DOCSLIB.ORG

The Brain and the New Foundations of Mathematics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Brain and the New Foundations of Mathematics S S symmetry Article The Brain and the New Foundations of Mathematics Alexey V. Melkikh Institute of Physics and Technology, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg 620002, Russia; [email protected] or [email protected] Abstract: Many concepts in mathematics are not fully defined, and their properties are implicit, which leads to paradoxes. New foundations of mathematics were formulated based on the concept of innate programs of behavior and thinking. The basic axiom of mathematics is proposed, according to which any mathematical object has a physical carrier. This carrier can store and process only a finite amount of information. As a result of the D-procedure (encoding of any mathematical objects and operations on them in the form of qubits), a mathematical object is digitized. As a consequence, the basis of mathematics is the interaction of brain qubits, which can only implement arithmetic operations on numbers. A proof in mathematics is an algorithm for finding the correct statement from a list of already-existing statements. Some mathematical paradoxes (e.g., Banach–Tarski and Russell) and Smale’s 18th problem are solved by means of the D-procedure. The axiom of choice is a consequence of the equivalence of physical states, the choice among which can be made randomly. The proposed mathematics is constructive in the sense that any mathematical object exists if it is physically realized. The consistency of mathematics is due to directed evolution, which results in effective structures. Computing with qubits is based on the nontrivial quantum effects of biologically important molecules in neurons and the brain. Keywords: Banach–Tarski paradox; axiom of choice; solution of Smale’s 18th problem; quantum mind; brain hidden symmetries; quantum computations Citation: Melkikh, A.V. The Brain and the New Foundations of Mathematics. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13061002 1. Introduction The question of the foundations of mathematics has been discussed many times Academic Editors: Danko D. Georgiev since its inception. A number of scientists, for example, considered set theory as such a and José Carlos R. Alcantud foundation. However, at the present time, issues such as the following remain unresolved: Received: 29 April 2021 - Why can we prove anything at all within the framework of mathematics? Accepted: 2 June 2021 - Where do new mathematical concepts and structures come from? Published: 3 June 2021 - Why do we consider inductive inference to be correct? - How do we manage to work with infinities in mathematics? Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Mathematics itself cannot answer such questions. It is fundamentally important to with regard to jurisdictional claims in consider the structure of the system (brain or computer) that operates with mathematical published maps and institutional affil- concepts. On the other hand, mathematics is a part of thinking as such and must obey iations. some general laws. Traditionally, human thinking is partially explained on the basis of a neural network paradigm, according to which a large number of neurons, connected with each other in a complex way, allow humans and animals to process information, recognize images and Copyright: © 2021 by the author. make decisions. At the same time, one of the problems of human and animal thinking is Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the acquisition of new knowledge. Previous works [1,2] show that the acquisition of new This article is an open access article knowledge is contradictory, since the recognized image is not new, and the unrecognized distributed under the terms and image is not useful. To solve this problem, previous works [1,2] suggest that all behavioral conditions of the Creative Commons programs are innate. It also agrees with the Chomskian innate, generative grammar. As a Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// mechanism for the operation of such programs, nontrivial quantum effects of interaction creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ between biologically important molecules are proposed [3–5]. 4.0/). Symmetry 2021, 13, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13061002 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry Symmetry 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 27 Symmetry 2021, 13, 1002 2 of 26 This question is also closely related to the foundations of mathematics and logic. In- deed, if all the objects with which we work are innate, then the same applies to mathemat- ical objects.This question However, is there also closelyare an infinite related number to the foundations of mathematical of mathematics objects, and and any logic.lim- itedIndeed, physical if all system the objects (e.g., with computer, which we brain) work ca aren store innate, only then a finite the same number applies of objects to mathe- in memorymatical objects.and work However, with them. there This are property, an infinite as numberwell as the of mathematicalpresence of a number objects, of and other any contradictionslimited physical and system paradoxes, (e.g., computer,entails the brain)need to can revise store the only foundations