REDUCTION OF HILBERT-TYPE PROOF SYSTEMS TO THE IF-THEN-ELSE EQUATIONAL LOGIC. 1. Introduction
|
|
- Cecily Gallagher
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 J. Appl. Math. & Computing Vol. 14(2004), No. 1-2, pp REDUCTION OF HILBERT-TYPE PROOF SYSTEMS TO THE IF-THEN-ELSE EQUATIONAL LOGIC JOOHEE JEONG Abstract. We present a construction of the linear reduction of Hilbert type proof systems for propositional logic to if-then-else equational logic. This construction is an improvement over the same result found in [4] in the sense that the technique used in the construction can be extended to the linear reduction of first-order logic to if-then-else equational logic. AMS Mathematics Subject Classification : 03B22,03F99 Key words and phrases : Proof systems, reduction, if-then-else equational logic 1. Introduction We consider a proof system efficient if every statement in the system has a short proof. In [6], Cook and Reckhow investigated the relative efficiency of various proof systems for classical propositional proof systems. (By classical, we mean the logic is determined by a single valuation system with only two distinct truth values {, }, as opposed to intuitionistic, modal etc.) A handful of researchers followed this line of research, e.g., Krajíček-Pudlák [8], Urkuhart [12], Arai [1, 2] and Messner-Torán [11] to name a few. The key concepts in this research field are given in definition 1, 2 and 3 they are adopted from [6] with a slight modification. Then we generalize the notion of p-simulation in definition [4]. Definition 1. Let Σ be an alphabet and L Σ be a recursively enumerable language. A proof system for L is a (deterministic) polynomial time surjective function f : P L Received September 24, Revised November 12, This work was supported by grant No. R from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science & Engineering Foundation. c 2004 Korean Society for Computational & Applied Mathematics and Korean SIGCAM. 69
2 70 Joohee Jeong for some recursive language P Σ 1 in some alphabet Σ 1.Wesay x is a proof for y just in case y = f(x). The membership property for P is required to be determined in polynomial time. It is reasonable to assume that the objects that we want to prove in a proof system are strings over an alphabet Σ, and they form a language L Σ. Normally this language L consists of formulas or sequents. The formal proofs or derivations are usually finite sequences or trees or dags with nodes labelled by members in L, satisfying certain conditions (called the rules of inference), and hence we can view them as strings over some alphabet Σ 1, which is normally a superset of Σ, under suitable encoding if necessary. Henceforth, we will use the word derivation exclusively in place of proof to prevent possible confusions between (object level) formal proofs and (metalevel) informal proofs. (Maybe the term proof system should really be called derivation system.) Definition 2. A proof system f : P L is polynomially bounded if there exists a polynomial p(n) such that ( ) ( y L)( x P ) y = f(x) and x p( y ), where denotes the length of string. def def Definition 3. Let P 1 = f 1 : P 1 L and P 2 = f 2 : P 2 L be proof systems for L. We say P 2 p-simulates P 1 just in case there exists a polynomial time computable function g : P 1 P 2 such that f 2 (g(x)) = f 1 (x), x P 1 Definition 2 is talking about the efficiency of proof systems. We consider a derivation x of y short if x p( y ), and we may say that a polynomially bounded proof system is efficient. Definition 3 captures the notion of the translation of derivations and the relative efficiency: i.e., the derivation x in a proof system P 1 is uniformly translated via the map g to yield a derivation g(x), for the same formula f 1 (x), in another proof system P 2. When P 2 p-simulates P 1, we may say that P 2 is as efficient as P 1 modulo a polynomial. This research field has been mainly interested in the classical propositional proof systems: i.e., L is almost always taken to be the set TAUT of (classical) tautologies. It is not known whether there exists an efficient (i.e., polynomially bounded) proof system for TAUT. In fact this problem is equivalent to the question of whether TAUT is in NP as mentioned in [6]. In this paper, we generalize the notion of p-simulation to polynomial reduction, and this generalization enables us to deal with the cases when L TAUT. 2. Generalizing the notion of p-simulation
3 Reduction of Hilbert-type proof systems 71 def def Definition 4. Let P 1 = f 1 : P 1 L 1 and P 2 = f 2 : P 2 L 2 be proof systems. We call an ordered pair g, h of maps g : P 1 P 2 and h : L 1 L 2 such that ( x P 1 ) ( f 2 (g(x)) = h(f 1 (x)) ) and (1) ( y L 1 ) ( ( x 2 P 2 )(f 2 (x 2 )=h(y)) ( x 1 P 1 )(f 1 (x 1 )=y) ) (2) a reduction of P 1 to P 2. g, h is called a weak reduction if it satisfies (1) only. A reduction is said to be polynomial (resp. linear) just in case both g and h are computed in polynomial (resp. linear) time. The condition (1) in above definition forces the following diagram commute: f 1 P 1 L 1 g f 2 h P 2 L 2 But condition (2) apparently does not appear in definition 3. This is because (1) implies (2) in case L 1 = L 2 = TAUT, which will be explained shortly. One of the reasons why we would want a reduction g, h of P 1 to P 2 is to reduce the problem of determining the provability relation α A in a proof system P 1 to another proof system P 2. Here, A is a formula in P 1, α is a finite set {A 1,...,A n } of formulas in P 1, and L 1 consists of all such expressions α A that are provable in P 1. In order to define h, it is usual that each formula A is assigned a formula Ā in P 2, and then we let h(α A) def = ᾱ Ā (3) where {Ā1,...,Ān} is denoted by ᾱ. Let us write α P1 A just in case there exists a derivation ψ P 1 such that f 1 (ψ) =α A. Similarly, we may write β P2 B just in case there exists a derivation verifying β B in P 2. If we write g(ψ) := ψ, then condition (1) says ψ is a derivation of α P1 A ψ is a derivation of ᾱ P2 Ā. In many occasions we are only interested in whether derivation of α P1 A exists derivation of ᾱ P2 Ā exists which may be written more succinctly as α P1 A ᾱ P2 Ā. (4)
