# GetWiki

*structure (mathematical logic)*

ARTICLE SUBJECTS

being →

database →

ethics →

fiction →

history →

internet →

language →

linux →

logic →

method →

news →

policy →

purpose →

religion →

science →

software →

truth →

unix →

wiki →

ARTICLE TYPES

essay →

feed →

help →

system →

wiki →

ARTICLE ORIGINS

critical →

forked →

imported →

original →

structure (mathematical logic)

[ temporary import ]

**please note:**

- the content below is remote from Wikipedia

- it has been imported raw for GetWiki

**structure**consists of a set along with a collection of finitary operations and relations that are defined on it.Universal algebra studies structures that generalize the algebraic structures such as groups, rings, fields and vector spaces. The term

**universal algebra**is used for structures with no relation symbols.Some authors refer to structures as "algebras" when generalizing universal algebra to allow relations as well as functions.Model theory has a different scope that encompasses more arbitrary theories, including foundational structures such as models of set theory. From the model-theoretic point of view, structures are the objects used to define the semantics of first-order logic. For a given theory in model theory, a structure is called a

**model**, if it satisfies the defining axioms of that theory, although it is sometimes disambiguated as a

*semantic model*when one discusses the notion in the more general setting of mathematical models. Logicians sometimes refer to structures as interpretations.BOOK, Hodges, Wilfrid, Meijers, Anthonie, 2009, Functional Modelling and Mathematical Models, Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Elsevier, 9, 978-0-444-51667-1, In database theory, structures with no functions are studied as models for relational databases, in the form of relational models.

## Definition

{{see also|Model theory#Universal algebra|Universal algebra#Basic idea}}Formally, a**structure**can be defined as a triple mathcal A=(A, sigma, I) consisting of a

**domain**

*A*, a signature Ïƒ, and an

**interpretation function**

*I*that indicates how the signature is to be interpreted on the domain. To indicate that a structure has a particular signature Ïƒ one can refer to it as a Ïƒ-structure.

### Domain

The domain of a structure is an arbitrary set; it is also called the**underlying set**of the structure, its

**carrier**(especially in universal algebra), or its

**universe**(especially in model theory). In classical first-order logic, the definition of a structure prohibits the empty domain.This is similar to the definition of a prime number in elementary number theory, which has been carefully chosen so that the irreducible number 1 is not considered prime. The convention that the domain of a structure may not be empty is particularly important in logic, because several common inference rules, notably, universal instantiation, are not sound when empty structures are permitted. A logical system that allows the empty domain is known as an inclusive logic.Sometimes the notation operatorname{dom}(mathcal A) or |mathcal A| is used for the domain of mathcal A, but often no notational distinction is made between a structure and its domain. (I.e. the same symbol mathcal A refers both to the structure and its domain.)As a consequence of these conventions, the notation |mathcal A| may also be used to refer to the cardinality of the domain of mathcal A. In practice this never leads to confusion.

### Signature

The signature sigma = (S, operatorname{ar}) of a structure consists of a set S of**function symbols**and

**relation symbols**along with a function text{ar:} S to N_0 that ascribes to each symbol

*s*a natural number n=operatorname{ar}(s) which is called the

**arity**of

*s*because it is the arity of the interpretation of

*s*.Since the signatures that arise in algebra often contain only function symbols, a signature with no relation symbols is called an

**algebraic signature**. A structure with such a signature is also called an

**algebra**; this should not be confused with the notion of an algebra over a field.

### Interpretation function

The**interpretation function**

*I*of mathcal A assigns functions and relations to the symbols of the signature. Each function symbol

*f*of arity

*n*is assigned an

*n*-ary function f^{mathcal A}=I(f) on the domain. Each relation symbol

*R*of arity

*n*is assigned an

*n*-ary relation R^{mathcal A}=I(R)subseteq A^{operatorname{ar(R)}} on the domain. A nullary function symbol

*c*is called a

**constant symbol**, because its interpretation

*I(c)*can be identified with a constant element of the domain.When a structure (and hence an interpretation function) is given by context, no notational distinction is made between a symbol

*s*and its interpretation

*I(s)*. For example, if

*f*is a binary function symbol of mathcal A, one simply writes f:mathcal A^2rightarrowmathcal A rather than f^{mathcal A}:|mathcal A|^2rightarrow|mathcal A|.

