$ as an arbitrary union of finite intersections of subbasic clopen sets. Since $[psi(x)]$ is compact, we can make do with a finite union of finite intersections. So $psi(x)$ is equivalent to $bigvee_i=1^n bigwedge_j=1^m varphi_i,j(x)$, where each $varphi_i,j(x)$ is in $Phi$ or is the negation of a formula in $Phi$.



                          Of course, SMM's answer is exactly what you get when you translate the compactness argument in the proof of the general topology fact into a compactness argument in terms of formulas.



                          In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, this more abstract view can be useful, in that it can help you more easily find proofs of similar facts. For example, suppose you have a stronger separation condition: for any types $pneq q$, there is a finite conjunction $varphi_p(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ and a finite conjunction $varphi_q(x)$ of formulas in $Phi$ such that $varphi_p(x)in p$, $varphi_q(x)in q$, and $varphi_p(x)land varphi_q(x)$ is inconsistent. Then you don't need to pass to $Phi'$ by closing under complements: the condition exactly says that $tau_Phi$ is Hausdorff. And you can conclude that every formula is equivalent to a positive Boolean combination (no negation) of formulas in $Phi$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Sep 8 at 14:51









                          Alex Kruckman

                          23.8k22454




                          23.8k22454



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2909526%2fa-property-of-a-set-of-formulas-that-implies-that-every-formula-is-equivalent-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              這個網誌中的熱門文章

                              How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                              Carbon dioxide

                              Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?