4 72 Joohee Jeong Condition (1) implies of (4), while condition (2) implies. In case L 1 = L 2 = TAUT, h is the identity map and hence Ā = A, and moreover α =. Thus ᾱ P2 Ā P2 A A TAUT P1 A α P2 A follows easily from (1) alone: i.e., in this case the notion of weak reduction coincides with the notion of reduction. In this paper we are particularly interested in the proof system of if-then-else equational logic, denoted by ITE, for the target proof system P 2. Then, we find that the propositional calculus can be linearly reduced to ITE. In [4], it is shown that the predicate calculus is reduced to ITE in the sense of (4). But the proof is model theoretic and there is no mention on translation of proofs let alone efficiency of proof systems. The reduction consists of g : L 1 L 2 alone (i.e., h : P 1 P 2 is the identity map) in [4]. In [5], the propositional calculus is linearly reduced to ITE, which is the same as the main theorem of this paper. However, the construction in this paper is more flexible and powerful since the same technique can be utilized to linearly reduce more complex proof systems, such as first-order predicate calculus to ITE. In fact the linear reduction of first-order predicate calculus to ITE has been done recently by the author of this paper in [7]. We use the symbol to denote syntactic equality: i.e., if x and y are syntactic objects such as symbols, terms, formulas, derivations etc., then we write x y just in case they are the same. Sometimes we may get deliberately sloppy in notation. For instance, if u 1,...,u n are strings, or any mathematical object (such as integers) that can be represented by strings, then we consider the finite sequence u 1,...,u n as a string. As another such example, if A 1,A 2,... are formulas and α 1,α 2,... are finite sequences of formulas, then we write A 1,A 2,...,α 1,α 2... to denote the finite sequence of formulas obtained in the obvious way. 3. The proof systems FL and ITE In this section we give formal definitions of two proof systems, together with some relevant facts. The proof systems we deal with here are the propositional calculus denoted by FL after Frege- Lukasiewicz, and the if-then-else equational logic denoted by ITE. Propositional calculus, i.e., the Hilbert type proof system for classical propositional logic is usually presented in the following way: Axiom schemes (FL-axioms) A (B A) (FL1 )
5 Reduction of Hilbert-type proof systems 73 (A (B C)) ((A B) (A C)) (FL2 ) ( A B) (B A) (FL3 ) Rules of inference (modus ponens) A B, A (MP) B We pick a fixed set of propositional letters, which are normally assumed to be countable. We assume that the set of propositional formulas is built from the propositional letters and the two connectives and in the usual way. Normally, we consider above as an adequate formal definition of propositional calculus. But we can further formalize the proof system as in the following definition. Definition 5. Define the proof system FL def = f 1 : P 1 L 1 by L 1 is the set of all finite sequences A 1,...,A n,b, n 0 of propositional formulas satisfying (A 1 A n B) TAUT. Obviously, our intended interpretation of f 1 (x) = A 1,...,A n,b is x is a derivation of {A 1,...,A n } B. Let P1 0 be the set of all finite sequences n, C 1,...,C m where n 0, m 1 and C i s are propositional formulas. Define a relation f 1 P1 0 L 1 by n, C 1,...,C m f 1 A 1,...,A n,b holds iff the following conditions are satisfied (1) n = n <mand C i A i for each i =1,...,n, (2) C m B, (3) for each i = n +1,...,m, C i is an instance of FL-axioms or C i {A 1,...,A n } or for some j, k {n +1,...,i 1}, we have C j C k C i. def Let P 1 = {x P1 0 (x, y) f 1 for some y L 1 }. (Then we see that f 1 is a function from P 1 onto L 1.)
6 74 Joohee Jeong It is easy to see that this definition fits in 1. Of course other presentations for propositional calculus are possible, but the construction we use here is insensitive to such variations. We could proceed our work in a more general setting. For instance, instead of working with this particular proof system FL, we could adopt the definition of Frege systems, given in [6], (which is a synonym for Hilbert system) for propositional logic. But we believe that such a generalization only makes our work lengthy (and messy) without providing any useful insight. Now we will describe the proof system ITE F for if-then-else equational logic, where F is any set of function symbols. (We follow the convention that constants are 0-ary function symbols.) By an equation we mean an ordered pair t, s where t and s are first-order terms defined in the usual way. An equation t, s will be written as t s. In equational logic, formulas are synonym for equations. In if-then-else equational logic, we must have a distinguished 4-ary function symbol [ ] F, called the switching function, where the intended interpretation of the term t : [x,y,z,w] is { z if x = y t = (5) w otherwise. The defining equation (5) is not an equation in the strict sense. If S is an F-algebra, then 5 holds in S if and only if the following holds: S (t z x y) (t w (x y)). (6) Thus a quantifier-free formula (or a first-order universal formula, you might say) shown in (6) seems to be necessary in order to define a switching function. But in 1975, McKenzie showed that switching function (in an equational class of algebras) can be defined by a set of equations [9]. This set of equations, modified slightly by Burris, is as follows. Definition 6. Define the McKenzie-Burris axioms MB F to be the set of equations [x, x, y, x] y (MB1 ) [x, y, x, x] x (MB2 ) [x,y,y,x] x (MB3 ) [x, [x,y,z,x],y,x] y (MB4 ) [x, y, u, v] [[x, y, u, x], [x,y,v,x],v,[x, y, u, x]] (MB5 ) [u, v, f(x 1,...,x n ),u] [u, v, f([u, v, x 1,u],...,[u, v, x n,u]),u] (MB6 ) where f is any n-ary function symbol in F other than [ ]. The variables x, y, z, u, v, x 1,... are all assumed to be distinct. In [5], it is shown that an algebra in the signature F satisfies all the equations in MB F if and only if it satisfies the defining equation (5) for switching function.
