LaTeX source

Prerequisite Mathematical Definitions

These definitions ask when the current output, together with specified information about an input change, determines the updated output. Transition independence describes a change by the coordinate’s old and new values; transform independence describes it by the operation applied. Context supplies additional input values when these are needed to determine the response.

1 Transition Independence

Setting.

We consider functions f:S1×⋯×Sn→T, where the factor sets Si and the codomain T carry no assumed structure unless otherwise noted. We write 𝒂|ai=ai′ for the tuple identical to 𝒂 except that the i-th component is replaced by ai′, and write

𝒟i≔{(f⁢(𝒂),ai):𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn}⊆T×Si

for the joint range of (f,pri) — the set of (v,ai) pairs realized by some 𝒂. The auxiliary functions introduced in the conditions below are defined on 𝒟i (or 𝒟i×Si).

We introduce three formulations of transition independence forming a hierarchy of decreasing generality: the transition-map condition requires no structure on T; the finite-difference condition requires that (T,+) be a group, so that differences are defined, writing x−y for x+(−y); and the derivative condition requires that Si be an open interval of ℝ, that T be a normed vector space, and that f be differentiable in si, with the regularity supporting its equivalences stated in the summary below. Each formulation is stated at its natural level of generality.

Transition map.

The variable si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i with respect to f iff there exists a transition map Hi:𝒟i×Si→T (necessarily unique on its declared domain) such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀ai′∈Sif⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=Hi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′). (1)

The non-trivial content of the condition is that the remaining coordinates 𝒂j≠i are dropped in favor of the output f⁢(𝒂). No structure on T is required: the condition is meaningful for functions valued in discrete spaces, ordered sets, manifolds, or any other codomain. For Hi to be well-defined as a function on 𝒟i×Si, the following consistency condition is necessary and sufficient.

Remark 1 (Output-determinacy).

For every 𝒂,𝒃∈S1×⋯×Sn, if f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) and ai=bi, then f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=ai′) for every ai′∈Si.

Proof of the equivalence. (⇒) If Hi satisfies (1) and f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) with ai=bi, then f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=Hi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′)=Hi⁢(f⁢(𝒃),bi,ai′)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=ai′). (⇐) Given output-determinacy, define Hi⁢(v,s,ai′):=f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′) for any 𝒂 with f⁢(𝒂)=v and ai=s; output-determinacy makes the choice of 𝒂 immaterial, so Hi is well-defined and (1) holds by construction.

Geometrically, output-determinacy says that the level sets of f do not “twist” along the si-direction: two points sharing both the same output and the same i-th coordinate must land on the same level set as each other — in general a different one from where they started — when si is varied. In full generality, the condition asserts that the pair (f⁢(𝒂),ai) is a sufficient representation for predicting how f responds to movement of si.

Composition and reversibility. Suppose the transition-map condition holds. For each s ∈ S i , let

I s = { f ( a ) : a i = s } .

For s , t ∈ S i , define H s , t : I s → I t by H s , t ( v ) = H i ( v , s , t ) . Then, for all s , t , u ∈ S i ,

H s , s = id I s , H t , u ∘ H s , t = H s , u , H s , t − 1 = H t , s .

Proof. For v ∈ I s , choose a tuple a with a i = s and f ( a ) = v . Substitution of s leaves this tuple unchanged. Substitution first of t and then of u gives the same tuple as direct substitution of u . These observations prove the first two identities. Taking the final coordinate back to its starting value proves both inverse identities, so H s , t is a bijection between the realized output sets.

Equivalently, write R = ∏ j ≠ i S j and let f s : R → T be the function obtained by fixing the distinguished coordinate to s . Transition independence is equivalent to

f s ( r ) = f s ( r ′ )   ⟺   f t ( r ) = f t ( r ′ )

for all s , t ∈ S i and r , r ′ ∈ R . Indeed, output-determinacy gives each direction by substituting the other coordinate value; conversely, this equivalence gives output-determinacy. Thus all the slices induce the same equivalence relation on the remaining inputs. No topology or differentiability is required.

Finite-difference formulation.

When (T,+) is a group, the transition-map condition has an equivalent algebraic formulation: there exists Gi:𝒟i×Si→T such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀ai′∈Sif⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)−f⁢(𝒂)=Gi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′). (2)

The two formulations are related by Gi⁢(v,ai,ai′)=Hi⁢(v,ai,ai′)−v and Hi⁢(v,ai,ai′)=Gi⁢(v,ai,ai′)+v.

Derivative formulation.

Suppose Si is an open interval of ℝ and T is a normed vector space. When f is differentiable in si, the derivative condition is: there exists Fi:𝒟i→T such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn∂f⁢(𝒔)∂si|𝒔=𝒂=Fi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai). (3)

When (3) holds, the map t↦f⁢(𝒂|ai=t) satisfies the initial value problem

d⁢yd⁢t=Fi⁢(y,t),y⁢(ai)=f⁢(𝒂), (4)

whose solution determines f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′) entirely from (f⁢(𝒂),ai) provided the solution is unique.111Solution and uniqueness are taken, here and below, in the class specified in Appendix A. The ODE (4) is the bridge between the derivative condition and the transition map.

Integration convention.

All integrals below are norm-Riemann integrals on compact intervals. Integrability of g:[u,v]→T, for u<v, means that all tagged Riemann sums converge in the norm of T, as their mesh tends to zero, to one element of T. Reversing the limits changes the sign, and equal limits give zero. If a coordinate trajectory is continuously differentiable, its derivative is integrable in this sense: embed T isometrically in its Banach completion and apply the fundamental theorem of calculus there. The resulting integral is the difference of two trajectory values and hence lies in T, so the same Riemann sums converge in T.

