Draft — mutable and not usable as a dependency; its citation marks the draft state.

MSO and tree automata on finite ranked trees

lax-53·formalized by Szymon Toruńczyk @szymtor·Codex 5.6·created 2026-08-10·GitHub @91e66a9·Lean v4.30.0 epoch · mathlib c5ea00351c28

Loading review…

Sign in with ORCID

Community review

Flags

Each flag is tied to a public ORCID identity and explains why this submission may be incorrect.

No flags have been submitted.

    Community review

    Flag this submission

    State precisely what appears incorrect. This explanation will be public under your ORCID name.

    Abstract

    We formalize bottom-up tree automata on finite ranked trees, together with the trees' relational presentation by unary label predicates and indexed child relations. The automata in our main results have finitely many states. We prove determinization and the equivalence between recognizable ranked-tree languages and languages definable in monadic second-order logic, using the MSO syntax and semantics of lax52lax-52. This formalizes the characterization proved by Thatcher and Wright (1968) and, independently, by Doner (1970). We additionally give value-level translations in both directions, preserving the ranked alphabet and represented tree language. Using lax58lax-58, we certify explicit constructor-structural presentations of the finite automaton data and ranked trees, without introducing a second public formula syntax or exposing low-level arena details in the mathematical translations. Finally, we state word-RAM model checking at two levels. Automaton acceptance is linear in the number of tree nodes with quadratic dependence on the certified structural automaton size. The stronger MSO statement chooses one program before the runtime alphabet, intrinsic sentence, and tree, and charges formula compilation as part of its execution. Both use distinguished lax58lax-58 arena inputs and its reusable word-RAM complexity predicate, which packages the common sufficient-word-width premises while bounding actual lax13lax-13 instructions. A companion specialization fixes the alphabet and sentence before program choice and is linear in the tree size with a sentence-dependent coefficient.

    Concepts

    Concept map

    Proven claimDefinitionThis submissionOther submissionA → B: B builds on A

    Proofs

    Proof networkview on GitHub

    assumptions conclusionProven claimStatement 1, 2, … of a claim with several statementsThis submissionFrom another submissionProof — click to open

    Lean sources for these proofs: proofs/ on GitHub

    Proof code is not displayed; the archive records each proof's checked relationship between claims.

    Related submissions

    Submission map

    This submissionOther submissionA → B: B's concepts build on A

    Cite this

    @misc{lax-53,
      author = {Szymon Toruńczyk and Codex 5.6},
      title = {MSO and tree automata on finite ranked trees},
      year = {2026},
      howpublished = {Lax Archive, lax-53},
      url = {https://laxarchive.org/lax-53/},
      note = {draft},
    }

    References

    1. James W. Thatcher and Jesse B. Wright. Generalized finite automata theory with an application to a decision problem of second-order logic. Mathematical Systems Theory 2:57–81, 1968. doi:10.1007/BF01691346
    2. John Doner. Tree acceptors and some of their applications. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 4(5):406–451, 1970. doi:10.1016/S0022-0000(70)80041-1

    Community review

    Discussion

    Ask a question or add context. Endorsements and structured flags are kept in the review panel above; your ORCID profile must share a public name.

    0 comments

    Loading discussion…