7 Reduction of Hilbert-type proof systems 75 Similar results can be found in [3, 10], but the number of axioms (schemes) used there are greater 12 and 9 respectively. Definition 7. For a signature F of if-then-else equational logic and a recursive set Φ of F-equations, we define the proof system ITE F (Φ) def = f 2 : P 2 L 2 to be the well-known equational proof system for signature F augmented by the extralogical axioms Φ and the McKenzie-Burris axioms MB F. Above definition is a little informal compared to 5. But it is easy to see that this definition can be made enough formal to fit in 1. Curious readers are referred to [7]. Also it is clear, by the Birkhoff s theorem combined with the result of McKenzie-Burris, that the soundness theorem and the completeness theorem hold for the if-then-else equational logic. We state this fact as a theorem without proof. Theorem 1. Let F be a signature of if-then-else equational logic: i.e., the 4-ary function symbol []belongs to F. LetA be an F-equation and α be a finite set of F-equations. Let Φ be any set of F-equations. Then α ITEF (Φ) A if and only if for every F-algebra S in which []is interpreted as a switching function and S Φ α, we have S A. 4. Reduction of propositional calculus to ITE Now we describe a linear reduction g, h, as defined in definition 4, from FL def = f 1 : P 1 L 1 to ITE F (Φ) def = f 2 : P 2 L 2, where F def = {0, 1, [], f} {,,c 1,c 2,...}. 0 and 1 are distinct constants, [ ] is a 4-ary function symbol, f is a distinguished unary function symbol, is a unary function symbol, is a binary function symbol, and c 1,c 2,... are denumerably many distinct constants. Then Φ is defined to be a set of some suitably chosen equations in the signature F. For the purpose of defining h : L 1 L 2 and g : P 1 P 2, assume without loss of generality that we have denumerably many distinct propositional letters {X 1,X 2,...}. First, for each propositional sentence A, we obtain an F-term A t by replacing each occurrence of X i by c i. Then define a ground equation Ā by Ā def = f(a t ) 1.
8 76 Joohee Jeong Definition 8. Define h : L 1 L 2 by h(a 1,...,A n,b) def = Ā1,...,Ān, B. It is routine to check that h is linear time computable. Definition 9. Fix two distinct variables x, y, and let A 01 : [0, 1,x,y] y, A mp : [f(x), 1, [f(x y), 1, f(y), 1], 1] 1, FL def = {Ā A is an FL-axiom}, and define Φ def = {A 01,A mp } FL. The construction of g : P 1 P 2 takes a little longer. Definition 10. Given n, A 1,...,A n,c 1,...,C k P 1, we will first define Ĉi for each i, which could be either an equation or a finite sequence of equations, and then let g(n, A 1,...,A n,c 1,...,C k ) def = n, Ā 1,...,Ā n, Ĉ 1,...,Ĉ k. We define Ĉi for each i =1,...,k as follows. If C i belongs to {A 1,...,A n } or is one of the FL-axioms, then just let Ĉ i : C i. Otherwise, C i must be the result of applying modus ponens, to two earlier formulas C j and C k : C j C i. In this case we let Ĉi be the sequence of the following 9 equations: (The rightmost comments are used in lemma 2.) [f(cj), t 1, [f(cj t Ci t ), 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] 1 subst.,a mp (7) [f(cj t ), 1, [f(ct j Ct i ), 1, f(ct i ), 1], 1] [1, 1, [1, 1, f(ct i ), 1], 1] (8) repl., f(cj t ) 1, f(ct j Ct i ) 1 [1, 1, [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] [f(cj), t 1, [f(cj t Ci t ), 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] (9) symm., (8) [1, 1, [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] 1 trans., (9), (7) (10) [1, 1, [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1] subst., MB1 (11) [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1] f(ct i ) subst., MB1 (12) [1, 1, [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] f(ct i ) trans., (11), (12) (13) f(ci t ) [1, 1, [1, 1, f(ci t ), 1], 1] symm., (13) (14) f(ci t ) 1 trans., (14), (10) (15)
9 Reduction of Hilbert-type proof systems 77 We have completed the construction of F, Φand g, h First we need to check that the translation g : P 1 P 2 really takes a derivation in FL to a derivation in ITE F (Φ). Lemma 2. Let n, A 1,...,A n,c 1,...,C k be a derivation in FL, and let α := {A 1,...,A n }. Then n, ᾱ, Ĉ1,...,Ĉk is a derivation in ITE F (Φ) with conclusion ᾱ C k. Proof. The proof proceeds by induction on i =1,...,k. We know, from the hypothesis of this proposition, that for each i, n, α, C 1,...,C i is an FL-derivation with conclusion α C i. We want to show that, for each i, n, ᾱ, Ĉ1,...,Ĉi is a derivation in ITE F (Φ) with conclusion ᾱ C i For i = 1, there are two cases to consider. First, if C 1 α, then Ĉ1 : C 1 ᾱ and hence n, ᾱ, Ĉ1 is a derivation in ITE F (Φ) with conclusion ᾱ C 1. Second, if C 1 is an FL-axiom, then Ĉ1 : C 1 FL Φ and hence we are done again. For i>1, there are three cases to consider. The first two cases are the same as above. If C i is obtained by modus ponens, then Ĉi is the sequence of the nine equations (7) (15). The rightmost comments of these equations show that n, ᾱ, Ĉ1,...,Ĉi is a derivation. In (8), f(cj t) 1 and f(ct j Ct i ) 1 hold from the induction hypothesis. Now, by noting that the last equation in Ĉi is nothing but C i, we are done. Corolloary 3. FL def = f 1 : L 1 P 1 linearly weak-reduces to ITE F (Φ) def = f 2 : L 2 P 2. Proof. In fact, essentially everything we need to prove this corollary has been shown already in lemma 2. To clarify what we have achieved, let x P 1 be given. Then we may choose n 0, finite sets α := {A 1,...,A n } and ψ := {C 1,...,C k } of FL-formulas so that x = n, α, ψ. We need to show h(f 1 (x)) = f 2 (g(x)). But h(f 1 (x)) is nothing but h(α, C k ) which is ᾱ, C k. Lemma 2 says that n, ᾱ, ψ, which is g(x) by the definition of g, is a derivation of this ᾱ, C k in ITE F (Φ): i.e., f 2 (g(x)) = ᾱ, C k = h(f 1 (x)) as was to be shown. The straightforward verification of the fact that g and h are computable in linear time will be omitted. Theorem 4. FL linearly reduces to ITE F (Φ).