a finite number of mathematics. of objects in memoryThis andarticle work is devoted with them. to the This formulation property, asof wellnew as foundations the presence of ofmathematics a number of based other oncontradictions the concept of and innate paradoxes, programs entails of behavior the need and to revise thinking. the foundations of mathematics. This article is devoted to the formulation of new foundations of mathematics based 2.on The the Main concept Results of innate of the programs Theory ofof behaviorInnate Behavioral and thinking. Programs In previous studies [1,2,6], a theory of innate behavior programs is proposed, within 2. The Main Results of the Theory of Innate Behavioral Programs the framework of which the main problem of thinking is solved—the problem of knowledgeIn previous acquisition. studies The [1, 2main,6], a results theory of the innate theory behavior can be programs described is as proposed, follows: within the framework of which the main problem of thinking is solved—the problem of knowledge 1. All human and animal behavior is innate. When we learn something or understand acquisition. The main results of the theory can be described as follows: something, it means that we are using existing programs. 2.1. SuchAll humaninnate programs and animal allow behavior behavior is innate. to respond When flexibly we learn to something changes in or the understand environ- ment.something, it means that we are using existing programs. 2. Such innate programs allow behavior to respond flexibly to changes in the environment. Thus, if the information is new, then it is useless; if it is useful, then it is not new Thus, if the information is new, then it is useless; if it is useful, then it is not new (Figure 1). (Figure1). 3. Behavioral programs are formed on the basis of genes in the process of ontogenesis. Image Objects ? Operation 1 Operation 2 Operation 3 ? Figure 1. Recognition and actions [1]. FigureControl 1. Recognition of complex and actions behaviors [1]. requires much more information than can be encoded in genes. An additional information resource can be the quantum effects of interactions 3.between Behavioral biologically programs important are formed molecules, on the which basis alsoof genes take in place the duringprocess theof ontogenesis. formation of the brain,Control as of well complex as other behaviors organs (see, requires for example, much more [4,7 ]).information than can be encoded in4. genes.As aAn result additional of the registration information of theresource signal can of the be external the quantum environment effects byof theinteractions receptors, betweenit is biologically memorized important and recognized. molecules, which also take place during the formation of the brain, as well as other organs (see, for example, [4,7]). Memorizing the temporal and spatial ordering of the received signals is used by the 4.organism As a result to launch of the behavioral registration programs of the signal that areof the most external appropriate environment for a given by the situation. recep- If thetors, received it is memorized signal is notand recognized recognized. (the image is new), then any a priori program, adequate for the given situation, cannot be launched. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1002 3 of 26 5. In the presence of uncertainty in the environment, innate programs do not start immediately, but after several repetitions, which makes it possible to reduce errors. Another response to environmental uncertainty is trial and error, which allows the organism to find the most appropriate innate program. 6. The transfer of experience from one organism to another occurs if the innate programs of behavior in both organisms are the same. Thus, learning of animals and humans is only a method of finding the innate program of behavior that is most suitable for a given situation. New behavioral programs cannot arise in the learning process. An important aspect of thinking is that we are aware of only part of the brain’s work. We are not aware of a significant part of the work associated, for example, with the work of ion channels, neuroreceptors and other intra- and inter-neuronal events. This property should play an important role in the construction of the foundations of mathematics. 3. Computer Proofs Before considering the foundations of mathematics, let us consider how a computer (i.e., a system, the structure of which we know) can operate with mathematics. Naturally, regarding the human brain, we cannot say that we are fully aware of its structure and patterns of work. One of the most important concepts in mathematics is a proof. What is a proof? One of the definitions is (see, for example, [8]): A proof is a sequence of formulae each of which is either an axiom or follows from earlier formulae by a rule of inference. At first glance, based on proofs in mathematics, new knowledge and new useful information arise.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Iterative Conception of Set Author(S): George Boolos Reviewed Work(S): Source: the Journal of Philosophy, Vol