Summary of equivalences.

The relationships among (1), (2), and (3) can be summarized as follows:

  1. (a)

    Condition (1) is equivalent to output-determinacy (Remark 1). No structure on T is required.

  2. (b)

    If (T,+) is a group, conditions (1) and (2) are equivalent via Hi⁢(v,ai,ai′)=Gi⁢(v,ai,ai′)+v and Gi⁢(v,ai,ai′)=Hi⁢(v,ai,ai′)−v.

  3. (c)

    Suppose Si is an open interval of ℝ, T is a normed vector space, and f is differentiable in si throughout. Then (1) ⇒ (3) holds, via Fi⁢(v,ai):=∂ai′Hi⁢(v,ai,ai′)|ai′=ai. The reverse direction (3) ⇒ (1) holds provided the IVP (4) admits a unique solution from each initial datum (v,ai)∈𝒟i. Under these hypotheses the first two formulations are equivalent and imply the third; when in addition the IVPs (4) arising from (3) are uniquely solvable in the sense of Appendix A, the third returns the first, and the three formulations coincide. The trajectory t↦f⁢(𝒂|ai=t) solves the initial value problem

    d⁢yd⁢t=Fi⁢(y,t),y⁢(ai)=f⁢(𝒂).

    The identity below additionally assumes the transition-map condition (1) and integrability of the trajectory's derivative; continuous differentiability of the trajectory suffices for this integrability. The transition-map condition is ensured, in particular, by (3) together with the IVP uniqueness hypothesis above. The corresponding finite-difference map then satisfies

    Gi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′)=∫aiai′Fi⁢(f⁢(𝒂|ai=t),t)⁢𝑑t. (5)

    Examples: the role of uniqueness. The derivative condition alone does not imply transition independence, even when every coordinate trajectory is smooth. Let f ( t , q ) = q t 3 on R × { 0 , 1 } , with t the distinguished coordinate. Then ∂ t f ( t , q ) = F ( f ( t , q ) , t ) for

    F ( v , t ) = 3 | v | 2 / 3 .

    But f ( 0 , 0 ) = f ( 0 , 1 ) = 0 , whereas f ( 1 , 0 ) = 0 and f ( 1 , 1 ) = 1 . The two tuples share an output and an initial distinguished-coordinate value, but not their output after the same substitution.

    Conversely, uniqueness in Appendix A's solution class is sufficient but not necessary for transition independence. Let f ( t , c ) = ( t + c ) 3 on R 2 . A transition map is

    H ( v , s , u ) = ( v 3 + u − s ) 3 ,

    where s and u are the initial and target values of the first coordinate. The induced ODE is y ′ = 3 | y | 2 / 3 . Here D 1 = R 2 , and both y ( t ) ≡ 0 and y ( t ) = t 3 are solutions on R through ( v , t ) = ( 0 , 0 ) . Thus transition independence holds although uniqueness in the specified class fails.

    By default we will mean (1) when referring to ‘transition independence.’

2 Transition Context

Setting.

Transition independence may be partial: si might be transition-independent of some variables, with the others retained as its context, without being fully independent. We formalize this by partitioning {1,…,n} as {i}∪J∪K, where J is the context and K={1,…,n}∖({i}∪J) contains the remaining variables. Each of the three formulations of Section 1 extends to this conditional setting, the auxiliary maps Hi,J, Gi,J, Fi,J now allowed to depend on the context values 𝒂J.

Transition-map formulation (no structure on T).

The variable si is transition-independent of 𝐬K given context 𝐬J iff there exists a map Hi,J:𝒟iJ×Si→T (denoted Hi,J⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′,𝒂J), with the target ai′ written before the context 𝒂J) such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀ai′∈Sif⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=Hi,J⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′,𝒂J), (6)

where 𝒟iJ≔{(f⁢(𝒂),ai,𝒂J):𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn}. Setting J=∅ recovers (1); setting J={1,…,n}∖{i} holds trivially.

Remark 2 (Output-determinacy on context J).

For every 𝒂,𝒃∈S1×⋯×Sn, if f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃), ai=bi, and 𝒂J=𝒃J, then f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=ai′) for every ai′∈Si.

As in the full case, output-determinacy on context J is necessary and sufficient for Hi,J to be well-defined on 𝒟iJ×Si. Setting J=∅ recovers Remark 1.

Geometrically, this is still essentially the no-twist condition of Section 1, now imposed within each context slice: with 𝒔J fixed, the level sets of f do not “twist” along the si-direction.

Remark 3 (Partial-function form).

Condition (6) holds if and only if, for every 𝒄J∈∏j∈JSj, the variable si is fully transition-independent on the partial function f|𝒔J=𝒄J:∏m∈{i}∪KSm→T, in the sense of Section 1.222Here and throughout, for E⊆{1,…,n} we write 𝒂E≔(aj)j∈E for the corresponding subtuple, abbreviated 𝒂j≠i when E={1,…,n}∖{i}, and pri for the i-th projection 𝒂↦ai. Reindexing the factors and regrouping the remaining factors leave the distinguished-coordinate conditions unchanged, through the evident bijections. A block product may also be treated as a single factor in the transition-map and finite-difference definitions, using simultaneous substitution of that block. The derivative formulation, however, requires the distinguished factor to remain an open interval of R with its given scalar coordinate; no derivative with respect to an arbitrary block is defined here.