10 78 Joohee Jeong Proof. Let FL = f 1 : L 1 P 1 and let ITE F (Φ) = f 2 : L 2 P 2 as before. Since we already have corollary 3, we only need to check the condition (2) ( y L 1 ) ( ( x 2 P 2 )(f 2 (x 2 )=h(y)) ( x 1 P 1 )(f 1 (x 1 )=y) ) of definition 4. So let y def = α B L 1 be given where α def = {A 1,...,A n } is a finite set of propositional formulas and B is a proposional formula. Suppose that h(α B) def = ᾱ B is proved in ITE F (Φ), with a witnessing derivation ψ: i.e., f 2 (ψ) = ᾱ B. Then we want to show that some derivation ϕ P 1 witnesses α B. The problem is that there may not exist ϕ P 1 for which ψ = ϕ: i.e., the map ϕ ϕ from P 1 into P 2 may not be onto. So it is hopeless to construct such a ϕ from ψ. Therefore we must resort to some model theoretic methods. Basically, we have to show ᾱ B ITEF (Φ) α FL B. (We know that the converse of above holds by corollary 3.) We will construct a model S of ᾱ MB F Φ so that for all propositional-formula B, S B α FL B. (16) Suppose that such an F-algebra S is found. If ᾱ ITEF(Φ) B, then since S is a model of ᾱ MB F Φ, we get S B by applying theorem 1. Therefore α FL B by (16). Let S 0 be the absolutely free term algebra in the signature F {[], f}. Then let S def = S,... be the F-expansion of S 0 obtained by interpreting the function symbols [ ] as the switching function, and f by { f S 1 if t = A t for some formula A such that α FL A, (t) = 0 otherwise. We want to verify that S is a model of ᾱ MB F Φ, and (16) holds. First of all, an element of ᾱ is of the form Ā with A α. So fs (A t )=1, which is exactly the F-equation Ā. Thus S is a model of ᾱ. S MB F is trivial since [ ] is a switching function on S def = the domain of discourse of S. If A Φ, then A A 01 or A A mp or A B for some FL-axiom B. S A 01 holds trivially simply because 0 and 1 are distinct symbols. (Hence they are interpreted as distinct individuals in S.) Next we will show that S A mp is impossible. Suppose that [f(x), 1, [f(x y), 1, f(y), 1], 1] 1 does not hold in S. Then f S (b 1 ) = 1, f S (b 1 b 2 ) = 1 and f S (b 2 ) 1 for some b 1,b 2 S. Thus, by construction of S, we must have b 1 B1 t and
11 Reduction of Hilbert-type proof systems 79 b 2 b 2 (B 1 B 2 ) t for some formulas B 1, B 2 such that α FL B 1 and α FL B 1 B 2. (We are using the fact that the map A A t is one-to-one.) But then α FL B 2 which contradicts f S (b 2 ) 1. If A B for some FL-axiom B, then since α FL B, we should have f S (B t )= 1inS, which means exactly S B. (Recall that B t is a (F {[], f})-term and at the same time a member of S.) We have shown that S is a model of ᾱ MB F Φ as desired, and hence it remains to show (16). But S B S f(b t ) 1 B t B1 t for some B 1 with α FL B 1. Since the map A A t is one-to-one, we must have B B 1. Thus we have shown (16) and consequently we are done. 5. Conclusion P-simulation of proof systems, first appeared in [6], is an interesting notion to study, because it gives us a tool to measure the relative efficiency of various proof systems. In this paper we generalize this notion of p-simulation to polynomial reduction and present an appropriate definition in [4]. Then we show that the if-then-else equational proof system ITE can prove all theorems of propositional calculus without losing any substantial efficiency. We could state this efficiency issue as follows: there exist constants k 1,k 2 > 0 such that for any proof ψ in FL with size l, there exists a corresponding proof ψ in ITE with size k 1 l+k 2. Moreover the translation ψ ψ is algorithmic where the number of steps required in the translation is asymptotically bounded by a linear function of size of ψ. Although we presented the reduction of only one particular proof system FL to ITE, it should be clear that our method is applicable to any Hilbert type proof system for propositional logic. In fact the construction developed in this paper is strong enough to linearly reduce the first-order logic to if-then-else equational logic, which is presented in [7]. References 1. N. Arai, A proper hierarchy of propositional sequent calculi, Theoretical Computer Science 159 (1996), N. Arai, Relative efficiency of propositional proof systems: resolution vs. cut-free LK, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 104 (2000), 3 16
12 80 Joohee Jeong 3. S. Bloom and R. Tindell, Varieties of if-then-else, Siam J. Computing 12 (1983), S. Burris, Discriminator varieties and symbolic computation, J. Symbolic Computation 13 (1992), S. Burris, manuscript, S. Cook and R. Rechkow, The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, J. of Symbolic Logic 44 (1979), no. 1, J. Jeong, Linear reduction of first-order logic to if-then-else equation logic, in preparation 8. J. Krajicek and P. Pudlak, Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first order theories and the complexity of computations, J. of Symbolic Logic 54 (1989), no. 3, R. McKenzie, On the spectra, and negative solution of the decision problem for identities having finite nontrivial model, J. Symbolic Logic 40 (1975), A. Mekler and E. Nelson, Equational Bases for if-then-else logic Siam J. of Computing, 18 (1989), J. Messner and J. Torán, Optimal proof systems for propositional logic and complete sets, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci. 1373, Springer, Berlin, 1998, STACS 98 (Paris), A. Urquhart, The complexity of Gentzen systems for propositional logic, Theoretical Computer Science 66 (1989), Joohee Jeong received his BS from Seoul National University and Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley under the direction of Prof. R. McKenzie. His research interests focus on logic, universal algebra and their application to programming language semantics. Department of Mathematics Education, Kyungpook National University, Puk-gu Sankyuk-dong 1370, Daegu , Korea. jhjeong@mathed.knu.ac.kr
185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic
185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic www.volny.cz/behounek/logic/teaching/mathlog13 Libor Běhounek, behounek@cs.cas.cz Lecture #1, October 15, 2013 Organizational matters Study materials will be posted