### Examples

The standard signature Ïƒ*f*for fields consists of two binary function symbols

**+**and

**Ã—**, where additional symbols can be derived, such as a unary function symbol

**â€•**(uniquely determined by

**+**) and the two constant symbols

**0**and

**1**(uniquely determined by

**+**and

**Ã—**respectively).Thus a structure (algebra) for this signature consists of a set of elements

*A*together with two binary functions, that can be enhanced with a unary function, and two distinguished elements; but there is no requirement that it satisfy any of the field axioms. The rational numbers

*Q*, the real numbers

*R*and the complex numbers

*C*, like any other field, can be regarded as Ïƒ-structures in an obvious way:

mathcal Q = (Q, sigma_f, I_{mathcal Q})
mathcal R = (R, sigma_f, I_{mathcal R})
mathcal C = (C, sigma_f, I_{mathcal C})

sigma_f = (S_f,operatorname{ar}_f)

S_f = {+,times,-,0,1}, operatorname{ar}_f(+) = operatorname{ar}_f(times) = 2, operatorname{ar}_f(-) = 1, operatorname{ar}_f(0) = operatorname{ar}_f(1) = 0.

I_{mathcal Q}(+)colon Qtimes Qto Q is addition of rational numbers,
I_{mathcal Q}(times)colon Qtimes Qto Q is multiplication of rational numbers,
I_{mathcal Q}(-)colon Qto Q is the function that takes each rational number

*x*to -*x*, and I_{mathcal Q}(0)in Q is the number 0 and I_{mathcal Q}(1)in Q is the number 1;**0**,

**1**and

**â€•**on the left refer to signs of S_f. 0, 1, 2, and - on the right refer to natural numbers of N_0 and to the unary operation

*minus*in QBut the ring

*Z*of integers, which is not a field, is also a Ïƒ

*f*-structure in the same way. In fact, there is no requirement that

*any*of the field axioms hold in a Ïƒ

*f*-structure.A signature for ordered fields needs an additional binary relation such as < or â‰¤, and therefore structures for such a signature are not algebras, even though they are of course algebraic structures in the usual, loose sense of the word.The ordinary signature for set theory includes a single binary relation âˆˆ. A structure for this signature consists of a set of elements and an interpretation of the âˆˆ relation as a binary relation on these elements.

## Induced substructures and closed subsets

mathcal A is called an (induced) substructure of mathcal B if- mathcal A and mathcal B have the same signature sigma(mathcal A)=sigma(mathcal B);
- the domain of mathcal A is contained in the domain of mathcal B: |mathcal A|subseteq |mathcal B|; and
- the interpretations of all function and relation symbols agree on |mathcal B|.

**closed**if it is closed under the functions of mathcal A, i.e. if the following condition is satisfied: for every natural number

*n*, every

*n*-ary function symbol

*f*(in the signature of mathcal A) and all elements b_1,b_2,dots,b_nin B, the result of applying

*f*to the

*n*-tuple b_1b_2dots b_n is again an element of

*B*: f(b_1,b_2,dots,b_n)in B.For every subset Bsubseteq|mathcal A| there is a smallest closed subset of |mathcal A| that contains

*B*. It is called the closed subset

**generated**by

*B*, or the

**hull**of

*B*, and denoted by langle Brangle or langle Brangle_{mathcal A}. The operator langlerangle is a finitary closure operator on the set of subsets of |mathcal A|.If mathcal A=(A,sigma,I) and Bsubseteq A is a closed subset, then (B,sigma,I') is an induced substructure of mathcal A, where I' assigns to every symbol of Ïƒ the restriction to

*B*of its interpretation in mathcal A. Conversely, the domain of an induced substructure is a closed subset.The closed subsets (or induced substructures) of a structure form a lattice. The meet of two subsets is their intersection. The join of two subsets is the closed subset generated by their union. Universal algebra studies the lattice of substructures of a structure in detail.