The slice condition in Remark 3 is equivalent to si being transition-independent of 𝒔K given context 𝒔J: since 𝒂|ai=ai′ fixes 𝒂J, the map Hi,J⁢(⋅,⋅,⋅,𝒄J) is the transition map of f|𝒔J=𝒄J.

In other words, partial transition independence is full transition independence on sets of partial functions. Context is what’s fixed.

Finite-difference formulation (group T).

When (T,+) is a group, the condition has the equivalent algebraic form: there exists Gi,J:𝒟iJ×Si→T such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀ai′∈Sif⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)−f⁢(𝒂)=Gi,J⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′,𝒂J). (7)

The two formulations are related by Gi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)=Hi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)−v and Hi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)=Gi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)+v.

Derivative formulation (Si real, T normed).

Suppose Si is an open interval of ℝ and T is a normed vector space. When f is differentiable in si, a weaker condition is: there exists Fi,J:𝒟iJ→T such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn∂f⁢(𝒔)∂si|𝒔=𝒂=Fi,J⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,𝒂J). (8)

When (8) holds, the map t↦f⁢(𝒂|ai=t) satisfies the initial value problem

d⁢yd⁢t=Fi,J⁢(y,t,𝒂J),y⁢(ai)=f⁢(𝒂), (9)

whose solution determines f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′) entirely from (f⁢(𝒂),ai,𝒂J) provided the solution is unique.333In the class of Appendix A, with (y⁢(t),t,𝒂J)∈𝒟iJ in place of (y⁢(t),t)∈𝒟i. The ODE (9) is the bridge between the derivative condition and the transition map. By default we will mean (6) when referring to ‘transition context’, ’partial transition independence’, or ’transition independence given …’.

Summary of equivalences.

The relationships among (6), (7), and (8) parallel those of Section 1, with the context tuple 𝒂J entering each auxiliary map as a passenger argument:

  1. (a)

    Condition (6) is equivalent to output-determinacy on context J (Remark 2). No structure on T is required.

  2. (b)

    If (T,+) is a group, conditions (6) and (7) are equivalent via Hi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)=Gi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)+v and Gi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)=Hi,J⁢(v,ai,ai′,𝒂J)−v.

  3. (c)

    Suppose Si is an open interval of ℝ, T is a normed vector space, and f is differentiable in si throughout. Then (6) ⇒ (8) holds. The reverse direction (8) ⇒ (6) holds provided the IVP (9) admits a unique solution from each initial datum. Under these hypotheses the first two formulations are equivalent and imply the third; when in addition the IVPs (9) arising from (8) are uniquely solvable in the sense of Appendix A, the third returns the first, and the three formulations coincide. The trajectory t↦f⁢(𝒂|ai=t) solves the initial value problem

    d⁢yd⁢t=Fi,J⁢(y,t,𝒂J),y⁢(ai)=f⁢(𝒂).

    The identity below additionally assumes the context transition-map condition (6) and integrability of the trajectory's derivative; continuous differentiability of the trajectory suffices for this integrability. The context transition-map condition is ensured, in particular, by (8) together with the IVP uniqueness hypothesis above for the fixed context. The corresponding finite-difference map then satisfies

    Gi,J⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′,𝒂J)=∫aiai′Fi,J⁢(f⁢(𝒂|ai=t),t,𝒂J)⁢𝑑t. (10)

From now on we work with the transition-map version (6).

3 Transform Independence

Setting.

Sections 1 and 2 describe the change in a variable by its initial and final values. This section describes it by a transform carrying the initial value to the final one. Fix a coordinate i, and let Δi be a family of transforms of Si: each δi∈Δi is a map δi:Si→Si, and we write δi∗ai for δi⁢(ai), so that the substitution of ai′ for ai is represented by a transform δi if ai′=δi∗ai. No structure on the family is assumed; in particular Δi need not be closed under composition. We write

ℰi≔{(f⁢(𝒂),δi):𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,δi∈Δi}=f⁢(S1×⋯×Sn)×Δi

for the product of the range of f with the family — the value and the transform do not constrain each other, since δi is chosen independently of 𝒂. The auxiliary functions introduced in the conditions below are defined on ℰi: they consult the transform applied, not the initial value ai or the final value ai′.

Transform-map formulation (no structure on T).

The variable si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi iff there exists a transform map HiΔ:ℰi→T (necessarily unique on its declared domain) such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀δi∈Δif⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi). (11)

The non-trivial content of the condition is that the remaining coordinates 𝒂j≠i and the initial value ai are both dropped in favor of the output f⁢(𝒂) and the transform δi alone. For HiΔ to be well-defined as a function on ℰi, the following consistency condition is necessary and sufficient.

Remark 4 (Transform output-determinacy).

For every 𝒂,𝒃∈S1×⋯×Sn, if f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃), then f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=δi∗bi) for every δi∈Δi.

Proof of the equivalence. (⇒) If HiΔ satisfies (11) and f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃), then f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi)=HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒃),δi)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=δi∗bi) for every δi∈Δi. (⇐) Given transform output-determinacy, define HiΔ⁢(v,δi):=f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai) for any 𝒂 with f⁢(𝒂)=v; the condition makes the choice of 𝒂 immaterial, so HiΔ is well-defined and (11) holds by construction.

Transform output-determinacy says that two tuples sharing the same output must respond identically to each other under every transform in Δi, whatever their initial values. Over the substitutions that Δi represents, ordinary output-determinacy (Remark 1) makes that same demand, but only of tuples that also share an initial value: for those, the transform applied and the final value describe the same substitution. Geometrically, the condition says that applying a transform δi to the i-th coordinate carries every level set of f into a single level set — in general a different one — and so descends along f to the induced map v↦HiΔ⁢(v,δi) on the range of f. In full generality, the condition asserts that the output f⁢(𝒂) alone is a sufficient representation for predicting how f responds to each transform in Δi.

