DOCSLIB.ORG

Topics in Philosophical Logic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Topics in Philosophical Logic Topics in Philosophical Logic The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Litland, Jon. 2012. Topics in Philosophical Logic. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9527318 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA © Jon Litland All rights reserved. Warren Goldfarb Jon Litland Topics in Philosophical Logic Abstract In “Proof-Theoretic Justification of Logic”, building on work by Dummett and Prawitz, I show how to construct use-based meaning-theories for the logical constants. The assertability-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the logical constants to be given by their introduction rules; the consequence-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the log- ical constants to be given by their elimination rules. I then consider the question: given a set of introduction (elimination) rules , what are the R strongest elimination (introduction) rules that are validated by an assertabil- ity (consequence) conditional meaning-theory based on ? I prove that the R intuitionistic introduction (elimination) rules are the strongest rules that are validated by the intuitionistic elimination (introduction) rules. I then prove that intuitionistic logic is the strongest logic that can be given either an assertability-conditional or consequence-conditional meaning-theory. In “Grounding Grounding” I discuss the notion of grounding. My discus- sion revolves around the problem of iterated grounding-claims. Suppose that ∆ grounds φ; what grounds that ∆ grounds that φ? I argue that unless we can get a satisfactory answer to this question the notion of grounding will be useless. I discuss and reject some proposed accounts of iterated grounding claims. I then develop a new way of expressing grounding, propose an account of iterated grounding-claims and show how we can develop logics for grounding. In “Is the Vagueness Argument Valid?” I argue that the Vagueness Ar- iii Warren Goldfarb Jon Litland gument in favor of unrestricted composition isn’t valid. However, if the premisses of the argument are true and the conclusion false, mereological facts fail to supervene on non-mereological facts. I argue that this failure of supervenience is an artifact of the interplay between the necessity and determinacy operators and that it does not mean that mereological facts fail to depend on non-mereological facts. I sketch a deflationary view of ontology to establish this. iv Contents I Proof-theoretic Justification of Logic 1 1 Intuitionistic Rules 2 1.1 Introduction . 2 1.2 Philosophical Remarks . 6 1.3 Verificationist Meaning-Theory . 9 1.3.1 Boundary Rules . 16 1.3.2 Another Approach . 22 1.4 Pragmatist Meaning-Theories . 23 1.4.1 Examples . 24 1.4.2 Rules of inference . 25 1.4.3 Canonical Proofs . 26 1.4.4 Typographical conventions . 29 1.4.5 Basic facts about canonical arguments . 29 1.4.6 Justifying introduction rules . 31 1.5 Properties of Valid Sequents . 33 v 1.5.1 Structural properties . 33 1.5.2 Cut-elimination . 33 1.5.3 Introduction rules . 45 1.5.4 Completeness . 46 1.5.5 Doing without the conditional . 54 2 General Rules 56 2.1 General Introduction Rules . 58 2.1.1 Canonical Arguments . 61 2.1.2 Characterization of the general introduction rules . 62 2.1.3 Maximality of intuitionistic logic . 63 2.2 General Elimination Rules . 67 2.2.1 Canonical Arguments . 68 2.2.2 Cut-elimination . 72 2.2.3 Conservativity Results . 83 2.2.4 Maximality of intuitionistic logic . 86 2.3 Stability . 88 2.4 Summing Up . 92 II Metaphysics 94 3 Is the Vagueness Argument Valid? 95 3.1 Introduction . 95 3.1.1 Overview . 97 3.2 Technicalities . 98 3.3 The Argument . 100 vi 3.3.1 The premisses . 100 3.3.2 Sider’s argument for (P3)................. 102 3.3.3 Models . 103 3.4 The Contingency of Composition . 104 3.5 Existence Deflated . 106 3.5.1 Existence on the cheap . 106 3.5.2 ‘Just consists in’ . 107 3.5.3 Basic and non-basic worlds . 108 3.5.4 Non-basic worlds and determinacy . 109 3.5.5 Penumbral Counterfactuals . 110 3.5.6 Matters dialectical . 113 3.6 Arbitrariness . 114 3.6.1 Intraworld Arbitrariness . 114 3.6.2 Interworld arbitrariness and Sharp Cut-Offs . 115 3.6.3 Whence the lack of sharp cut-offs? . 118 3.6.4 In terms of possible worlds . 119 3.6.5 Another way of blocking the argument . 120 3.7 Loose Threads . 121 3.7.1 Counterfactual excluded middle . 121 3.7.2 “Drawn from different possible worlds” . 122 3.8 Supervenience . 