### Examples

Let Ïƒ = {+, Ã—, âˆ’, 0, 1} be again the standard signature for fields. When regarded as Ïƒ-structures in the natural way, the rational numbers form a substructure of the real numbers, and the real numbers form a substructure of the complex numbers. The rational numbers are the smallest substructure of the real (or complex) numbers that also satisfies the field axioms.The set of integers gives an even smaller substructure of the real numbers which is not a field. Indeed, the integers are the substructure of the real numbers generated by the empty set, using this signature. The notion in abstract algebra that corresponds to a substructure of a field, in this signature, is that of a subring, rather than that of a subfield.The most obvious way to define a graph is a structure with a signature Ïƒ consisting of a single binary relation symbol*E*. The vertices of the graph form the domain of the structure, and for two vertices

*a*and

*b*, (a,b)!in text{E} means that

*a*and

*b*are connected by an edge. In this encoding, the notion of induced substructure is more restrictive than the notion of subgraph. For example, let

*G*be a graph consisting of two vertices connected by an edge, and let

*H*be the graph consisting of the same vertices but no edges.

*H*is a subgraph of

*G*, but not an induced substructure. The notion in graph theory that corresponds to induced substructures is that of induced subgraphs.

## Homomorphisms and embeddings

{{see also|Universal algebra#Basic constructions}}### Homomorphisms

Given two structures mathcal A and mathcal B of the same signature Ïƒ, a**(Ïƒ-)homomorphism**from mathcal A to mathcal B is a map h:|mathcal A|rightarrow|mathcal B| that preserves the functions and relations. More precisely:

- For every
*n*-ary function symbol*f*of Ïƒ and any elements a_1,a_2,dots,a_nin|mathcal A|, the following equation holds:

h(f(a_1,a_2,dots,a_n))=f(h(a_1),h(a_2),dots,h(a_n)).

- For every
*n*-ary relation symbol*R*of Ïƒ and any elements a_1,a_2,dots,a_nin|mathcal A|, the following implication holds:

(a_1,a_2,dots,a_n)in R implies (h(a_1),h(a_2),dots,h(a_n))in R.

*h*from mathcal A to mathcal B is h: mathcal Arightarrowmathcal B.For every signature Ïƒ there is a concrete category Ïƒ-

**Hom**which has Ïƒ-structures as objects and Ïƒ-homomorphisms as morphisms.A homomorphism h: mathcal Arightarrowmathcal B is sometimes called

**strong**if for every

*n*-ary relation symbol

*R*and any elements b_1,b_2,dots,b_nin|mathcal B| such that (b_1,b_2,dots,b_n)in R, there are a_1,a_2,dots,a_nin|mathcal A| such that (a_1,a_2,dots,a_n)in R and b_1=h(a_1),,b_2=h(a_2),,dots,,b_n=h(a_n).{{Citation needed|reason=This definition of strong homomorphism looks non-standard.|date=September 2015}}The strong homomorphisms give rise to a subcategory of Ïƒ-

**Hom**.

### Embeddings

A (Ïƒ-)homomorphism h:mathcal Arightarrowmathcal B is called a (Ïƒ-)**embedding**if it is one-to-one and

- for every
*n*-ary relation symbol*R*of Ïƒ and any elements a_1,a_2,dots,a_n, the following equivalence holds:

(a_1,a_2,dots,a_n)in R iff(h(a_1),h(a_2),dots,h(a_n))in R.

**Emb**of Ïƒ-structures and Ïƒ-embeddings is a concrete subcategory of Ïƒ-

**Hom**.Induced substructures correspond to subobjects in Ïƒ-

**Emb**. If Ïƒ has only function symbols, Ïƒ-

**Emb**is the subcategory of monomorphisms of Ïƒ-

**Hom**. In this case induced substructures also correspond to subobjects in Ïƒ-

**Hom**.

### Example

As seen above, in the standard encoding of graphs as structures the induced substructures are precisely the induced subgraphs. However, a homomorphism between graphs is the same thing as a homomorphism between the two structures coding the graph. In the example of the previous section, even though the subgraph*H*of

*G*is not induced, the identity map id:

*H*â†’

*G*is a homomorphism. This map is in fact a monomorphism in the category Ïƒ-

**Hom**, and therefore

*H*is a subobject of

*G*which is not an induced substructure.