Finite-difference formulation (group T).

When (T,+) is a group, the transform-map condition has an equivalent algebraic formulation: there exists GiΔ:ℰi→T such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀δi∈Δif⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)−f⁢(𝒂)=GiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi). (12)

The two formulations are related by GiΔ⁢(v,δi)=HiΔ⁢(v,δi)−v and HiΔ⁢(v,δi)=GiΔ⁢(v,δi)+v. No derivative (instantaneous) formulation is included; the two formulations above are the only ones we use.

Summary of equivalences.

The relationships between (11) and (12) parallel items (a) and (b) of Section 1, with the pair (f⁢(𝒂),δi) replacing (f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′) throughout:

  1. (a)

    Condition (11) is equivalent to transform output-determinacy (Remark 4). No structure on T is required.

  2. (b)

    If (T,+) is a group, conditions (11) and (12) are equivalent via HiΔ⁢(v,δi)=GiΔ⁢(v,δi)+v and GiΔ⁢(v,δi)=HiΔ⁢(v,δi)−v.

Remark 5 (Keeping the initial value).

Passing from the transition-map condition (1) to the transform-map condition (11) replaces the pair (ai,ai′) with the transform δi alone. If we replaced it instead with the pair (ai,δi) — the initial value kept — the condition would read: there exists H:𝒟i×Δi→T (necessarily unique on its declared domain) such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀δi∈Δif⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=H⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,δi). (13)

Condition (13) is equivalent to condition (1) quantified over the substitutions that Δi represents: there exists Hi:Di×Si→T such that f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=Hi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′) for every 𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn and every target ai′=δi∗ai with δi∈Δi.

Proof of the equivalence. (⇒) Given H satisfying (13), define Hi⁢(v,ai,ai′):=H⁢(v,ai,δi) for any δi∈Δi with δi∗ai=ai′. The choice is immaterial: for any 𝒂 realizing (v,ai), every representing δi gives H⁢(v,ai,δi)=f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′) — the substituted tuple depends only on the final value, not on the transform that represents the substitution — so Hi is well-defined on the represented triples. On every remaining triple (v,ai,ai′)∈Di×Si, set Hi(v,ai,ai′):=v. This defines Hi on its entire declared domain and the restricted condition holds by construction; that condition imposes no restriction on the values at unrepresented triples. (⇐) Given Hi, set H⁢(v,ai,δi):=Hi⁢(v,ai,δi∗ai); the target δi∗ai is represented by δi itself, so (13) holds.

When every substitution of ai′ for ai is represented by some transform in Δi, the restriction disappears: condition (13) is then equivalent to condition (1) itself.

Remark 6 (Reach and the closure).

Deleting the initial value from the pair (ai,δi) of the preceding remark removes information and nothing else: any transform map serves, through the preceding remark, as a transition map on the substitutions that Δi represents. Transform output-determinacy (Remark 4) therefore implies output-determinacy (Remark 1) over the substitutions that Δi represents. The implication reaches further.

We write Δ¯i for the family of maps of Si carried out by one or more transforms in Δi applied in succession, each to the value the previous one produced. Each map in Δ¯i is itself a transform of Si, so the transform-map condition (11) applies with Δ¯i in the role of Δi.

Lemma 7 (Passage to the closure).

If si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi, then it is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δ¯i: there exists a transform map HiΔ¯:f⁢(S1×⋯×Sn)×Δ¯i→T (necessarily unique on its declared domain) such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀δ¯i∈Δ¯if⁢(𝒂|ai=δ¯i∗ai)=HiΔ¯⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δ¯i). (14)

Proof. Suppose HiΔ satisfies (11). For a tuple 𝒂 and a succession δi,1,…,δi,k∈Δi, write ai0:=ai and aij:=δi,j∗aij−1 for the successive coordinate values. A succession carrying out δ¯i∈Δ¯i ends at aik=δ¯i∗ai. The tuple 𝒂|ai=aij−1 lies in S1×⋯×Sn with coordinate aij−1, so (11) applied to it with δi,j gives f⁢(𝒂|ai=aij)=HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂|ai=aij−1),δi,j). Each response is an output of f and feeds the next step. Induction on j gives f⁢(𝒂|ai=aik)=HiΔ⁢(⋯⁢HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi,1)⁢⋯,δi,k) — a value determined by the output f⁢(𝒂) and the succession alone.

Now define HiΔ¯⁢(v,δ¯i) by chaining HiΔ from v along any succession carrying out δ¯i. This is independent of the succession: each v in the domain has a realization v=f⁢(𝒂) for some 𝒂. Successions carrying out the same map produce the same substituted tuple from 𝒂, so both chains give f⁢(𝒂|ai=δ¯i∗ai). Hence HiΔ¯ is well-defined on its declared domain, and (14) holds by construction.

Proposition 8 (Reach).

Suppose Δ¯i represents every substitution of one value for another: for every ai,ai′∈Si with ai′≠ai, some δ¯i∈Δ¯i has ai′=δ¯i∗ai. If si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi, then si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i with respect to f.

Proof. Lemma 7 yields HiΔ¯ satisfying (14). Through Remark 5, with Δ¯i in the role of Δi, it serves as a transition map on the substitutions that Δ¯i represents: there exists Hi with f⁢(𝒂|ai=ai′)=Hi⁢(f⁢(𝒂),ai,ai′) for every 𝒂 and every target ai′=δ¯i∗ai, δ¯i∈Δ¯i. By hypothesis every target ai′≠ai is of that form; the identity target is free: the substituted tuple is 𝒂 itself, so setting Hi⁢(v,ai,ai):=v satisfies (1) there and agrees with any value already forced. Thus Hi is defined on all of 𝒟i×Si and (1) holds: si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i with respect to f, and output-determinacy (Remark 1) follows by item (a) of Section 1.