123 3.9 Is the Actual World a World? . 125 3.10 Conclusions . 129 4 Grounding Grounding 131 4.1 Introduction . 131 vii 4.2 The Status Problem: a Special Case . 133 4.3 Clarifications . 135 4.3.1 The Form of Grounding-Claims . 135 4.3.2 Grounding as a primitive . 136 4.3.3 Higher-Order Quantification . 137 4.3.4 Explaining explanations . 140 4.3.5 Matters of Ideology . 140 4.4 The Status Problem in General . 141 4.4.1 No layering of objects? . 145 4.5 An Account of Iterated Ground . 147 4.6 The Essentialist View of Iterated Ground . 149 4.6.1 Canonical forms . 150 4.6.2 The problem of constituents . 152 4.6.3 Do essences enter into the grounds? . 153 4.6.4 The problem of factuality . 155 4.7 The Antinomy of Grounding . 159 4.8 Zero-Grounding . 161 4.8.1 Zero-grounding and factuality . 161 4.8.2 Zero-grounding and essence . 162 4.9 Grounding an Explanation: The Grammar of Ground . 163 4.10 Grounding and Explanation: Explanatory Arguments . 165 4.11 Expressive Limitations . 168 4.12 Grounding as an Operator . 169 4.13 Objections and Clarifications . 172 4.14 Conclusions . 177 viii A Appendix 179 A.1 (P1b), (P2b), (P3c) are jointly consistent . 179 Bibliography 181 ix For my father x List of Figures 1.3.1 Intuitionistic Introduction Rules . 12 1.4.1 Intuitionistic Elimination Rules . 26 2.1.1 A general introduction rule . 59 2.2.1 A General Elimination Rule . 68 A.1.1Model of (P1b)........................... 180 xi Acknowledgments While writing this thesis, the Harvard Philosophy Department was my intellectual home; it was here that I came of age as a philosopher. I owe a great debt to Warren Goldfarb for suggesting that I look into Dummett’s proof-theoretic justifications of logical laws. Untold false starts later, I’ve finally settled all the technical questions I started out with in my second year paper—and more. Many thanks also to Peter Koellner for forcing me to think hard about what the philosophical significance of this work is. Although none of the technical work in this dissertation directly relates to his own work, my debt to Koellner’s seminars in the philosophy of mathematics, mathematical logic and set theory is enormous. For the more metaphysical papers, my largest debt is to Ned Hall. The paper on the vagueness argument started out as a two-page note. Many patient discussions later the result is the chapter in the dissertation. For discussions about this paper I’m also very grateful to Bryan Pickel. I’ve been interested in grounding, and the logic of grounding, for many years, but my attempts were not successful. In spring 2011 I came up with the idea behind the logics of ground which I sketch in this paper. Apart from my committee, I here owe special thanks to Susanna Siegel and the other members of the job-market seminar at Harvard for reading and commenting on numerous drafts. For their patient and insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper I’m very grateful to Shamik Dasgupta and Michael Raven. Most of all, thanks to Louis deRosset for lengthy and insightful exchanges about the logic of ground. xii Needless to say, any errors remain my own. On a personal note, this dissertation would not have existed without my family—Na’ama, Omri and Ingunn. xiii Part I Proof-theoretic Justification of Logic 1 1 Intuitionistic Rules 1.1 Introduction According to Dummett (see e.g., his 1973, 1976, 1978, 1991), there are two points where our linguistic practice makes contact with the extralinguistic world. First, we verify statements on the basis of observation; second, we draw ultimate conclusions from our statements—conclusions which have consequences for action. For Dummett our practice of verifying statements and our practice of drawing ultimate conclusions from statements are fea- 2 tures which are manifest in our use of language. Dummett suggests that each of these aspects of use can be the central notion of a meaning-theory; the former leading to ‘verificationist’ meaning-theory, the latter to a ‘prag- matist’ meaning theory. Such meaning-theories would not be subject to the manifestation argument. In a verificationist meaning theory the meaning of a statement φ is spec- ified by laying down what counts as a canonical verification of φ. In a pragmatist meaning theory the meaning of a statement φ is specified by specifying which ultimate consequences can be canonically derived from φ.1 Central to Dummett’s philosophy is the concern that these two aspects of use have to be in harmony. Our actual usage can be criticized if they’re not. For instance, our actual usage can be criticized