    Journal of Philosophy, Inc. The Iterative Conception of Set Author(s): George Boolos Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 68, No. 8, Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics (Apr. 22, 1971), pp. 215-231 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2025204 . Accessed: 12/01/2013 10:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:53:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE JOURNALOF PHILOSOPHY VOLUME LXVIII, NO. 8, APRIL 22, I97I _ ~ ~~~~~~- ~ '- ' THE ITERATIVE CONCEPTION OF SET A SET, accordingto Cantor,is "any collection.., intoa whole of definite,well-distinguished objects... of our intuitionor thought.'1Cantor alo sdefineda set as a "many, whichcan be thoughtof as one, i.e., a totalityof definiteelements that can be combinedinto a whole by a law.'2 One mightobject to the firstdefi- nitionon the groundsthat it uses the conceptsof collectionand whole, which are notionsno betterunderstood than that of set,that there ought to be sets of objects that are not objects of our thought,that 'intuition'is a termladen with a theoryof knowledgethat no one should believe, that any object is "definite,"that there should be sets of ill-distinguishedobjects, such as waves and trains,etc., etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics 1
    Mathematics 1 Mathematics Department Information • Department Chair: Friedrich Littmann, Ph.D. • Graduate Coordinator: Indranil Sengupta, Ph.D. • Department Location: 412 Minard Hall • Department Phone: (701) 231-8171 • Department Web Site: www.ndsu.edu/math (http://www.ndsu.edu/math/) • Application Deadline: March 1 to be considered for assistantships for fall. Openings may be very limited for spring. • Credential Offered: Ph.D., M.S. • English Proficiency Requirements: TOEFL iBT 71; IELTS 6 Program Description The Department of Mathematics offers graduate study leading to the degrees of Master of Science (M.S.) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). Advanced work may be specialized among the following areas: • algebra, including algebraic number theory, commutative algebra, and homological algebra • analysis, including analytic number theory, approximation theory, ergodic theory, harmonic analysis, and operator algebras • applied mathematics, mathematical finance, mathematical biology, differential equations, dynamical systems, • combinatorics and graph theory • geometry/topology, including differential geometry, geometric group theory, and symplectic topology Beginning with their first year in residence, students are strongly urged to attend research seminars and discuss research opportunities with faculty members. By the end of their second semester, students select an advisory committee and develop a plan of study specifying how all degree requirements are to be met. One philosophical tenet of the Department of Mathematics graduate program is that each mathematics graduate student will be well grounded in at least two foundational areas of mathematics. To this end, each student's background will be assessed, and the student will be directed to the appropriate level of study. The Department of Mathematics graduate program is open to all qualified graduates of universities and colleges of recognized standing.
    [Show full text]
  • Laced Boolean Functions and Subset Sum Problems in Finite Fields
    Laced Boolean functions and subset sum problems in finite fields David Canright1, Sugata Gangopadhyay2 Subhamoy Maitra3, Pantelimon Stanic˘ a˘1 1 Department of Applied Mathematics, Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943{5216, USA; fdcanright,[email protected] 2 Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee 247667 INDIA; [email protected] 3 Applied Statistics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute 203 B. T. Road, Calcutta 700 108, INDIA; [email protected] March 13, 2011 Abstract In this paper, we investigate some algebraic and combinatorial properties of a special Boolean function on n variables, defined us- ing weighted sums in the residue ring modulo the least prime p ≥ n. We also give further evidence to a question raised by Shparlinski re- garding this function, by computing accurately the Boolean sensitivity, thus settling the question for prime number values p = n. Finally, we propose a generalization of these functions, which we call laced func- tions, and compute the weight of one such, for every value of n. Mathematics Subject Classification: 06E30,11B65,11D45,11D72 Key Words: Boolean functions; Hamming weight; Subset sum problems; residues modulo primes. 1 1 Introduction Being interested in read-once branching programs, Savicky and Zak [7] were led to the definition and investigation, from a complexity point of view, of a special Boolean function based on weighted sums in the residue ring modulo a prime p. Later on, a modification of the same function was used by Sauerhoff [6] to show that quantum read-once branching programs are exponentially more powerful than classical read-once branching programs. Shparlinski [8] used exponential sums methods to find bounds on the Fourier coefficients, and he posed several open questions, which are the motivation of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics (MATH)