### Homomorphism problem

The following problem is known as the*homomorphism problem*:

Given two finite structures mathcal A and mathcal B of a finite relational signature, find a homomorphism h:mathcal Arightarrowmathcal B or show that no such homomorphism exists.

Every constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) has a translation into the homomorphism problem.{{Citation |last1=Jeavons |first1=Peter |last2=Cohen |first2=David |last3=Pearson |first3=Justin |date=1998 |title=Constraints and universal algebra |journal=Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence |doi=10.1023/A:1018941030227 |volume=24 |pages=51â€“67 |postscript=.}} Therefore, the complexity of CSP can be studied using the methods of finite model theory.Another application is in database theory, where a relational model of a database is essentially the same thing as a relational structure. It turns out that a conjunctive query on a database can be described by another structure in the same signature as the database model. A homomorphism from the relational model to the structure representing the query is the same thing as a solution to the query. This shows that the conjunctive query problem is also equivalent to the homomorphism problem.## Structures and first-order logic

{{see also|Model theory#First-order logic|Model theory#Axiomatizability, elimination of quantifiers, and model-completeness}}Structures are sometimes referred to as "first-order structures". This is misleading, as nothing in their definition ties them to any specific logic, and in fact they are suitable as semantic objects both for very restricted fragments of first-order logic such as that used in universal algebra, and for second-order logic. In connection with first-order logic and model theory, structures are often called**models**, even when the question "models of what?" has no obvious answer.

### Satisfaction relation

Each first-order structure mathcal{M} has a**satisfaction relation**mathcal{M} vDash phi defined for all formulas , phi in the language consisting of the language of mathcal{M} together with a constant symbol for each element of

*M*, which is interpreted as that element.This relation is defined inductively using Tarski's T-schema.A structure mathcal{M} is said to be a

**model**of a theory

*T*if the language of mathcal{M} is the same as the language of

*T*and every sentence in

*T*is satisfied by mathcal{M}. Thus, for example, a "ring" is a structure for the language of rings that satisfies each of the ring axioms, and a model of ZFC set theory is a structure in the language of set theory that satisfies each of the ZFC axioms.

### Definable relations

An*n*-ary relation

*R*on the universe

*M*of a structure mathcal{M} is said to be

**definable**(or

**explicitly definable**, or emptyset-

**definable**) if there is a formula Ï†(

*x*1,...,

*x*

*n*) such that

R = { (a_1,ldots,a_n ) in M^n : mathcal{M} vDash varphi(a_1,ldots,a_n)}.

In other words, *R*is definable if and only if there is a formula Ï† such that

(a_1,ldots,a_n ) in R Leftrightarrow mathcal{M} vDash varphi(a_1,ldots,a_n)

is correct.An important special case is the definability of specific elements. An element *m*of

*M*is definable in mathcal{M} if and only if there is a formula Ï†(

*x*) such that

mathcal{M}vDash forall x ( x = m leftrightarrow varphi(x)).

#### Definability with parameters

A relation*R*is said to be

**definable with parameters**(or |mathcal M|-

**definable**) if there is a formula Ï† with parameters from mathcal{M} such that

*R*is definable using Ï†. Every element of a structure is definable using the element itself as a parameter.It should be noted that some authors use

*definable*to mean

*definable without parameters*, while other authors mean

*definable with parameters*. Broadly speaking, the convention that

*definable*means

*definable without parameters*is more common amongst set theorists, while the opposite convention is more common amongst model theorists.

#### Implicit definability

Recall from above that an*n*-ary relation

*R*on the universe

*M*of a structure mathcal{M} is explicitly definable if there is a formula Ï†(

*x*1,...,

*x*

*n*) such that

R = { (a_1,ldots,a_n ) in M^n : mathcal{M} vDash varphi(a_1,ldots,a_n) }

Here the formula Ï† used to define a relation *R*must be over the signature of mathcal{M} and so Ï† may not mention

*R*itself, since

*R*is not in the signature of mathcal{M}. If there is a formula Ï† in the extended language containing the language of mathcal{M} and a new symbol