if we draw conclusions from our statements which aren’t licensed by the meaning conferred on the statements by their verification conditions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Denying a Dualism: Goodman's Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 28, 2004, 226-238. Denying a Dualism: Goodman’s Repudiation of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Catherine Z. Elgin The analytic synthetic/distinction forms the backbone of much modern Western philosophy. It underwrites a conception of the relation of representations to reality which affords an understanding of cognition. Its repudiation thus requires a fundamental reconception and perhaps a radical revision of philosophy. Many philosophers believe that the repudiation of the analytic/synthetic distinction and kindred dualisms constitutes a major loss, possibly even an irrecoverable loss, for philosophy. Nelson Goodman thinks otherwise. He believes that it liberates philosophy from unwarranted restrictions, creating opportunities for the development of powerful new approaches to and reconceptions of seemingly intractable problems. In this article I want to sketch some of the consequences of Goodman’s reconception. My focus is not on Goodman’s reasons for denying the dualism, but on some of the ways its absence affects his position. I do not contend that the Goodman obsessed over the issue. I have no reason to think that the repudiation of the distinction was a central factor in his intellectual life. But by considering the function that the analytic/synthetic distinction has performed in traditional philosophy, and appreciating what is lost and gained in repudiating it, we gain insight into Goodman’s contributions. I begin then by reviewing the distinction and the conception of philosophy it supports. The analytic/synthetic distinction is a distinction between truths that depend entirely on meaning and truths that depend on both meaning and fact. In the early modern period, it was cast as a distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Logic 2018 Course Description (Tentative) January 15, 2018
    Philosophical Logic 2018 Course description (tentative) January 15, 2018 Valentin Goranko Introduction This 7.5 hp course is mainly intended for students in philosophy and is generally accessible to a broad audience with basic background on formal classical logic and general appreciation of philosophical aspects of logic. Practical information The course will be given in English. It will comprise 18 two-hour long sessions combining lectures and exercises, grouped in 2 sessions per week over 9 teaching weeks. The weekly pairs of 2-hour time slots (incl. short breaks) allocated for these sessions, will be on Mondays during 10.00-12.00 and 13.00-15.00, except for the first lecture. The course will begin on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 (Week 14) at 10.00 am in D220, S¨odra huset, hus D. Lecturer's info: Name: Valentin Goranko Email: [email protected] Homepage: http://www2.philosophy.su.se/goranko Course webpage: http://www2.philosophy.su.se/goranko/Courses2018/PhilLogic-2018.html Prerequisites The course will be accessible to a broad audience with introductory background on classical formal logic. Some basic knowledge of modal logics would be an advantage but not a prerequisite. Brief description Philosophical logic studies a variety of non-classical logical systems intended to formalise and reason about various philosophical concepts and ideas. They include a broad family of modal logics, as well as many- valued, intuitionistic, relevant, conditional, non-monotonic, para-consistent, etc. logics. Modal logics extend classical logic with additional intensional logical operators, reflecting different modes of truth, including alethic, epistemic, doxastic, temporal, deontic, agentive, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 086 604 SO 006 822 AUTHOR Norris, Jack A., Jr. TITLE Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla. PUB DATE 72 NOTE 20p.; Authorized Course of Instruction for the Quinmester Program EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Course Objectives; Curriculum Guides; Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 12; *Language Arts; Learnin4 Activities; *Logic; Non Western Civilization; *Philosophy; Resource Guides; Secondary Grades; *Social Studies; *Social Studies Units; Western Civilization IDENTIFIERS *Quinmester Program ABSTRACT Western and non - western philosophers and their ideas are introduced to 10th through 12th