    Course Descriptions MATH 1080 QL MATH 1210 QL Mathematics (MATH) Precalculus Calculus I 5 5 MATH 100R * Prerequisite(s): Within the past two years, * Prerequisite(s): One of the following within Math Leap one of the following: MAT 1000 or MAT 1010 the past two years: (MATH 1050 or MATH 1 with a grade of B or better or an appropriate 1055) and MATH 1060, each with a grade of Is part of UVU’s math placement process; for math placement score. C or higher; OR MATH 1080 with a grade of C students who desire to review math topics Is an accelerated version of MATH 1050 or higher; OR appropriate placement by math in order to improve placement level before and MATH 1060. Includes functions and placement test. beginning a math course. Addresses unique their graphs including polynomial, rational, Covers limits, continuity, differentiation, strengths and weaknesses of students, by exponential, logarithmic, trigonometric, and applications of differentiation, integration, providing group problem solving activities along inverse trigonometric functions. Covers and applications of integration, including with an individual assessment and study inequalities, systems of linear and derivatives and integrals of polynomial plan for mastering target material. Requires nonlinear equations, matrices, determinants, functions, rational functions, exponential mandatory class attendance and a minimum arithmetic and geometric sequences, the functions, logarithmic functions, trigonometric number of hours per week logged into a Binomial Theorem, the unit circle, right functions, inverse trigonometric functions, and preparation module, with progress monitored triangle trigonometry, trigonometric equations, hyperbolic functions. Is a prerequisite for by a mentor. May be repeated for a maximum trigonometric identities, the Law of Sines, the calculus-based sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Boolean Functions and Its Applications to Topics Such As Property Testing, Voting, Pseudorandomness, Gaussian Geometry and the Hardness of Approximation
    Analysis of Boolean Functions Notes from a series of lectures by Ryan O’Donnell Guest lecture by Per Austrin Barbados Workshop on Computational Complexity February 26th – March 4th, 2012 Organized by Denis Th´erien Scribe notes by Li-Yang Tan arXiv:1205.0314v1 [cs.CC] 2 May 2012 Contents 1 Linearity testing and Arrow’s theorem 3 1.1 TheFourierexpansion ............................. 3 1.2 Blum-Luby-Rubinfeld. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 1.3 Votingandinfluence .............................. 9 1.4 Noise stability and Arrow’s theorem . ..... 12 2 Noise stability and small set expansion 15 2.1 Sheppard’s formula and Stabρ(MAJ)...................... 15 2.2 Thenoisyhypercubegraph. 16 2.3 Bonami’slemma................................. 18 3 KKL and quasirandomness 20 3.1 Smallsetexpansion ............................... 20 3.2 Kahn-Kalai-Linial ............................... 21 3.3 Dictator versus Quasirandom tests . ..... 22 4 CSPs and hardness of approximation 26 4.1 Constraint satisfaction problems . ...... 26 4.2 Berry-Ess´een................................... 27 5 Majority Is Stablest 30 5.1 Borell’s isoperimetric inequality . ....... 30 5.2 ProofoutlineofMIST ............................. 32 5.3 Theinvarianceprinciple . 33 6 Testing dictators and UGC-hardness 37 1 Linearity testing and Arrow’s theorem Monday, 27th February 2012 Rn Open Problem [Guy86, HK92]: Let a with a 2 = 1. Prove Prx 1,1 n [ a, x • ∈ k k ∈{− } |h i| ≤ 1] 1 . ≥ 2 Open Problem (S. Srinivasan): Suppose g : 1, 1 n 2 , 1 where g(x) 2 , 1 if • {− } →± 3 ∈ 3 n x n and g(x) 1, 2 if n x n . Prove deg( f)=Ω(n). i=1 i ≥ 2 ∈ − − 3 i=1 i ≤− 2 P P In this workshop we will study the analysis of boolean functions and its applications to topics such as property testing, voting, pseudorandomness, Gaussian geometry and the hardness of approximation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics: the Science of Patterns
    _RE The Science of Patterns LYNNARTHUR STEEN forcesoutside mathematics while contributingto humancivilization The rapid growth of computing and applicationshas a rich and ever-changingvariety of intellectualflora and fauna. helpedcross-fertilize the mathematicalsciences, yielding These differencesin perceptionare due primarilyto the steep and an unprecedentedabundance of new methods,theories, harshterrain of abstractlanguage that separatesthe mathematical andmodels. Examples from statisiicalscienceX core math- rainforest from the domainof ordinaryhuman activity. ematics,and applied mathematics illustrate these changes, The densejungle of mathematicshas beennourished for millennia which have both broadenedand enrichedthe relation by challengesof practicalapplications. In recentyears, computers between mathematicsand science. No longer just the have amplifiedthe impact of applications;together, computation study of number and space, mathematicalscience has and applicationshave swept like a cyclone across the terrainof become the science of patterlls, with theory built on mathematics.Forces -unleashed by the interactionof theseintellectu- relations among patterns and on applicationsderived al stormshave changed forever and for the better the morpholo- from the fit betweenpattern and observation. gy of mathematics.In their wake have emergednew openingsthat link diverseparts of the mathematicalforest, making possible cross- fertilizationof isolatedparts that has immeasurablystrengthened the whole. MODERN MATHEMATICSJUST MARKED ITS 300TH BIRTH-
    [Show full text]
  • The Corcoran-Smiley Interpretation of Aristotle's Syllogistic As