Corollary 9 (Represented substitutions).

If si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi, then there exists Hi:Di×Si→T such that f⁢(𝐚|ai=ai′)=Hi⁢(f⁢(𝐚),ai,ai′) for every 𝐚∈S1×⋯×Sn and every target ai′=δ¯i∗ai with δ¯i∈Δ¯i — condition (1) quantified over the substitutions that Δ¯i represents.

Proof. Lemma 7 yields HiΔ¯ satisfying (14). Through Remark 5, with Δ¯i in the role of Δi, it serves as a transition map on the substitutions that Δ¯i represents.

Transform independence alone yields the map: no hypothesis on the family enters.

Definition 10 (Achievability).

A value ai′∈Si is achievable from ai∈Si with respect to Δi iff ai′=ai or some δ¯i∈Δ¯i has ai′=δ¯i∗ai: either finitely many transforms in Δi applied in succession carry ai to ai′, or ai′ is ai itself. The achievable set of ai is the set of values achievable from ai.

Achievable sets are closed under the transforms: appending one further transform extends a succession. A subset R⊆Si is the achievable set of each of its values iff R is closed under the transforms and every value of R is achievable from every other. The achievable set of a single value meets the first requirement but need not meet the second: a succession may carry ai to ai′ while no succession carries ai′ back to ai. In this vocabulary, the targets of Corollary 9, together with ai itself, are exactly the values achievable from ai.

Corollary 11 (Achievable sets).

Suppose R⊆Si is the achievable set of each of its values. If si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi, then si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i with respect to the partial function f|si∈R:S1×⋯×Si−1×R×Si+1×⋯×Sn→T with the i-th factor confined to R, in the sense of Section 1.

Proof. By the preceding equivalence, R is closed under the transforms, and any value of R is achievable from any other. Each δi∈Δi carries R into R. Write δi|R for its restriction to R, and Δi|R for the restricted family.

The partial function agrees with f on its domain. By (11), equal outputs remain equal after any δi∈Δi, and the substituted value δi|R∗ai=δi∗ai lies in R. Thus transform output-determinacy (Remark 4) holds for f|si∈R and Δi|R. By item (a) of Section 3, si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f|si∈R and Δi|R.

A succession in Δi starting at a value of R visits only values of R, and the induced succession in Δi|R carries out the same map of R; since every value of R is achievable from every other, Δi|R¯ represents every substitution of one value of R for another. Proposition 8, with f|si∈R in the role of f, R in the role of Si, and Δi|R in the role of Δi, therefore shows that si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i with respect to f|si∈R.

Setting R=Si recovers Proposition 8: closedness holds trivially, and Δ¯i represents every substitution of one value for another iff every value of Si is achievable from every other.

Remark 12 (Safe transforms).

Transform independence with respect to a family whose closure represents every substitution of one value for another gives, through Proposition 8, transition independence. Whether some family of transforms of Si satisfies both of those hypotheses is decided by f alone. Call a transform δi of Si safe for f when every two tuples sharing the same output but not the same initial value respond identically to each other under δi: if f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) and ai≠bi, then f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=δi∗bi). We write Δif for the family of all safe transforms of Si. The identity transform of Si is safe for every f: the substituted tuples are 𝒂 and 𝒃 themselves.

Lemma 13 (Closure of the safe family).

Suppose si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i with respect to f. Then every map of Si carried out by finitely many safe transforms applied in succession, each to the value the previous one produced, is itself safe for f. With Δif in the role of Δi in Remark 6, the closure Δ¯i is Δif itself.

Proof. For 𝒂,𝒃 with f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) and ai≠bi, and a succession δi,1,…,δi,k of safe transforms carrying out δ¯i, write ai0:=ai and aij:=δi,j∗aij−1 for the values the succession visits from ai, and likewise bij from bi, so that aik=δ¯i∗ai and bik=δ¯i∗bi. The substituted tuples 𝒂|ai=aij and 𝒃|bi=bij lie in S1×⋯×Sn, carry initial values aij and bij, and share an output at j=0; sharing survives each step. If aij−1=bij−1, the tuples at j−1 share their initial value, and output-determinacy (Remark 1), which holds by item (a) of Section 1, keeps the outputs equal at the common target aij=bij. If aij−1≠bij−1, the tuples at j−1 share the same output but not the same initial value, and δi,j is safe. Induction on j gives f⁢(𝒂|ai=δ¯i∗ai)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=δ¯i∗bi): the map the succession carries out is safe. The closure clause follows: every map in Δ¯i is carried out by a succession of safe transforms, and every safe transform lies in Δ¯i as a succession of length one.

Lemma 14 (Families of safe transforms).

Suppose si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i with respect to f. Then si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi iff every member of Δi is safe for f.

Proof. (⇒) If HiΔ satisfies (11), then for f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) with ai≠bi and any δi∈Δi, f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi)=HiΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒃),δi)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=δi∗bi): every member is safe. (⇐) Suppose every member of Δi is safe, and let f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) with δi∈Δi. If ai=bi, then δi∗ai=δi∗bi, and output-determinacy (Remark 1), which holds by item (a) of Section 1, keeps the outputs equal at that common target; if ai≠bi, δi is safe. Transform output-determinacy (Remark 4) therefore holds, and si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi by item (a) of Section 3.