grade students in this general social studies Quinmester course designed to be used as a preparation for in-depth study of the various schools of philosophical thought. By acquainting students with the questions and categories of philosophy, a point of departure for further study is developed. Through suggested learning activities the meaning of philosopky is defined. The Socratic, deductive, inductive, intuitive and eclectic approaches to philosophical thought are examined, as are three general areas of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology. Logical reasoning is applied to major philosophical questions. This course is arranged, as are other quinmester courses, with sections on broad goals, course content, activities, and materials. A related document is ED 071 937.(KSM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U S DEPARTMENT EDUCATION OF HEALTH. NAT10N41
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    BAS C. VAN FRAASSEN Curriculum Vitae Last updated 3/6/2019 I. Personal and Academic History .................................................................................................................... 1 List of Degrees Earned ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title of Ph.D. Thesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Positions held ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Invited lectures and lecture series ........................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Honors, Prizes ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Grants .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Non-Academic Publications ................................................................................................................................................ 5 II. Professional Activities .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Truth-Bearers and Truth Value*
    Truth-Bearers and Truth Value* I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to explain the following concepts and the relationships between them: statements, propositions, and truth value. In what follows each of these will be discussed in turn. II. Language and Truth-Bearers A. Statements 1. Introduction For present purposes, we will define the term “statement” as follows. Statement: A meaningful declarative sentence.1 It is useful to make sure that the definition of “statement” is clearly understood. 2. Sentences in General To begin with, a statement is a kind of sentence. Obviously, not every string of words is a sentence. Consider: “John store.” Here we have two nouns with a period after them—there is no verb. Grammatically, this is not a sentence—it is just a collection of words with a dot after them. Consider: “If I went to the store.” This isn’t a sentence either. “I went to the store.” is a sentence. However, using the word “if” transforms this string of words into a mere clause that requires another clause to complete it. For example, the following is a sentence: “If I went to the store, I would buy milk.” This issue is not merely one of conforming to arbitrary rules. Remember, a grammatically correct sentence expresses a complete thought.2 The construction “If I went to the store.” does not do this. One wants to By Dr. Robert Tierney. This document is being used by Dr. Tierney for teaching purposes and is not intended for use or publication in any other manner. 1 More precisely, a statement is a meaningful declarative sentence-type.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetorical Analysis
    RHETORICAL ANALYSIS PURPOSE Almost every text makes an argument. Rhetorical analysis is the process of evaluating elements of a text and determining how those elements impact the success or failure of that argument. Often rhetorical analyses address written arguments, but visual, oral, or other kinds of “texts” can also be analyzed. RHETORICAL FEATURES – WHAT TO ANALYZE Asking the right questions about how a text is constructed will help you determine the focus of your rhetorical analysis. A good rhetorical analysis does not try to address every element of a text; discuss just those aspects with the greatest [positive or negative] impact on the text’s effectiveness. THE RHETORICAL SITUATION Remember that no text exists in a vacuum. The rhetorical situation of a text refers to the context in which it is written and read, the audience to whom it is directed, and the purpose of the writer. THE RHETORICAL APPEALS A writer makes many strategic decisions when attempting to persuade an audience. Considering the following rhetorical appeals will help you understand some of these strategies and their effect on an argument. Generally, writers should incorporate a variety of different rhetorical appeals rather than relying on only one kind. Ethos (appeal to the writer’s credibility) What is the writer’s purpose (to argue, explain, teach, defend, call to action, etc.)? Do you trust the writer? Why? Is the writer an authority on the subject? What credentials does the writer have? Does the writer address other viewpoints? How does the writer’s word choice or tone affect how you view the writer? Pathos (a ppeal to emotion or to an audience’s values or beliefs) Who is the target audience for the argument? How is the writer trying to make the audience feel (i.e., sad, happy, angry, guilty)? Is the writer making any assumptions about the background, knowledge, values, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Classical Model of Science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege
    Synthese (2010) 174:237–261 DOI 10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9 The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege Willem R. de Jong Received: 10 April 2007 / Revised: 24 July 2007 / Accepted: 1 April 2008 / Published online: 8 November 2008 © The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This paper concentrates on some aspects of the history of the analytic- synthetic distinction from Kant to Bolzano and Frege. This history evinces con- siderable continuity but also some important discontinuities. The analytic-synthetic distinction has to be seen in the first place in relation to a science, i.e. an ordered system of cognition. Looking especially to the place and role of logic it will be argued that Kant, Bolzano and Frege each developed the analytic-synthetic distinction within the same conception of scientific rationality, that is, within the Classical Model of Science: scientific knowledge as cognitio ex principiis. But as we will see, the way the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or propositions functions within this model turns out to differ considerably between them. Keywords Analytic-synthetic · Science · Logic · Kant · Bolzano · Frege 1 Introduction As is well known, the critical Kant is the first to apply the analytic-synthetic distinction to such things as judgments, sentences or propositions. For Kant this distinction is not only important in his repudiation of traditional, so-called dogmatic, metaphysics, but it is also crucial in his inquiry into (the possibility of) metaphysics as a rational science. Namely, this distinction should be “indispensable with regard to the critique of human understanding, and therefore deserves to be classical in it” (Kant 1783, p.
    [Show full text]
  • John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected]
    John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected] LOGIC & PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY Introduction For present purposes “logic” will be understood to mean the subject whose development is described in Kneale & Kneale [1961] and of which a concise history is given in Scholz [1961]. As the terminological discussion at the beginning of the latter reference makes clear, this subject has at different times been known by different names, “analytics” and “organon” and “dialectic”, while inversely the name “logic” has at different times been applied much more broadly and loosely than it will be here. At certain times and in certain places — perhaps especially in Germany from the days of Kant through the days of Hegel — the label has come to be used so very broadly and loosely as to threaten to take in nearly the whole of metaphysics and epistemology. Logic in our sense has often been distinguished from “logic” in other, sometimes unmanageably broad and loose, senses by adding the adjectives “formal” or “deductive”. The scope of the art and science of logic, once one gets beyond elementary logic of the kind covered in introductory textbooks, is indicated by two other standard references, the Handbooks of mathematical and philosophical logic, Barwise [1977] and Gabbay & Guenthner [1983-89], though the latter includes also parts that are identified as applications of logic rather than logic proper. The term “philosophical logic” as currently used, for instance, in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, is a near-synonym for “nonclassical logic”. There is an older use of the term as a near-synonym for “philosophy of language”.
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More
    Description Logics|Basics, Applications, and More Ian Horrocks Information Management Group University of Manchester, UK Ulrike Sattler Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science RWTH Aachen, Germany RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Overview of the Tutorial • History and Basics: Syntax, Semantics, ABoxes, Tboxes, Inference Problems and their interrelationship, and Relationship with other (logical) formalisms • Applications of DLs: ER-diagrams with i.com demo, ontologies, etc. including system demonstration • Reasoning Procedures: simple tableaux and why they work • Reasoning Procedures II: more complex tableaux, non-standard inference prob- lems • Complexity issues • Implementing/Optimising DL systems RWTH Aachen 2 Germany Description Logics • family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about ➠ terminological knowledge ➠ configurations ➠ ontologies ➠ database schemata { schema design, evolution, and query optimisation { source integration in heterogeneous databases/data warehouses { conceptual modelling of multidimensional aggregation ➠ : : : • descendents of semantics networks, frame-based systems, and KL-ONE • aka terminological KR systems, concept languages, etc. RWTH Aachen 3 Germany Architecture of a Standard DL System Knowledge Base I N Terminology F E I R Father = Man u 9 has child.>... N E T Human = Mammal. u Biped . N E Description C R E F Logic A Concrete Situation S C Y E John:Human u Father S John has child Bill . T . E M RWTH Aachen 4 Germany Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning with Ambiguity
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Reasoning with Ambiguity Christian Wurm the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later Abstract We treat the problem of reasoning with ambiguous propositions. Even though ambiguity is obviously problematic for reasoning, it is no less ob- vious that ambiguous propositions entail other propositions (both ambiguous and unambiguous), and are entailed by other propositions. This article gives a formal analysis of the underlying mechanisms, both from an algebraic and a logical point of view. The main result can be summarized as follows: sound (and complete) reasoning with ambiguity requires a distinction between equivalence on the one and congruence on the other side: the fact that α entails β does not imply β can be substituted for α in all contexts preserving truth. With- out this distinction, we will always run into paradoxical results. We present the (cut-free) sequent calculus ALcf , which we conjecture implements sound and complete propositional reasoning with ambiguity, and provide it with a language-theoretic semantics, where letters represent unambiguous meanings and concatenation represents ambiguity. Keywords Ambiguity, reasoning, proof theory, algebra, Computational Linguistics Acknowledgements Thanks to Timm Lichte, Roland Eibers, Roussanka Loukanova and Gerhard Schurz for helpful discussions; also I want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their many excellent remarks! 1 Introduction This article gives an extensive treatment of reasoning with ambiguity, more precisely with ambiguous propositions. We approach the problem from an Universit¨atD¨usseldorf,Germany Universit¨atsstr.1 40225 D¨usseldorf Germany E-mail: [email protected] 2 Christian Wurm algebraic and a logical perspective and show some interesting surprising results on both ends, which lead up to some interesting philosophical questions, which we address in a preliminary fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computer-Verified Monadic Functional Implementation of the Integral
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Theoretical Computer Science 411 (2010) 3386–3402 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Theoretical Computer Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tcs A computer-verified monadic functional implementation of the integral Russell O'Connor, Bas Spitters ∗ Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands article info a b s t r a c t Article history: We provide a computer-verified exact monadic functional implementation of the Riemann Received 10 September 2008 integral in type theory. Together with previous work by O'Connor, this may be seen as Received in revised form 13 January 2010 the beginning of the realization of Bishop's vision to use constructive mathematics as a Accepted 23 May 2010 programming language for exact analysis. Communicated by G.D. Plotkin ' 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Type theory Functional programming Exact real analysis Monads 1. Introduction Integration is one of the fundamental techniques in numerical computation. However, its implementation using floating- point numbers requires continuous effort on the part of the user in order to ensure that the results are correct. This burden can be shifted away from the end-user by providing a library of exact analysis in which the computer handles the error estimates. For high assurance we use computer-verified proofs that the implementation is actually correct; see [21] for an overview. It has long been suggested that, by using constructive mathematics, exact analysis and provable correctness can be unified [7,8]. Constructive mathematics provides a high-level framework for specifying computations (Section 2.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Propositions as Types Citation for published version: Wadler, P 2015, 'Propositions as Types', Communications of the ACM, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699407 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1145/2699407 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Communications of the ACM General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Propositions as Types ∗ Philip Wadler University of Edinburgh [email protected] 1. Introduction cluding Agda, Automath, Coq, Epigram, F#,F?, Haskell, LF, ML, Powerful insights arise from linking two fields of study previously NuPRL, Scala, Singularity, and Trellys. thought separate. Examples include Descartes’s coordinates, which Propositions as Types is a notion with mystery. Why should it links geometry to algebra, Planck’s Quantum Theory, which links be the case that intuitionistic natural deduction, as developed by particles to waves, and Shannon’s Information Theory, which links Gentzen in the 1930s, and simply-typed lambda calculus, as devel- thermodynamics to communication.
    [Show full text]