    November 11, 2013 15:31 History and Philosophy of Logic Aristotelian_syllogisms_HPL_house_style_color HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC, 00 (Month 200x), 1{27 Aristotle's Syllogistic and Core Logic by Neil Tennant Department of Philosophy The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 email [email protected] Received 00 Month 200x; final version received 00 Month 200x I use the Corcoran-Smiley interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic as my starting point for an examination of the syllogistic from the vantage point of modern proof theory. I aim to show that fresh logical insights are afforded by a proof-theoretically more systematic account of all four figures. First I regiment the syllogisms in the Gentzen{Prawitz system of natural deduction, using the universal and existential quantifiers of standard first- order logic, and the usual formalizations of Aristotle's sentence-forms. I explain how the syllogistic is a fragment of my (constructive and relevant) system of Core Logic. Then I introduce my main innovation: the use of binary quantifiers, governed by introduction and elimination rules. The syllogisms in all four figures are re-proved in the binary system, and are thereby revealed as all on a par with each other. I conclude with some comments and results about grammatical generativity, ecthesis, perfect validity, skeletal validity and Aristotle's chain principle. 1. Introduction: the Corcoran-Smiley interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic as concerned with deductions Two influential articles, Corcoran 1972 and Smiley 1973, convincingly argued that Aristotle's syllogistic logic anticipated the twentieth century's systematizations of logic in terms of natural deductions. They also showed how Aristotle in effect advanced a completeness proof for his deductive system.
    [Show full text]
  • Probabilistic Boolean Logic, Arithmetic and Architectures
    PROBABILISTIC BOOLEAN LOGIC, ARITHMETIC AND ARCHITECTURES A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty by Lakshmi Narasimhan Barath Chakrapani In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Computer Science, College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology December 2008 PROBABILISTIC BOOLEAN LOGIC, ARITHMETIC AND ARCHITECTURES Approved by: Professor Krishna V. Palem, Advisor Professor Trevor Mudge School of Computer Science, College Department of Electrical Engineering of Computing and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Professor Sung Kyu Lim Professor Sudhakar Yalamanchili School of Electrical and Computer School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Gabriel H. Loh Date Approved: 24 March 2008 College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology To my parents The source of my existence, inspiration and strength. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS आचायातर् ्पादमादे पादं िशंयः ःवमेधया। पादं सॄचारयः पादं कालबमेणच॥ “One fourth (of knowledge) from the teacher, one fourth from self study, one fourth from fellow students and one fourth in due time” 1 Many people have played a profound role in the successful completion of this disser- tation and I first apologize to those whose help I might have failed to acknowledge. I express my sincere gratitude for everything you have done for me. I express my gratitude to Professor Krisha V. Palem, for his energy, support and guidance throughout the course of my graduate studies. Several key results per- taining to the semantic model and the properties of probabilistic Boolean logic were due to his brilliant insights.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Reductive Proof Theory Have a Viable Rationale?
    DOES REDUCTIVE PROOF THEORY HAVE A VIABLE RATIONALE? Solomon Feferman Abstract The goals of reduction and reductionism in the natural sciences are mainly explanatory in character, while those in mathematics are primarily foundational. In contrast to global reductionist programs which aim to reduce all of mathematics to one supposedly “univer- sal” system or foundational scheme, reductive proof theory pursues local reductions of one formal system to another which is more jus- tified in some sense. In this direction, two specific rationales have been proposed as aims for reductive proof theory, the constructive consistency-proof rationale and the foundational reduction rationale. However, recent advances in proof theory force one to consider the viability of these rationales. Despite the genuine problems of foun- dational significance raised by that work, the paper concludes with a defense of reductive proof theory at a minimum as one of the principal means to lay out what rests on what in mathematics. In an extensive appendix to the paper, various reduction relations between systems are explained and compared, and arguments against proof-theoretic reduction as a “good” reducibility relation are taken up and rebutted. 1 1 Reduction and reductionism in the natural sciencesandinmathematics. The purposes of reduction in the natural sciences and in mathematics are quite different. In the natural sciences, one main purpose is to explain cer- tain phenomena in terms of more basic phenomena, such as the nature of the chemical bond in terms of quantum mechanics, and of macroscopic ge- netics in terms of molecular biology. In mathematics, the main purpose is foundational. This is not to be understood univocally; as I have argued in (Feferman 1984), there are a number of foundational ways that are pursued in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Mathematics