Proposition 15 (Reach of the safe family).

Suppose si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i with respect to f. Then si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and some family Δi of transforms of Si satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition 8 — its closure Δ¯i represents every substitution of one value for another — iff the safe family Δif itself represents every substitution of one value for another. In that case Δif is such a family.

Proof. (⇒) Let Δi be such a family: every member is safe (Lemma 14), and every map in Δ¯i is carried out by finitely many members applied in succession, hence is itself safe (Lemma 13). Every substitution of one value for another is represented by some map in Δ¯i, hence by a safe transform: Δif represents every substitution of one value for another. (⇐) Take Δif in the role of Δi — this also proves the closing assertion. Every member of Δif is safe, so si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δif (Lemma 14); the closure of Δif is Δif itself (Lemma 13), and it represents every substitution of one value for another by hypothesis.

Corollary 16 (Strictness).

Suppose si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i with respect to f, and let Δi be any family of transforms of Si. Then si is not transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝐬j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and Δi iff some member of Δi is not safe for f. When Δi satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 8, this is exactly the statement that the implication of Proposition 8 is strict at f and Δi.

Proof. Lemma 14: transform independence with respect to f and Δi holds iff every member of Δi is safe for f; strictness at f and Δi is exactly its failure.

Remark 17 (Assignments).

For each value c∈Si, the assignment to c is the transform of Si carrying every value to c. The assignment family represents every substitution of one value for another (the substitution of ai′ for ai is represented by the assignment to ai′), and a succession of assignments carries out its last member, so the family is its own closure. Suppose si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i with respect to f. By Lemma 14, si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and the assignment family iff every assignment is safe for f — iff f⁢(𝒂|ai=c) is determined by (f⁢(𝒂),c) alone. If every assignment is safe, the assignment family lies inside Δif, and Δif then represents every substitution of one value for another; the reverse implication need not hold.

For a counterexample to the converse, let f(x,y)=x+y on R2 and consider the first coordinate. Since f(x′,y)=f(x,y)+x′−x, that coordinate is transition-independent. Every translation δc(x)=x+c is safe because f(x+c,y)=f(x,y)+c, and translations represent every substitution of x′ for x by taking c=x′−x. The assignment x↦0 is nevertheless unsafe: (0,1) and (1,0) have the same initial output 1, but after the assignment their outputs are 1 and 0.

Remark 18 (Determination of the initial value).

Suppose si is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i with respect to f, and suppose the output determines the initial value: f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) only when ai=bi. Then two tuples sharing the same output share the same initial value, every transform of Si is safe for f, and si is transform-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠i and of its own initial value with respect to f and every family Δi of transforms of Si (Lemma 14), whether or not its closure represents every substitution of one value for another.

Remark 19 (Equivariance form).

For δi∈Δi, we write δ^i for the map 𝒂↦𝒂|ai=δi∗ai on S1×⋯×Sn, which applies δi to the i-th coordinate and leaves the remaining coordinates unchanged. Condition (11) is then the intertwining identity

f∘δ^i=ρ⁢(δi)∘f,ρ⁢(δi)≔HiΔ⁢(⋅,δi).

Equivariance in the usual sense supplies actions on both sides and asks f to intertwine them; here only the domain side is given, and the codomain family ρ is quantified existentially. Transform output-determinacy (Remark 4) says exactly that the level sets of f form a congruence for each δ^i: each level set is carried into a single level set, in general a different one. Each δ^i therefore descends along f to ρ⁢(δi), a self-map of the range of f, unique there because its values are forced. Composites descend as well. By Lemma 7, define on the closure

ρ―(δ―i):=HiΔ―(⋅,δ―i),δ―i∈Δ―i.

These are self-maps of the range of f, and uniqueness gives ρ―|Δi=ρ. For δ―i,ϵ―i∈Δ―i, the identity ϵ―i∘δ―i^=ϵ―i^∘δ―i^ and the forced values on the range of f give

ρ―(ϵ―i∘δ―i)=ρ―(ϵ―i)∘ρ―(δ―i).

Thus ρ― is the induced action of the closure Δ―i on the range of f: equivariance on the generators is equivariance on the generated semigroup. Under standard names, f is a semiconjugacy, or factor map, onto its image, and the descent along f is the deterministic lumpability of the level-set partition, also known as exact aggregation.

4 Transform Context

Setting.

Transform independence may be partial in the same way: si might be transform-independent of some variables and of its own initial value, with the others retained as its context. We partition {1,…,n} as {i}∪J∪K as in Section 2, with J the context and K the remaining variables. The variable si is transform-independent of 𝐬K and of its own initial value given context 𝐬J, with respect to f and Δi, if the conditions of Section 3 hold when the auxiliary maps are allowed to depend on the context values 𝒂J. The family is unchanged: only the maps consult the context.

Transform-map formulation (no structure on T).

The variable si is transform-independent of 𝒔K and of its own initial value given context 𝒔J, with respect to f and Δi, iff there exists a map Hi,JΔ:ℰiJ→T (denoted Hi,JΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi,𝒂J), the transform written before the context) such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀δi∈Δif⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=Hi,JΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi,𝒂J), (15)

where ℰiJ≔{(f⁢(𝒂),𝒂J):𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn}×Δi — the transform still constrains nothing, being chosen independently of 𝒂, while the output and the context may constrain each other. Setting J=∅ recovers (11); setting J={1,…,n}∖{i} does not hold trivially: the map consults the transform and every remaining coordinate, still not the initial value the transform acts on.

Remark 20 (Transform output-determinacy on context J).