More informationFirst-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms
First-Order Logic 1 Syntax Domain of Discourse The domain of discourse for first order logic is FO structures or models. A FO structure contains Relations Functions Constants (functions of arity 0) FO
More informationMath 267a - Propositional Proof Complexity. Lecture #1: 14 January 2002
Math 267a - Propositional Proof Complexity Lecture #1: 14 January 2002 Lecturer: Sam Buss Scribe Notes by: Robert Ellis 1 Introduction to Propositional Logic 1.1 Symbols and Definitions The language of
More informationOn the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs
On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs Nikolai V. Krupski Department of Math. Logic and the Theory of Algorithms, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899,
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems are
More informationProof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics
Proof Theoretical Studies on Semilattice Relevant Logics Ryo Kashima Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences Tokyo Institute of Technology Ookayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan. e-mail: kashima@is.titech.ac.jp
More informationPropositional Logic Language
Propositional Logic Language A logic consists of: an alphabet A, a language L, i.e., a set of formulas, and a binary relation = between a set of formulas and a formula. An alphabet A consists of a finite
More informationTR : Binding Modalities
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Computer Science Technical Reports Graduate Center 2012 TR-2012011: Binding Modalities Sergei N. Artemov Tatiana Yavorskaya (Sidon) Follow this and
More informationCHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic
CHAPTER 10 Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. By humans, not mentioning
More informationBasic Algebraic Logic
ELTE 2013. September Today Past 1 Universal Algebra 1 Algebra 2 Transforming Algebras... Past 1 Homomorphism 2 Subalgebras 3 Direct products 3 Varieties 1 Algebraic Model Theory 1 Term Algebras 2 Meanings
More informationApplied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw
Applied Logic Lecture 1 - Propositional logic Marcin Szczuka Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw Monographic lecture, Spring semester 2017/2018 Marcin Szczuka (MIMUW) Applied Logic 2018
More informationHerbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness
CSC 438F/2404F Notes (S. Cook and T. Pitassi) Fall, 2014 Herbrand Theorem, Equality, and Compactness The Herbrand Theorem We now consider a complete method for proving the unsatisfiability of sets of first-order
More informationEquational Logic. Chapter Syntax Terms and Term Algebras
Chapter 2 Equational Logic 2.1 Syntax 2.1.1 Terms and Term Algebras The natural logic of algebra is equational logic, whose propositions are universally quantified identities between terms built up from
More informationSome consequences of compactness in Lukasiewicz Predicate Logic
Some consequences of compactness in Lukasiewicz Predicate Logic Luca Spada Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Salerno www.logica.dmi.unisa.it/lucaspada 7 th Panhellenic Logic
More informationMathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic
Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin Mathematical Logic 1 First-Order Languages. Symbols. All first-order languages we consider will have the following symbols: (i) variables v 1, v 2, v 3,... ; (ii)
More information1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More informationAn Introduction to Modal Logic III
An Introduction to Modal Logic III Soundness of Normal Modal Logics Marco Cerami Palacký University in Olomouc Department of Computer Science Olomouc, Czech Republic Olomouc, October 24 th 2013 Marco Cerami
More informationAlgebraic Proof Systems
Algebraic Proof Systems Pavel Pudlák Mathematical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Prague and Charles University, Prague Fall School of Logic, Prague, 2009 2 Overview 1 a survey of proof systems 2 a lower
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - V
Propositional and Predicate Logic - V Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - V WS 2016/2017 1 / 21 Formal proof systems Hilbert s calculus
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic. jean/gbooks/logic.html
CMSC 630 February 10, 2009 1 Propositional and Predicate Logic Sources J. Gallier. Logic for Computer Science, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken NJ, 1986. 2003 revised edition available on line at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/
More informationHypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models
Hypersequent Calculi for some Intermediate Logics with Bounded Kripke Models Agata Ciabattoni Mauro Ferrari Abstract In this paper we define cut-free hypersequent calculi for some intermediate logics semantically
More informationModal Logic XX. Yanjing Wang
Modal Logic XX Yanjing Wang Department of Philosophy, Peking University May 6th, 2016 Advanced Modal Logic (2016 Spring) 1 Completeness A traditional view of Logic A logic Λ is a collection of formulas
More informationΠ 0 1-presentations of algebras
Π 0 1-presentations of algebras Bakhadyr Khoussainov Department of Computer Science, the University of Auckland, New Zealand bmk@cs.auckland.ac.nz Theodore Slaman Department of Mathematics, The University
More informationFoundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes
Foundations of Mathematics MATH 220 FALL 2017 Lecture Notes These notes form a brief summary of what has been covered during the lectures. All the definitions must be memorized and understood. Statements
More informationLogic via Algebra. Sam Chong Tay. A Senior Exercise in Mathematics Kenyon College November 29, 2012
Logic via Algebra Sam Chong Tay A Senior Exercise in Mathematics Kenyon College November 29, 2012 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to gain insight to mathematical logic through an algebraic perspective.