*R*, and the relation

*R*is the only relation on mathcal{M} such that mathcal{M} vDash varphi, then

*R*is said to be

**implicitly definable**over mathcal{M}.By Beth's theorem, every implicitly definable relation is explicitly definable.

## Many-sorted structures

Structures as defined above are sometimes called**{{visible anchor|one-sorted structure}}s**to distinguish them from the more general

**{{visible anchor|many-sorted structure}}s**. A many-sorted structure can have an arbitrary number of domains. The

**sorts**are part of the signature, and they play the role of names for the different domains. Many-sorted signatures also prescribe on which sorts the functions and relations of a many-sorted structure are defined. Therefore, the arities of function symbols or relation symbols must be more complicated objects such as tuples of sorts rather than natural numbers.Vector spaces, for example, can be regarded as two-sorted structures in the following way. The two-sorted signature of vector spaces consists of two sorts

*V*(for vectors) and

*S*(for scalars) and the following function symbols:{| style="width:95%"valign="top"|

- +
*S*and Ã—*S*of arity (*S*,*S*;*S*). - âˆ’
*S*of arity (*S*;*S*). - 0
*S*and 1*S*of arity (*S*).| - +
*V*of arity (*V*,*V*;*V*). - âˆ’
*V*of arity (*V*;*V*). - 0
*V*of arity (*V*).| - Ã— of arity (
*S*,*V*;*V*).

*V*is a vector space over a field

*F*, the corresponding two-sorted structure mathcal V consists of the vector domain |mathcal V|_V=V, the scalar domain |mathcal V|_S=F, and the obvious functions, such as the vector zero 0_V^{mathcal V}=0in|mathcal V|_V, the scalar zero 0_S^{mathcal V}=0in|mathcal V|_S, or scalar multiplication times^{mathcal V}:|mathcal V|_Stimes|mathcal V|_Vrightarrow|mathcal V|_V.Many-sorted structures are often used as a convenient tool even when they could be avoided with a little effort. But they are rarely defined in a rigorous way, because it is straightforward and tedious (hence unrewarding) to carry out the generalization explicitly.In most mathematical endeavours, not much attention is paid to the sorts. A many-sorted logic however naturally leads to a type theory. As Bart Jacobs puts it: "A logic is always a logic over a type theory." This emphasis in turn leads to categorical logic because a logic over a type theory categorically corresponds to one ("total") category, capturing the logic, being fibred over another ("base") category, capturing the type theory.{{Citation

| first = Bart

| last = Jacobs

| title = Categorical Logic and Type Theory

| date = 1999

| publisher = Elsevier | pages = 1â€“4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f4_Bd3Y8ZEcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=structure&f=false}}

| last = Jacobs

| title = Categorical Logic and Type Theory

| date = 1999

| publisher = Elsevier | pages = 1â€“4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f4_Bd3Y8ZEcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=structure&f=false}}

## Other generalizations

### Partial algebras

Both universal algebra and model theory study classes of (structures or) algebras that are defined by a signature and a set of axioms. In the case of model theory these axioms have the form of first-order sentences. The formalism of universal algebra is much more restrictive; essentially it only allows first-order sentences that have the form of universally quantified equations between terms, e.g. {{all}}*x*{{all}}

*y*(

*x*+

*y*=

*y*+

*x*). One consequence is that the choice of a signature is more significant in universal algebra than it is in model theory. For example, the class of groups, in the signature consisting of the binary function symbol Ã— and the constant symbol 1, is an elementary class, but it is not a variety. Universal algebra solves this problem by adding a unary function symbol âˆ’1.In the case of fields this strategy works only for addition. For multiplication it fails because 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse. An ad hoc attempt to deal with this would be to define 0âˆ’1 = 0. (This attempt fails, essentially because with this definition 0 Ã— 0âˆ’1 = 1 is not true.) Therefore, one is naturally led to allow partial functions, i.e., functions that are defined only on a subset of their domain. However, there are several obvious ways to generalize notions such as substructure, homomorphism and identity.

### Structures for typed languages

In type theory, there are many sorts of variables, each of which has a**type**. Types are inductively defined; given two types Î´ and Ïƒ there is also a type Ïƒ â†’ Î´ that represents functions from objects of type Ïƒ to objects of type Î´. A structure for a typed language (in the ordinary first-order semantics) must include a separate set of objects of each type, and for a function type the structure must have complete information about the function represented by each object of that type.