For every 𝒂,𝒃∈S1×⋯×Sn, if f⁢(𝒂)=f⁢(𝒃) and 𝒂J=𝒃J, then f⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)=f⁢(𝒃|bi=δi∗bi) for every δi∈Δi.

As in the full case, transform output-determinacy on context J is necessary and sufficient for Hi,JΔ to be well-defined on ℰiJ. Setting J=∅ recovers Remark 4. Geometrically, this is still the descent of Section 3, now within each context slice: with 𝒔J fixed, applying a transform carries every level set of the partial function into a single level set — in general a different one.

Remark 21 (Partial-function form).

Condition (15) holds if and only if, for every 𝒄J∈∏j∈JSj, the variable si is fully transform-independent of the remaining variables and of its own initial value on the partial function f|𝒔J=𝒄J:∏m∈{i}∪KSm→T, with respect to the same family Δi, in the sense of Section 3.

The slice condition in Remark 21 is equivalent to si being transform-independent of 𝒔K and of its own initial value given context 𝒔J: since 𝒂|ai=δi∗ai fixes 𝒂J, the map Hi,JΔ⁢(⋅,⋅,𝒄J) is the transform map of f|𝒔J=𝒄J. Partial transform independence is full transform independence on sets of partial functions, the family shared across them; context is what’s fixed.

Finite-difference formulation (group T).

When (T,+) is a group, the condition has the equivalent algebraic form: there exists Gi,JΔ:ℰiJ→T such that

∀𝒂∈S1×⋯×Sn,∀δi∈Δif⁢(𝒂|ai=δi∗ai)−f⁢(𝒂)=Gi,JΔ⁢(f⁢(𝒂),δi,𝒂J). (16)

The relationships between (15) and (16) parallel items (a) and (b) of Section 3, with the context tuple 𝒂J entering each map as a passenger argument: the formulations are related by Gi,JΔ⁢(v,δi,𝒂J)=Hi,JΔ⁢(v,δi,𝒂J)−v and Hi,JΔ⁢(v,δi,𝒂J)=Gi,JΔ⁢(v,δi,𝒂J)+v, and no derivative formulation is included.

The apparatus under context.

Every result of Section 3 applies within each context slice through the partial-function form, with f|𝒔J=𝒄J in the role of f: a context slice is itself a function on a total product of factor sets.

Closure and reach. Remark 5 converts the slice’s transform map into a transition map on the substitutions the family represents. The closure Δ¯i defined in Remark 6 is the same in every slice. Lemma 7 and Proposition 8 apply within each slice: the closure and the reach hypothesis depend on Si and Δi alone, so a single hypothesis serves every slice. Corollary 9, Definition 10, and Corollary 11 apply within each slice; achievability is also independent of the context.

Contextual conclusion. By Remark 3, the slice conclusions give context statements: under the hypothesis of Proposition 8, if si is transform-independent of 𝒔K and of its own initial value given context 𝒔J with respect to f and Δi, then si is transition-independent of 𝒔K given context 𝒔J with respect to f.

Safety and induced actions. The safe transforms of Remark 12 are specific to each slice: a transform safe for one partial function need not be safe for another. Accordingly, Lemma 13, Lemma 14, Proposition 15, Corollary 16, and Remarks 17 and 18 hold within each slice. Remark 19 also applies within each slice, with ρ acting on the range of the partial function.

5 Context-Related Definitions

Sufficient contexts and monotonicity.

Fix a coordinate i and a context J⊆{1,…,n}∖{i}. The context J is sufficient for si (with respect to f) iff si is transition-independent of 𝒔K given context 𝒔J, with K={1,…,n}∖({i}∪J), in the sense of Section 2, formulation (6). Sufficiency is monotone in the context: if J⊆J′ and J is sufficient for si, then J′ is, since tuples agreeing on J′ agree on J, so the condition on context J′ (Remark 2) constrains a subset of the pairs the condition on J does. The implication is strict in general, and the two boundary contexts of Section 2 — J=∅ and J={1,…,n}∖{i} — are its endpoints. The same monotonicity holds verbatim for the transform-context condition of Section 4, where the full residual need not be sufficient: the context set may be empty there, so a nonempty context basis is not guaranteed. The basis of minimal sufficient contexts is nevertheless well-defined, possibly empty, and still generates the context set by upward closure.

Context sets and context bases.

Collect the sufficient contexts for si into the context set

Ci⁢(f)≔{J⊆{1,…,n}∖{i}:J⁢ is sufficient for ⁢si},

and let the context basis C⁢Bi⁢(f)≔{J∈Ci⁢(f):∄⁢J′∈Ci⁢(f)⁢ with ⁢J′⊊J} be its set of minimal elements. The two carry the same information: Ci⁢(f) is the up-set of C⁢Bi⁢(f). This rests on three facts:

  1. Non-emptiness. The full residual {1,…,n}∖{i} is always sufficient (Section 2 records it as trivial), and Ci⁢(f) lies in the finite power set of {1,…,n}∖{i} (finite even when the Sj are not), so C⁢Bi⁢(f)≠∅ and every sufficient context contains a minimal one.

  2. Upward closure. This is the monotonicity above.

  3. Generation. Hence J∈Ci⁢(f) iff J⊇J0 for some J0∈C⁢Bi⁢(f).

The empty context is sufficient exactly when si is transition-independent of all remaining variables in the sense of Section 1 — that is, C⁢Bi⁢(f)={∅}.