More information1. Propositional Calculus
1. Propositional Calculus Some notes for Math 601, Fall 2010 based on Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth edition, 2010, Chapman & Hall. 2. Syntax ( grammar ). 1.1, p. 1. Given:
More informationLogical Closure Properties of Propositional Proof Systems
Logical Closure Properties of Propositional Proof Systems (Extended Abstract) Olaf Beyersdorff Institut für Theoretische Informatik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany beyersdorff@thi.uni-hannover.de
More informationLogical Closure Properties of Propositional Proof Systems
of Logical of Propositional Institute of Theoretical Computer Science Leibniz University Hannover Germany Theory and Applications of Models of Computation 2008 Outline of Propositional of Definition (Cook,
More informationForcing in Lukasiewicz logic
Forcing in Lukasiewicz logic a joint work with Antonio Di Nola and George Georgescu Luca Spada lspada@unisa.it Department of Mathematics University of Salerno 3 rd MATHLOGAPS Workshop Aussois, 24 th 30
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More information3. Only sequences that were formed by using finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2, are propositional formulas.
1 Chapter 1 Propositional Logic Mathematical logic studies correct thinking, correct deductions of statements from other statements. Let us make it more precise. A fundamental property of a statement is
More informationModel theory of bounded arithmetic with applications to independence results. Morteza Moniri
Model theory of bounded arithmetic with applications to independence results Morteza Moniri Abstract In this paper we apply some new and some old methods in order to construct classical and intuitionistic
More information3 Propositional Logic
3 Propositional Logic 3.1 Syntax 3.2 Semantics 3.3 Equivalence and Normal Forms 3.4 Proof Procedures 3.5 Properties Propositional Logic (25th October 2007) 1 3.1 Syntax Definition 3.0 An alphabet Σ consists
More informationChapter 2. Assertions. An Introduction to Separation Logic c 2011 John C. Reynolds February 3, 2011
Chapter 2 An Introduction to Separation Logic c 2011 John C. Reynolds February 3, 2011 Assertions In this chapter, we give a more detailed exposition of the assertions of separation logic: their meaning,
More informationBounded Arithmetic, Expanders, and Monotone Propositional Proofs
Bounded Arithmetic, Expanders, and Monotone Propositional Proofs joint work with Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova & Michal Koucký Takeuti Symposium on Advances in Logic Kobe, Japan September 20,
More informationMeta-logic derivation rules
Meta-logic derivation rules Hans Halvorson February 19, 2013 Recall that the goal of this course is to learn how to prove things about (as opposed to by means of ) classical first-order logic. So, we will
More informationConjunction: p q is true if both p, q are true, and false if at least one of p, q is false. The truth table for conjunction is as follows.
Chapter 1 Logic 1.1 Introduction and Definitions Definitions. A sentence (statement, proposition) is an utterance (that is, a string of characters) which is either true (T) or false (F). A predicate is
More informationNatural Deduction. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson
Natural Deduction Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson Outline 1. An example 1. Validity by truth table 2. Validity by proof 2. What s a proof 1. Proof checker 3. Rules of
More informationHarmonious Logic: Craig s Interpolation Theorem and its Descendants. Solomon Feferman Stanford University
Harmonious Logic: Craig s Interpolation Theorem and its Descendants Solomon Feferman Stanford University http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman Interpolations Conference in Honor of William Craig 13 May 2007
More informationcse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018
cse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics CHAPTER 7 SLIDES Slides Set 1 Chapter 7 Introduction to Intuitionistic and Modal Logics
More informationNonclassical logics (Nichtklassische Logiken)
Nonclassical logics (Nichtklassische Logiken) VU 185.249 (lecture + exercises) http://www.logic.at/lvas/ncl/ Chris Fermüller Technische Universität Wien www.logic.at/people/chrisf/ chrisf@logic.at Winter
More informationTechnische Universität München Department of Computer Science. Joint Advanced Students School 2009 Propositional Proof Complexity.
Technische Universität München Department of Computer Science Joint Advanced Students School 2009 Propositional Proof Complexity May 2009 Frege Systems Michael Herrmann Contents Contents ii 1 Introduction
More informationLecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs
IAS/PCMI Summer Session 2000 Clay Mathematics Undergraduate Program Advanced Course on Computational Complexity Lecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs David Mix Barrington and Alexis Maciel July
More informationFirst Order Logic (FOL) 1 znj/dm2017
First Order Logic (FOL) 1 http://lcs.ios.ac.cn/ znj/dm2017 Naijun Zhan March 19, 2017 1 Special thanks to Profs Hanpin Wang (PKU) and Lijun Zhang (ISCAS) for their courtesy of the slides on this course.