    History of Mathematics James Tattersall, Providence College (Chair) Janet Beery, University of Redlands Robert E. Bradley, Adelphi University V. Frederick Rickey, United States Military Academy Lawrence Shirley, Towson University Introduction. There are many excellent reasons to study the history of mathematics. It helps students develop a deeper understanding of the mathematics they have already studied by seeing how it was developed over time and in various places. It encourages creative and flexible thinking by allowing students to see historical evidence that there are different and perfectly valid ways to view concepts and to carry out computations. Ideally, a History of Mathematics course should be a part of every mathematics major program. A course taught at the sophomore-level allows mathematics students to see the great wealth of mathematics that lies before them and encourages them to continue studying the subject. A one- or two-semester course taught at the senior level can dig deeper into the history of mathematics, incorporating many ideas from the 19th and 20th centuries that could only be approached with difficulty by less prepared students. Such a senior-level course might be a capstone experience taught in a seminar format. It would be wonderful for students, especially those planning to become middle school or high school mathematics teachers, to have the opportunity to take advantage of both options. We also encourage History of Mathematics courses taught to entering students interested in mathematics, perhaps as First Year or Honors Seminars; to general education students at any level; and to junior and senior mathematics majors and minors. Ideally, mathematics history would be incorporated seamlessly into all courses in the undergraduate mathematics curriculum in addition to being addressed in a few courses of the type we have listed.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Proof Theory
    Notes on Proof Theory Master 1 “Informatique”, Univ. Paris 13 Master 2 “Logique Mathématique et Fondements de l’Informatique”, Univ. Paris 7 Damiano Mazza November 2016 1Last edit: March 29, 2021 Contents 1 Propositional Classical Logic 5 1.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 5 1.2 Atomic negation . 8 2 Sequent Calculus 10 2.1 Two-sided formulation . 10 2.2 One-sided formulation . 13 3 First-order Quantification 16 3.1 Formulas and truth semantics . 16 3.2 Sequent calculus . 19 3.3 Ultrafilters . 21 4 Completeness 24 4.1 Exhaustive search . 25 4.2 The completeness proof . 30 5 Undecidability and Incompleteness 33 5.1 Informal computability . 33 5.2 Incompleteness: a road map . 35 5.3 Logical theories . 38 5.4 Arithmetical theories . 40 5.5 The incompleteness theorems . 44 6 Cut Elimination 47 7 Intuitionistic Logic 53 7.1 Sequent calculus . 55 7.2 The relationship between intuitionistic and classical logic . 60 7.3 Minimal logic . 65 8 Natural Deduction 67 8.1 Sequent presentation . 68 8.2 Natural deduction and sequent calculus . 70 8.3 Proof tree presentation . 73 8.3.1 Minimal natural deduction . 73 8.3.2 Intuitionistic natural deduction . 75 1 8.3.3 Classical natural deduction . 75 8.4 Normalization (cut-elimination in natural deduction) . 76 9 The Curry-Howard Correspondence 80 9.1 The simply typed l-calculus . 80 9.2 Product and sum types . 81 10 System F 83 10.1 Intuitionistic second-order propositional logic . 83 10.2 Polymorphic types . 84 10.3 Programming in system F ...................... 85 10.3.1 Free structures .
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Set Theories and Information Management
    Nonstandard Set Theories and Information Management VAROL AKMAN akmantroycsbilkentedutr Department of Computer Engineering and Information Science Bilkent University Bilkent Ankara Turkey MUJDATPAKKAN pakkantrb ounbitnet Department of Computer Engineering Bosphorus University Bebek Istanbul Turkey Abstract The merits of set theory as a foundational to ol in mathematics stimulate its use in various areas of articial intelligence in particular intelligent information systems In this pap er a study of various nonstandard treatments of set theory from this p ersp ective is oered Applications of these alternative set theories to information or knowledge management are surveyed Keywords set theory knowledge representation information management commonsense rea soning nonwellfounded sets hyp ersets Intro duction Set theory is a branch of mo dern mathematics with a unique place b ecause various other branches can b e formally dened within it For example Book of the inuential works of N Bourbaki is devoted to the theory of sets and provides the framework for the remaining 1 volumes Bourbaki said in Goldblatt All mathematical theories may b e regarded as extensions of the general theory of sets On these foundations I can state that I can build up the whole of the mathematics of the present day This brings up the p ossibility of using set theory in foundational studies in AI Mc Carthy has emphasized the need for fundamental research in AI and claimed that AI needs mathematical and logical theory involving conceptual innovations In an
    [Show full text]