The basis need not be a singleton: with S1=S2=S3={0,1}, f⁢(0,0,0)=f⁢(0,1,1), and the other six values distinct and fresh, both {2} and {3} are sufficient for s1 while ∅ is not, so C⁢B1⁢(f)={{2},{3}}.

In general, whenever the basis contains two incomparable contexts, their intersection is a proper subset of each. Its sufficiency would contradict their minimality. Thus Ci⁢(f) is not in general closed under intersection.

Trichotomy of variable roles.

Each variable sj, j≠i, is irrelevant, optional, or essential for si according as j lies in no element of C⁢Bi⁢(f), in some but not all, or in every one — mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

The relation need not be symmetric: for f⁢(x,y)=x⁢ey on ℝ2, with x=s1 and y=s2, y is essential for x (the empty context fails at x=0, so CB1(f)={{2}}) while x is irrelevant for y (from f⁢(x,y′)=f⁢(x,y)⁢ey′−y the empty context suffices, so CB2(f)={∅}).

Contextual order.

The inputs s1,…,sn are contextually ordered with respect to f iff for every i, the variable si is transition-independent of 𝒔{1,…,i−1} given context 𝒔{i+1,…,n}, in the sense of Section 2: the tuple (f⁢(𝒂),ai,𝒂{i+1,…,n}) is a sufficient representation for predicting how f responds to movement of si.

The contexts nest and shrink along the order, and enlarging a context only weakens the requirement (the monotonicity above). At i=n the context is empty and the condition is transition independence in the sense of Section 1: sn is transition-independent of the remaining variables 𝒔j≠n with respect to f. At i=1 the condition holds trivially.

The property is of the ordering as given; when some reordering of the inputs is contextually ordered, the inputs are contextually orderable.

Remark 22 (Adjacent grouping).

Grouping adjacent variables preserves contextual order: partition the indices into consecutive blocks and read f on the product of the block products, each block tuple a single variable — the block tuples are contextually ordered with respect to f so read.

To prove this, compare two tuples with the same output, initial block values, and later block values. Substitute the same target block in both tuples, proceeding from its last variable to its first. At each step, the context consists of the already substituted part of the block and the later blocks, so it agrees between the two tuples. Output-determinacy on the context (Remark 2) preserves equality of outputs at each step. Thus the composite response is determined by the output, the initial and final block values, and the later block values.

In particular, split in two: for {s1,…,sm} and {sm+1,…,sn}, the latter tuple 𝒔{m+1,…,n} is transition-independent of 𝒔{1,…,m} with respect to f so read.

Conversely, grouped contextual order implies each variable's condition with the earlier variables of its own block added to its context. Indeed, agreement on the variable, its later variables, and this added context implies agreement on the entire initial block and the later blocks; the block condition then applies to a target changing only that variable. At the first variable of a block no context is added, so its original condition is recovered. If the last block is {n}, this also recovers unconditional transition independence of sn.

These sufficient cases need not be necessary. For example, with blocks {1} and {2,3} and S2={∗}, the block variable (∗,s3) carries exactly the information in s3, so the grouped condition already gives unconditional transition independence of s3.

Nevertheless, ungrouping fails in general: for f(x,y,z)=yz on R3, the order x,(y,z) is contextual because f does not depend on x, whereas z is not transition-independent of (x,y). The tuples (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) have the same output and the same z-value; replacing z by 1 gives outputs 0 and 1.

Appendix A Solutions of the Bridging Initial Value Problems

By a solution of (4) we mean a differentiable y:Si→T with (y⁢(t),t)∈𝒟i for every t∈Si and y′⁢(t)=Fi⁢(y⁢(t),t); a solution of (9) is defined likewise, with (y⁢(t),t,𝒂J)∈𝒟iJ for every t∈Si and y′⁢(t)=Fi,J⁢(y⁢(t),t,𝒂J). Under condition (3), a solution exists from every datum (v,t0)∈𝒟i: choose an input tuple realizing that datum and vary only its distinguished coordinate over Si. The resulting coordinate trajectory is a solution in the class just specified. The same argument applies under (8), with the context tuple held fixed. Uniqueness of solutions, wherever it is invoked, is uniqueness in this class from the given datum: (4) is uniquely solvable when, for each datum (v,t0)∈𝒟i, exactly one solution in this class takes the value v at t0, and likewise for (9) at data (v,t0,𝒂J)∈𝒟iJ.

Local uniqueness at each datum suffices, where local uniqueness at a datum (v,t0)∈𝒟i means that any two solutions in this class taking the value v at t0 agree on a neighbourhood of t0 in Si: the set on which two solutions agree is closed by continuity and open by local uniqueness, and it contains t0 when the solutions share the datum, so it is all of the interval Si. The same reduction applies to (9), with data (v,t0,𝒂J)∈𝒟iJ and the context tuple held fixed.

Appendix B Notation

s1,…,sn — the input variables of f, with si the i-th.

𝒂=(a1,…,an) — a tuple of input values, ai∈Si; ai′ denotes a further value of Si.

𝒂|ai=ai′ — the tuple identical to 𝒂 except that the i-th component is ai′.

𝒂E≔(aj)j∈E — the subtuple of 𝒂 on E⊆{1,…,n}.

𝒂j≠i — the subtuple on E={1,…,n}∖{i}.

𝒂J — the subtuple on a context J, where J and K={1,…,n}∖({i}∪J) partition {1,…,n}∖{i}.

𝒔E — the tuple of variables indexed by E, of which 𝒂E is a tuple of values; likewise 𝒔j≠i, 𝒔J, 𝒔K.

𝒄J — a fixed value of 𝒔J, that is, an element of ∏j∈JSj.

pri — the i-th projection 𝒂↦ai.