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic
Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)
More informationTuples of Disjoint NP-Sets
Tuples of Disjoint NP-Sets (Extended Abstract) Olaf Beyersdorff Institut für Informatik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany beyersdo@informatik.hu-berlin.de Abstract. Disjoint NP-pairs
More informationA note on monotone real circuits
A note on monotone real circuits Pavel Hrubeš and Pavel Pudlák March 14, 2017 Abstract We show that if a Boolean function f : {0, 1} n {0, 1} can be computed by a monotone real circuit of size s using
More informationOn Urquhart s C Logic
On Urquhart s C Logic Agata Ciabattoni Dipartimento di Informatica Via Comelico, 39 20135 Milano, Italy ciabatto@dsiunimiit Abstract In this paper we investigate the basic many-valued logics introduced
More informationLOGIC PROPOSITIONAL REASONING
LOGIC PROPOSITIONAL REASONING WS 2017/2018 (342.208) Armin Biere Martina Seidl biere@jku.at martina.seidl@jku.at Institute for Formal Models and Verification Johannes Kepler Universität Linz Version 2018.1
More informationInducing syntactic cut-elimination for indexed nested sequents
Inducing syntactic cut-elimination for indexed nested sequents Revantha Ramanayake Technische Universität Wien (Austria) IJCAR 2016 June 28, 2016 Revantha Ramanayake (TU Wien) Inducing syntactic cut-elimination
More informationOn sequent calculi vs natural deductions in logic and computer science
On sequent calculi vs natural deductions in logic and computer science L. Gordeev Uni-Tübingen, Uni-Ghent, PUC-Rio PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, October 13, 2015 1. Sequent calculus (SC): Basics -1- 1. Sequent
More informationCHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS
CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS 1 Language There are several propositional languages that are routinely called classical propositional logic languages. It is due to the functional dependency
More informationDual-Intuitionistic Logic and Some Other Logics
Dual-Intuitionistic Logic and Some Other Logics Hiroshi Aoyama 1 Introduction This paper is a sequel to Aoyama(2003) and Aoyama(2004). In this paper, we will study various proof-theoretic and model-theoretic
More informationChapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1)
Chapter 11: Automated Proof Systems (1) SYSTEM RS OVERVIEW Hilbert style systems are easy to define and admit a simple proof of the Completeness Theorem but they are difficult to use. Automated systems
More informationPropositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST
Propositional Calculus - Hilbert system H Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr http://pswlab.kaist.ac.kr/courses/cs402-07 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula
More informationNotation for Logical Operators:
Notation for Logical Operators: always true always false... and...... or... if... then...... if-and-only-if... x:x p(x) x:x p(x) for all x of type X, p(x) there exists an x of type X, s.t. p(x) = is equal
More informationOn Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions
arxiv:cs/0407031v1 [cs.lo] 12 Jul 2004 On Modal Logics of Partial Recursive Functions Pavel Naumov Computer Science Pennsylvania State University Middletown, PA 17057 naumov@psu.edu June 14, 2018 Abstract
More informationAN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2. Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2
45 Kragujevac J. Math. 33 (2010) 45 62. AN EXTENSION OF THE PROBABILITY LOGIC LP P 2 Tatjana Stojanović 1, Ana Kaplarević-Mališić 1 and Zoran Ognjanović 2 1 University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Science,
More informationMarie Duží
Marie Duží marie.duzi@vsb.cz 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: 1. a language 2. a set of axioms 3. a set of deduction rules ad 1. The definition of a language
More informationVictoria Gitman and Thomas Johnstone. New York City College of Technology, CUNY
Gödel s Proof Victoria Gitman and Thomas Johnstone New York City College of Technology, CUNY vgitman@nylogic.org http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/faculty/vgitman tjohnstone@citytech.cuny.edu March
More informationNon-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools
Non-classical Logics: Theory, Applications and Tools Agata Ciabattoni Vienna University of Technology (TUV) Joint work with (TUV): M. Baaz, P. Baldi, B. Lellmann, R. Ramanayake,... N. Galatos (US), G.
More informationGödel s Completeness Theorem
A.Miller M571 Spring 2002 Gödel s Completeness Theorem We only consider countable languages L for first order logic with equality which have only predicate symbols and constant symbols. We regard the symbols
More informationOn Definability in Multimodal Logic
On Definability in Multimodal Logic Joseph Y. Halpern Computer Science Department Cornell University, U.S.A. halpern@cs.cornell.edu Dov Samet The Faculty of Management Tel Aviv University, Israel samet@post.tau.ac.il
More informationExpander Construction in VNC 1
Expander Construction in VNC 1 Sam Buss joint work with Valentine Kabanets, Antonina Kolokolova & Michal Koucký Prague Workshop on Bounded Arithmetic November 2-3, 2017 Talk outline I. Combinatorial construction
More informationA Note on Bootstrapping Intuitionistic Bounded Arithmetic
A Note on Bootstrapping Intuitionistic Bounded Arithmetic SAMUEL R. BUSS Department of Mathematics University of California, San Diego Abstract This paper, firstly, discusses the relationship between Buss
More information1 Completeness Theorem for Classical Predicate
1 Completeness Theorem for Classical Predicate Logic The relationship between the first order models defined in terms of structures M = [M, I] and valuations s : V AR M and propositional models defined
More informationA MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ
A MODEL-THEORETIC PROOF OF HILBERT S NULLSTELLENSATZ NICOLAS FORD Abstract. The goal of this paper is to present a proof of the Nullstellensatz using tools from a branch of logic called model theory. In
More informationPropositional Calculus - Soundness & Completeness of H
Propositional Calculus - Soundness & Completeness of H Moonzoo Kim CS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr 1 Review Goal of logic To check whether given a formula Á is valid To prove a given formula Á `
More informationPropositional Calculus - Deductive Systems
Propositional Calculus - Deductive Systems Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr http://pswlab.kaist.ac.kr/courses/cs402-07 1 Deductive proofs (1/3) Suppose we want to know
More informationCHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic
CHAPTER 11 Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic Intuitionistic logic has developed as a result of certain philosophical views on the foundation of mathematics, known as intuitionism. Intuitionism was originated
More informationPropositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/8/16
Propositional Logic (5A) Young W. Lim Copyright (c) 2016 Young W. Lim. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
More informationCONTENTS. Appendix C: Gothic Alphabet 109
Contents 1 Sentential Logic 1 1.1 Introduction............................ 1 1.2 Sentences of Sentential Logic................... 2 1.3 Truth Assignments........................ 7 1.4 Logical Consequence.......................
More informationPropositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0
Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0 Outline Syntax of Propositional Formulas Motivating Proofs Syntactic Entailment and Proofs Proof Rules for Natural Deduction Axioms, theories and theorems
More informationClassical Propositional Logic
The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction January 16, 2013 The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction Logic Logic is the science of inference. Given a body of information,
More informationModal and temporal logic
Modal and temporal logic N. Bezhanishvili I. Hodkinson C. Kupke Imperial College London 1 / 83 Overview Part II 1 Soundness and completeness. Canonical models. 3 lectures. 2 Finite model property. Filtrations.
More informationCMPS 217 Logic in Computer Science. Lecture #17
CMPS 217 Logic in Computer Science https://courses.soe.ucsc.edu/courses/cmps217/spring13/01 Lecture #17 1 The Complexity of FO-Truth on a Structure Structure A Complexity of Th(A) Structure of the natural
More informationInformal Statement Calculus
FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS Branches of Logic 1. Theory of Computations (i.e. Recursion Theory). 2. Proof Theory. 3. Model Theory. 4. Set Theory. Informal Statement Calculus STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Example
More informationChapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems. September 19, 2008
Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus: Deductive Systems September 19, 2008 Outline 1 3.1 Deductive (Proof) System 2 3.2 Gentzen System G 3 3.3 Hilbert System H 4 3.4 Soundness and Completeness; Consistency
More informationCHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC
CHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC 1. Introduction First order logic is a much richer system than sentential logic. Its interpretations include the usual structures of mathematics, and its sentences enable us
More informationPrefixed Tableaus and Nested Sequents
Prefixed Tableaus and Nested Sequents Melvin Fitting Dept. Mathematics and Computer Science Lehman College (CUNY), 250 Bedford Park Boulevard West Bronx, NY 10468-1589 e-mail: melvin.fitting@lehman.cuny.edu
More informationLogic: The Big Picture
Logic: The Big Picture A typical logic is described in terms of syntax: what are the legitimate formulas semantics: under what circumstances is a formula true proof theory/ axiomatization: rules for proving
More informationMadhavan Mukund Chennai Mathematical Institute
AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Madhavan Mukund Chennai Mathematical Institute E-mail: madhavan@cmiacin Abstract ese are lecture notes for an introductory course on logic aimed at graduate students in Computer
More informationA polytime proof of correctness of the Rabin-Miller algorithm from Fermat s Little Theorem
A polytime proof of correctness of the Rabin-Miller algorithm from Fermat s Little Theorem Grzegorz Herman and Michael Soltys November 24, 2008 Abstract Although a deterministic polytime algorithm for
More informationFirst Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics
CS1081 First Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics COMP30412 Sean Bechhofer sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk Problems Propositional logic isn t very expressive As an example, consider p = Scotland won on Saturday
More informationCanonical Calculi: Invertibility, Axiom expansion and (Non)-determinism
Canonical Calculi: Invertibility, Axiom expansion and (Non)-determinism A. Avron 1, A. Ciabattoni 2, and A. Zamansky 1 1 Tel-Aviv University 2 Vienna University of Technology Abstract. We apply the semantic
More informationTableau vs. Sequent Calculi for Minimal Entailment
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 32 (2014) Tableau vs. Sequent Calculi for Minimal Entailment Olaf Beyersdorff and Leroy Chew School of Computing, University of Leeds, UK Abstract.
More informationEvaluation Driven Proof-Search in Natural Deduction Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic
Evaluation Driven Proof-Search in Natural Deduction Calculi for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Mauro Ferrari 1, Camillo Fiorentini 2 1 DiSTA, Univ. degli Studi dell Insubria, Varese, Italy 2 DI, Univ.
More informationProof Complexity of Intuitionistic Propositional Logic
Proof Complexity of Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Alexander Hertel & Alasdair Urquhart November 29, 2006 Abstract We explore the proof complexity of intuitionistic propositional logic (IP L) The problem
More informationMAGIC Set theory. lecture 1
MAGIC Set theory lecture 1 David Asperó University of East Anglia 15 October 2014 Welcome Welcome to this set theory course. This will be a 10 hour introduction to set theory. The only prerequisite is
More informationBetween proof theory and model theory Three traditions in logic: Syntactic (formal deduction)
Overview Between proof theory and model theory Three traditions in logic: Syntactic (formal deduction) Jeremy Avigad Department of Philosophy Carnegie Mellon University avigad@cmu.edu http://andrew.cmu.edu/
More informationON DEFINABILITY IN MULTIMODAL LOGIC
THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC Volume 2, Number 3, September 2009 ON DEFINABILITY IN MULTIMODAL LOGIC JOSEPH Y. HALPERN Computer Science Department, Cornell University DOV SAMET The Faculty of Management,
More informationLogic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.1 Propositions and logical connectives. Truth tables and tautologies
Logic as a Tool Chapter 1: Understanding Propositional Logic 1.1 Propositions and logical connectives. Truth tables and tautologies Valentin Stockholm University September 2016 Propositions Proposition:
More informationThe Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic
The Importance of Being Formal Martin Henz February 5, 2014 Propositional Logic 1 Motivation In traditional logic, terms represent sets, and therefore, propositions are limited to stating facts on sets
More informationMotivation. CS389L: Automated Logical Reasoning. Lecture 10: Overview of First-Order Theories. Signature and Axioms of First-Order Theory
Motivation CS389L: Automated Logical Reasoning Lecture 10: Overview of First-Order Theories Işıl Dillig Last few lectures: Full first-order logic In FOL, functions/predicates are uninterpreted (i.e., structure
More information4. Derived Leibniz rules
Bulletin of the Section of Logic Volume 29/1 (2000), pp. 75 87 George Tourlakis A BASIC FORMAL EQUATIONAL PREDICATE LOGIC PART II Abstract We continue our exploration of the Basic Formal Equational Predicate
More informationUniversal Algebra for Logics
Universal Algebra for Logics Joanna GRYGIEL University of Czestochowa Poland j.grygiel@ajd.czest.pl 2005 These notes form Lecture Notes of a short course which I will give at 1st School on Universal Logic
More informationthe logic of provability
A bird s eye view on the logic of provability Rineke Verbrugge, Institute of Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen Annual Meet on Logic and its Applications, Calcutta Logic Circle, Kolkata,
More informationU-Sets as a probabilistic set theory
U-Sets as a probabilistic set theory Claudio Sossai ISIB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, 35127 Padova, Italy sossai@isib.cnr.it Technical Report 05/03 ISIB-CNR, October 2005 Abstract A topos of presheaves can
More information