### Higher-order languages

There is more than one possible semantics for higher-order logic, as discussed in the article on second-order logic. When using full higher-order semantics, a structure need only have a universe for objects of type 0, and the T-schema is extended so that a quantifier over a higher-order type is satisfied by the model if and only if it is disquotationally true. When using first-order semantics, an additional sort is added for each higher-order type, as in the case of a many sorted first order language.### Structures that are proper classes

In the study of set theory and category theory, it is sometimes useful to consider structures in which the domain of discourse is a proper class instead of a set. These structures are sometimes called**class models**to distinguish them from the "set models" discussed above. When the domain is a proper class, each function and relation symbol may also be represented by a proper class.In Bertrand Russell's

*Principia Mathematica*, structures were also allowed to have a proper class as their domain.

## See also

## Notes

## References

- {{Citation |last1=Burris |first1=Stanley N. |last2=Sankappanavar |first2=H. P. |date=1981 |title=A Course in Universal Algebra |url=http://www.thoralf.uwaterloo.ca/htdocs/ualg.html |publisher=Springer-Verlag |location=Berlin, New York}}
- {{Citation |last1=Chang |first1=Chen Chung |last2=Keisler |first2=H. Jerome |author2-link=Howard Jerome Keisler |date=1989 |origyear=1973 |title=Model Theory |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-7204-0692-4}}
- {{Citation |last=Diestel |first=Reinhard |date=2005 |origyear=1997 |title=Graph Theory |edition=3rd |series=Graduate Texts in Mathematics |publisher=Springer-Verlag |location=Berlin, New York |isbn=978-3-540-26183-4 |volume=173 |url=http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/diestel/books/graph.theory/}}
- {{Citation | last1=Ebbinghaus | first1=Heinz-Dieter | last2=Flum | first2=JÃ¶rg | last3=Thomas | first3=Wolfgang | title=Mathematical Logic | edition=2nd | isbn=978-0-387-94258-2 | year=1994 | publisher=Springer | location=New York}}
- {{Citation | last1=Hinman | first1=P. | title=Fundamentals of Mathematical Logic | publisher=A K Peters | isbn=978-1-56881-262-5 | year=2005}}
- {{Citation | last1=Hodges | first1=Wilfrid | author1-link=Wilfrid Hodges | title=Model theory | publisher=Cambridge University Press | location=Cambridge | isbn=978-0-521-30442-9 | year=1993}}
- {{Citation | last1=Hodges | first1=Wilfrid | author1-link=Wilfrid Hodges | title=A shorter model theory | publisher=Cambridge University Press | location=Cambridge | isbn=978-0-521-58713-6 | year=1997}}
- {{Citation | last1=Marker | first1=David | title=Model Theory: An Introduction | publisher=Springer-Verlag | location=Berlin, New York | isbn=978-0-387-98760-6 | year=2002}}
- {{Citation | last1=Poizat | first1=Bruno | title=A Course in Model Theory: An Introduction to Contemporary Mathematical Logic | publisher=Springer-Verlag | location=Berlin, New York | isbn=978-0-387-98655-5 | year=2000}}
- {{Citation |last=Rautenberg | first=Wolfgang | authorlink=Wolfgang Rautenberg | doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-1221-3 | title=A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic | url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4419-1220-6/ | publisher=Springer Science+Business Media | location=New York | edition=3rd | isbn=978-1-4419-1220-6 | year=2010}}
- {{Citation | last1=Rothmaler | first1=Philipp | title=Introduction to Model Theory | publisher=CRC Press | location=London | isbn=978-90-5699-313-9 | year=2000}}

## External links

- Semantics section in Classical Logic (an entry of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

**- content above as imported from Wikipedia**

- "

- time: 8:58am EDT - Wed, May 22 2019

- "

__structure (mathematical logic)__" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)- time: 8:58am EDT - Wed, May 22 2019

[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]

LATEST EDITS [ see all ]

GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016

GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015

GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014

GETWIKI 19 AUG 2014

GETWIKI 18 AUG 2014

© 2019 M.R.M. PARROTT | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED