DOCSLIB.ORG

Truth, Proof and Gödelian Arguments: a Defence of Tarskian Truth In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Truth, Proof and Gödelian Arguments: a Defence of Tarskian Truth In Markus Pantsar Truth, PPProofProof and Gödelian AAArguments:Arguments: AAA DDDefenceDefence of Tarskian TTTruthTruth in MMMathematicsMathematics Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki 23 Filosofisia tutkimuksia Helsingin yliopistosta Filosofiska studier från Helsingfors universitet Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki Publishers: Department of Philosophy Department of Social and Moral Philosophy P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 A) 00014 University of Helsinki Finland Editors: Marjaana Kopperi Panu Raatikainen Petri Ylikoski Bernt Österman Markus Pantsar Truth, Proof and Gödelian Arguments: AAA Defence of Tarskian Truth in Mathematics ISBN 978-952-10-5373-3 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5374-0 (PDF) ISSN 1458-8331 Tampere 2009 Kopio Niini Finland Oy Contents CONTENTS ............................................................................................ 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 11 1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 11 1.2 ANOTHER APPROACH ....................................................................... 17 1.3 TRUTH AND PROOF ............................................................................ 20 1.4 TARSKIAN TRUTH .............................................................................. 22 1.5 REFERENCE ........................................................................................ 24 1.6 NON -CLASSICAL LANGUAGES ........................................................... 27 1.7 THE BASIC THEORY OF MATHEMATICS .............................................. 29 1.8 THE LIMITATIONS OF THE APPROACH HERE ..................................... 30 1.9 THE STRUCTURE OF THIS WORK ......................................................... 32 2. THE BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 37 2.1 THE PROBLEM OF TERMINOLOGY ...................................................... 37 2.2 PLATONISM ........................................................................................ 39 2.3 REALISM /OBJECTIVISM ...................................................................... 42 2.4 FORMALISM /NOMINALISM ............................................................... 46 2.5 SOUNDNESS AND COMPLETENESS ..................................................... 50 2.6 GÖDEL ’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREMS ............................................ 52 2.7 IS THE GÖDEL SENTENCE TRUE ? ........................................................ 55 2.8 GÖDEL SENTENCES AND TARSKI ....................................................... 57 3. THE SEMANTICAL ARGUMENT .............................................. 63 3.1 FIELD ’S NOMINALISM ........................................................................ 63 3.2 SHAPIRO ’S SEMANTICAL ARGUMENT ................................................ 69 3.3 COUNTERARGUMENTS BEYOND CONSISTENCY ................................ 75 3.4 WHY NOT DEFLATIONARY TRUTH ? ................................................... 85 3.5 TENNANT ........................................................................................... 89 3.6 WHY SOUNDNESS OVER TRUTH ? ....................................................... 95 3.7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 98 6 Contents 4. FORMAL AND PRE-FORMAL MATHEMATICS .................. 104 4.1 ASSERTABILITY AND ARBITRARINESS .............................................. 104 4.2 UNDECIDABLE SENTENCES AND FORMALISM ................................. 112 4.3 TARSKIAN TRUTH AND MATHEMATICS ........................................... 117 4.4 ANOTHER APPROACH TO MATHEMATICAL THINKING ................... 134 4.5 PRE -FORMAL MATHEMATICS ........................................................... 138 4.6 PHILOSOPHICAL IMPORTANCE OF PRE -FORMAL MATHEMATICS .... 148 4.7 PRIORITY OF SEMANTICS OVER SYNTAX .......................................... 153 4.8 TRUTH , PROOF AND REFERENCE ..................................................... 154 5. TRUTH AND LOGIC.................................................................... 158 5.1 DIFFERENT LOGICS ........................................................................... 158 5.2 HINTIKKA ’S TRUTH .......................................................................... 160 5.3 WHY IF LOGIC ? ................................................................................ 168 5.4 SECOND -ORDER LOGIC .................................................................... 176 5.5 KRIPKE ’S TRUTH AND THE POTENTIAL OF MANY -VALUED LOGICS 184 5.6 COLLAPSING THE HIERARCHY WITH PRE -FORMAL LANGUAGES .... 189 5.7 WHY LOGICISM AND SINGLE TRUTH PREDICATE ? ........................... 191 6. WHY NOT NOMINALISM? ....................................................... 195 6.1 SEMANTICAL ARGUMENTS AND THE TROUBLE WITH REFERENCE .. 195 6.2 MENO ’S PARADOX AND THEORY CHOICE ....................................... 199 6.3 BENACERRAF ’S DILEMMA AND NOMINALISM ................................. 203 6.4 FIELD ’S NOMINALISM REVISITED ..................................................... 212 6.5 MODAL RECONSTRUCTIVISM ........................................................... 219 6.6 THE POWER OF OBJECTIVITY : PENROSE ’S QUESTION ....................... 225 6.7 THE POWER OF NOMINALISM AND POTENTIAL WAYS OUT ............. 231 6.8 ONTOLOGY OF MATHEMATICS : AN ALTERNATIVE OUTLINE .......... 236 7. TRUTH AND REFERENCE ......................................................... 244 7.1 COUNTERFACTUALS ........................................................................ 244 7.2 TRUTH BEFORE REFERENCE OR VICE VERSA ? ................................... 251 7.3 NEO -FREGEANISM ........................................................................... 254 7.4 BAD COMPANY AND NEO -FREGEAN EPISTEMOLOGY ..................... 262 7.5 TWO KINDS OF PRIORITY .................................................................. 268 7.6 NON -PLATONIST REFERENCE : LINNEBO ......................................... 271 7.7 NEO -FREGEANISM AND QUINE ....................................................... 277 Contents 7 8. LOOSE ENDS ................................................................................. 280 8.1 NON -STANDARD MODELS ............................................................... 280 8.2 ANOTHER SEMANTICAL ARGUMENT ............................................... 282 8.3 GÖDELIAN FALLACIES ..................................................................... 285 8.4 CONCLUSION : WHAT DOES “SUBSTANTIAL ” TRUTH MEAN ? .......... 289 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 293 Acknowledgements Although writing a monograph on philosophy of mathematics is largely a solitary pursuit, this project could not have been completed without the help of various people. I am very grateful to my supervisor Professor Gabriel Sandu, whose expertise was invaluable in leading my research down the right paths, and whose comments on various drafts of this work have been essential in giving it the current form. I also owe gratitude to various members of the Department of Philosophy in the University of Helsinki for their help along the years. Professors Matti Sintonen and Ilkka Niiniluoto in particular deserve special thanks. With great gratitude I want to acknowledge the help of everybody who has at one point or another used his time to answer my questions. These include Professor Jaakko Hintikka, Dr. Philippe de Rouilhan and Professor Jouko Väänänen. I also want to thank my pre-examiners Professors Jan Woleński and Sten Lindström for their valuable comments, which helped improve the book a great deal at the final stage. This project has been supported financially by the University of Helsinki, which is acknowledged with gratitude. I am thankful to all the personnel at the University of Helsinki who have helped me with the practical matters, in particular Dr. Ilpo Halonen, Dr. Panu Raatikainen, Auli Kaipainen, Kristiina Norlamo and Arto Kilpiö. Thanks also belong to my family and friends for showing interest and support in the project, but most of all for providing the settings that allowed me to forget the thesis every once in a while. My brother Tuomas and his wife Tytti deserve special thanks for their support. In addition, I want to thank Matt and Jessica Powell for their help in revising the language. Lastly, but in many ways most importantly, I want to thank my parents Lasse and Merja for their unconditional support in this project, and over my entire life. This thesis would never have been completed without their help. To show even some of the gratitude I owe to my parents, this book is dedicated to them. Helsinki, March 2009 Markus Pantsar 1. Introduction 1.1 General background Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam (1983, p. 3) have divided philosophers of mathematics into those who “ promulgate certain mathematical methods as acceptable ” and those who “want to describe the accepted ones”. This work will without doubt fall into the latter category. In general, I think philosophers should be careful about telling mathematicians how to do their jobs. This is not to say that the accepted results and methods of mathematics should be considered sacrosanct. Nor is it to say that philosophy cannot offer anything of interest to mathematicians. I disagree on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Succinctness of Atoms of Dependency
    Logical Methods in Computer Science Volume 15, Issue 3, 2019, pp. 17:1–17:28 Submitted Mar. 07, 2019 https://lmcs.episciences.org/ Published Aug. 20, 2019 ON THE SUCCINCTNESS OF ATOMS OF DEPENDENCY MARTIN LUCK¨ a AND MIIKKA VILANDER b a Leibniz University Hannover e-mail address: [email protected] b Tampere University e-mail address: [email protected] Abstract. Propositional team logic is the propositional analog to first-order team logic. Non-classical atoms of dependence, independence, inclusion, exclusion and anonymity can be expressed in it, but for all atoms except dependence only exponential translations are known. In this paper, we systematically compare their succinctness in the existential fragment, where the splitting disjunction only occurs positively, and in full propositional team logic with unrestricted negation. By introducing a variant of the Ehrenfeucht{Fra¨ıss´e game called formula size game into team logic, we obtain exponential lower bounds in the existential fragment for all atoms. In the full fragment, we present polynomial upper bounds also for all atoms. 1. Introduction As a novel extension of classical logic, team semantics provides a framework for reasoning about whole collections of entities at once, as well as their relation with each other. Such a collection of entities is called a team. Originally, team semantics was introduced by Hodges [Hod97] to provide a compositional approach to logic of incomplete information, such as Hintikka's and Sandu's independence-friendly logic (IF-logic) [HS89]. In his seminal work, V¨a¨an¨anen[V¨a07] introduced dependence logic which extends first-order logic by so-called dependence atoms, atomic formulas =(x1; : : : ; xn; y) that in- tuitively express that the value of y depends only on the values of x1; : : : ; xn.
    [Show full text]
  • Bunched Logics a Uniform Approach
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UCL Discovery Bunched Logics A Uniform Approach Simon Robert Docherty A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of University College London. Department of Computer Science University College London May 2, 2019 2 I, Simon Robert Docherty, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the work. Abstract Bunched logics have found themselves to be key tools in modern computer science, in particular through the industrial-level program verification formalism Separation Logic. Despite this—and in contrast to adjacent families of logics like modal and substructural logic—there is a lack of uniform methodology in their study, leaving many evident variants uninvestigated and many open problems unresolved. In this thesis we investigate the family of bunched logics—including previ- ously unexplored intuitionistic variants—through two uniform frameworks. The first is a system of duality theorems that relate the algebraic and Kripke-style inter- pretations of the logics; the second, a modular framework of tableaux calculi that are sound and complete for both the core logics themselves, as well as many classes of bunched logic model important for applications in program verification and systems modelling. In doing so we are able to resolve a number of open problems in the lit- erature, including soundness and completeness theorems for intuitionistic variants of bunched logics, classes of Separation Logic models and layered graph models; decidability of layered graph logics; a characterisation theorem for the classes of bunched logic model definable by bunched logic formulae; and the failure of Craig interpolation for principal bunched logics.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributed Talk Abstracts1
    CONTRIBUTED TALK ABSTRACTS1 I M.A. NAIT ABDALLAH, On an application of Curry-Howard correspondence to quantum mechanics. Dep. Computer Science, UWO, London, Canada; INRIA, Rocquencourt, France. E-mail: [email protected]. We present an application of Curry-Howard correspondence to the formalization of physical processes in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics' assignment of complex amplitudes to events and its use of superposition rules are puzzling from a logical point of view. We provide a Curry-Howard isomorphism based logical analysis of the photon interference problem [1], and develop an account in that framework. This analysis uses the logic of partial information [2] and requires, in addition to the resolution of systems of algebraic constraints over sets of λ-terms, the introduction of a new type of λ-terms, called phase λ-terms. The numerical interpretation of the λ-terms thus calculated matches the expected results from a quantum mechanics point of view, illustrating the adequacy of our account, and thus contributing to bridging the gap between constructive logic and quantum mechanics. The application of this approach to a photon traversing a Mach-Zehnder interferometer [1], which is formalized by context Γ = fx : s; hP ; πi : s ! a? ! a; Q : s ! b? ! b; hJ; πi : a ! a0; hJ 0; πi : b ! b0; hP 0; πi : b0 ! c? ! c; Q0 : b0 ! d? ! d; P 00 : a0 ! d0? ! d0;Q00 : a0 ! c0? ! c0;R : c _ c0 ! C; S : 0 ? ? 0 ? 0 ? 00 0? 00 0? d _ d ! D; ξ1 : a ; ξ2 : b ; ξ1 : c ; ξ2 : d ; ξ1 : d ; ξ2 : c g, yields inhabitation claims: 00 00 0 0 0 R(in1(Q (J(P xξ1))ξ2 )) + R(in2(P (J (Qxξ2))ξ1)) : C 00 00 0 0 0 S(in1(P (J(P xξ1))ξ1 )) + hS(in2(Q (J (Qxξ2))ξ2)); πi : D which are the symbolic counterpart of the probability amplitudes used in the standard quantum mechanics formalization of the interferometer, with constructive (resp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modal Logic of Functional Dependence
    THE MODAL LOGIC OF FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE Johan van Benthem and Alexandru Baltag ILLC, University of Amsterdam Dependence is Ubiquitous Dependence of x on y, or of x on a set Y: Correlated values (probability), Construction (vector spaces), Dependent occurrence or behavior (causality, games). Not necessarily one single notion! Diverse senses of dependence in logic: ∀x ∃y Rxy, {ϕ, ϕ ∧ ψ} Ontic coupled behavior in the physical world Epistemic information about x gives information about y We will explore one basic sense that applies to both. A Dependence Table Data base: tuples of values for attributes = assignment of objects to variables Global dependence x y z x → y: y depends on x 0 1 0 x → y, y → z (so: x → z) 1 1 0 not y → x (so: not z → x) 2 0 0 not z → y Local dependence x depends on y at (2, 0, 0) but not at (1, 1, 0) Dependence Models , D = (V, O, S, P) V variables (in fact, any abstract objects) O objects (possible values of variables) S family of functions from V to O V need not be full O : gaps = dependence P predicates of objects (if desired) DXy for all s, t in S: if s =X t, then s =y t with s =x t : s(x) = t(x), s =X t : ∀x∈X: s =x t also lifted to sets DXY : for all y∈Y: Dxy Background: CRS-style First-Order Logic Dependence models : ‘generalized assignment models’ M = (D, V, I) with V set of ‘available’ assignments M, s |= ∃x.ϕ iff there exists t in V with s =x t and M, t |= ϕ s =x t : s(y) = t(y) for all variables y distinct from x The validities of this semantics are RE and decidable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamics of Imperfect Information
    The Dynamics of Imperfect Information Pietro Galliani The Dynamics of Imperfect Information ILLC Dissertation Series DS-200X-NN For further information about ILLC-publications, please contact Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Science Park 904 1098 XH Amsterdam phone: +31-20-525 6051 fax: +31-20-525 5206 e-mail: [email protected] homepage: http://www.illc.uva.nl/ Copyright c 2012 by Pietro Galliani Printed and bound by GVO Drukkers & Vormgevers B.V. ISBN: 978–90–9026932–0 The Dynamics of Imperfect Information Academisch Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op vrijdag 21 september 2012, te 13.00 uur door Pietro Galliani geboren te Bologna, Itali¨e. Promotor: Prof. dr. J. V¨a¨an¨anen Overige leden: Prof. dr. S. Abramsky Prof. dr. J.F.A.K. van Benthem Dr. A. Baltag Dr. U. Endriss Prof. dr. E. Gr¨adel Prof. dr. D.H.J. de Jongh Prof. dr. B. L¨owe Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica to Dino and Franca Davoli thanks for everything v Contents Acknowledgments xi 1 Introduction 1 2 Logics of Imperfect Information 9 2.1 From Branching Quantifiers to Dependence Logic . 9 2.1.1 BranchingQuantifiers . 9 2.1.2 IndependenceFriendlyLogic . 11 2.1.3 DependenceLogic .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13 2.2 DependenceLogicanditsExtensions. 14 2.2.1 TeamSemantics ....................... 14 2.2.2 SomeKnownResults.
    [Show full text]
  • Axiomatizations for Propositional and Modal Team Logic
    Axiomatizations for Propositional and Modal Team Logic Martin Lück Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany [email protected] Abstract A framework is developed that extends Hilbert-style proof systems for propositional and modal logics to comprehend their team-based counterparts. The method is applied to classical propo- sitional logic and the modal logic K. Complete axiomatizations for their team-based extensions, propositional team logic PTL and modal team logic MTL, are presented. 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.4.1 Mathematical Logic Keywords and phrases team logic, propositional team logic, modal team logic, proof system, axiomatization Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2016.33 1 Introduction Propositional and modal logics, while their history goes back to ancient philosophers, have assumed an outstanding role in the age of modern computer science, with plentiful applications in software verification, modeling, artificial intelligence, and protocol design. An important property of a logical framework is completeness, i.e., that the act of mechanical reasoning can effectively be done by a computer. A recent extension of classical logics is the generalization to team semantics, i.e., formulas are evaluated on whole sets of assignments. So-called team based logics allow a more sophisticated expression of facts that regard multiple states of a system simultaneously as well as their internal relationship towards each other. The concept of team logic originated from the idea of quantifier dependence and independence. The question was simple andis long-known in linguistics: How can the statement For every 푥 there is 푦(푥), and for every 푢 there is 푣(푢) such that P(x,y,u,v) be formalized? The fact that 푣 should only depend on 푢 cannot be expressed with first-order quantifiers.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin Lück. Team Logic: Axioms, Expressiveness, Complexity
    Bereitgestellt durch Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) Hannover. Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) Welfengarten 1 B, 30167 Hannover Postfach 6080, 30060 Hannover Web: https://www.tib.eu/de/ Lizenziert unter Creative Commons Namensnennung 3.0 Deutschland. Team Logic Axioms, Expressiveness, Complexity Von der Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und Informatik der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) genehmigte Dissertation von Herrn M. Sc. Martin Lück geboren am 15.12.1988 in Güstrow Hannover 2020 Referent: Prof. Heribert Vollmer, Leibniz Universität Hannover Korreferenten: Prof. Lauri Hella, Universität Tampere (FI) Prof. Juha Kontinen, Universität Helsinki (FI) Tag der Promotion: 09.01.2020 Acknowledgments First of all, I wish to sincerely thank my supervisor, Professor Heribert Vollmer. I am indebted to him for granting me both the trust and liberty to pursue my own ideas in my area of research, as well as the time to develop these over the years and finally write this thesis. Also, I thank him for his deep, motivating and inspiring lectures that drew me to the field of theoretical computer science from the beginning of my studies. Next, I am thankful to my Finnish colleagues from the logic groups of Helsinki and Tampere for the enjoyable work together, for their hospitality and for many fruitful discussions. In particular, I want to thank Juha Kontinen, Miika Hannula, Jonni Virtema, Lauri Hella, and Miikka Vilander. I am especially grateful to Professor Juha Kontinen and Professor Lauri Hella for their advice and for agreeing to review this thesis on our hike at the Dagstuhl seminar on Logics for Dependence and Independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Aspects of Dependence Logic
    COMPUTATIONAL ASPECTS OF DEPENDENCE LOGIC Von der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Elektrotechnik und Informatik der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universitat¨ Hannover zur Erlangung des Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften Dr. rer. nat. genehmigte Dissertation von arXiv:1206.4564v1 [cs.LO] 20 Jun 2012 Dipl.-Math. Peter Lohmann geboren am 23. September 1985 in Hannover 2012 Referent: Heribert Vollmer, Leibniz Universitat¨ Hannover Korreferent: Lauri Hella, Tampereen Yliopisto Tag der Promotion: 13. Juni 2012 c Peter Lohmann licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License COMPUTATIONAL ASPECTS OF DEPENDENCE LOGIC Dissertation to obtain the academic degree of Dr. rer. nat. PhD authorized by the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universitat¨ Hannover written by Dipl.-Math. Peter Lohmann born September 23, 1985 in Hannover, Germany 2012 First Reviewer: Heribert Vollmer, Leibniz Universitat¨ Hannover Second Reviewer: Lauri Hella, Tampereen Yliopisto Graduation Date: June 13, 2012 c Peter Lohmann licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art. G. H. Hardy DANKSAGUNG Zuerst mochte¨ ich ganz herzlich meinem Doktorvater Heribert Vollmer fur¨ die Betreuung, Hilfestellung und gemeinsame Forschung wahrend¨ meiner Promotionszeit danken – und dafur,¨ dass er zu der besten Sorte Chef gehort,¨ die ich mir vorstellen kann. Weiter danke ich meinem Kollegen, Koautor und Buronachbarn¨ Johan- nes Ebbing fur¨ zahlreiche gewinnbringende Diskussionen und gemeinsame Forschungsergebnisse. Des Weiteren mochte¨ ich mich bei meinen weiteren Koautoren fur¨ die gemeinsame Forschung bedanken. Auch danke ich Juha Kontinen und Lauri Hella fur¨ meine erfolgreichen Besuche in Helsinki und Tampere.
    [Show full text]
  • Dependence Logic: Investigations Into Higher-Order Semantics Defined on Teams
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Dependence Logic: Investigations into Higher-Order Semantics Defined on Teams Ville Nurmi Department of Mathematics and Statistics Faculty of Science University of Helsinki Academic dissertation To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Helsinki, for public criticism in Hall 4, Mets¨atalo (Unioninkatu 40), on August 22nd, 2009, at 10 a.m. http://ethesis.helsinki.fi ISBN 978-952-92-5944-1 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5679-6 (PDF) Helsinki University Print Helsinki 2009 Contents Acknowledgementsv 1 Introduction1 1.1 History............................... 1 1.2 Goals of the Thesis ........................ 3 1.3 Outline of the Thesis ....................... 4 2 Preliminaries 7 2.1 General Definitions ........................ 7 2.2 First Order Logic (FO) ...................... 9 2.3 Second Order Logic (SO) ..................... 11 2.4 Dependence Logic (FOD) .................... 15 2.5 Team Logic (TL) ......................... 26 3 Swapping Quantifiers 33 3.1 Definitions ............................. 33 3.2 Swapping Quantifiers in Team Logic . 34 4 FO vs. FOD in Logical Equivalence 39 4.1 Definitions ............................. 39 4.2 Comparing Semiequivalences ................... 42 4.3 EF-game for FO in FOD-rank . 43 4.4 Converting Winning Strategies . 47 4.5 Further Points of Interest ..................... 49 5 Translating between Logics 51 5.1 The General Setting ....................... 51 5.2 Translating ESO to FOD ..................... 54 5.3 Translating SO-Sentences to TL . 57 5.4 Translating SO-Formulas to TL . 68 5.5 Applications of Translations ................... 71 iii iv 6 Axiomatising Fragments of FOD 73 6.1 Calculus of Structures .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Instantial Logic
    INSTANTIAL LOGIC An Investigation into Reasoning with Instances W.P.M. Meyer Viol ILLC Dissertation Series 1995-11 Instant ial Logic ILLC Dissertation Series 1995-11 language andcomputation For further information about ILLC-publications, please Contact Institute for Logic, Language and Computation Universiteit van Amsterdam Plantage Muidergracht 24 1018 TV Amsterdam phone: +31-20-5256090 fax: +31-20-5255101 e-mail: [email protected] Instant ial Logic An Investigation into Reasoning with Instances Instantiéle Logica Een Onderzoek naar Redeneren met Voorbeelden (Met een Samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad Vandoctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, Prof. dr. J .A. van Ginkel ingevolge het besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 20 juni 1995 des voormiddags te 10.30 uur door Wilfried Peter Marie Meyer Viol Promotoren: Prof. dr. D.J.N. van Eijck Prof. dr. J.F.A.K. van Benthem CIP—GEGEVENSKONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Meyer Viol, Wilfried Peter Marie Instantial Logic: an investigation into reasoning with instances / Wilfried Peter Marie Meyer Viol. - Utrecht: LEd. - (ILLC dissertation series, 1995-11) Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht. - Met lit. opg. ISBN 90-5434-O41-X NUGI 941 trefw.: logica/taalkunde ©1995, W.P.M. Meyer Viol, Amsterdam Contents Acknowledgments ix 1 What is Instantial Logic? 1 1.1 Introduction . 1 1.2 Overview of the Thesis . 3 2 A Brief History of Instantial Logic 6 2.1 Introduction . 6 2.2 Classical Predicate Logic . 7 2.2.1 Semantics . 7 2.2.2 Natural Deduction for Classical Predicate Logic .
    [Show full text]
  • Lottery Semantics 30
    Dependence and Independence in Logic Juha Kontinen and Jouko Väänänen ESSLLI 2010 CPH Juha Kontinen and Jouko Väänänen (eds.) Proceedings of Dependence and Independence in Logic ESSLLI 2010 Workshop Copenhagen, August 16-20, 2010 ii Preface Dependence and independence are common phenomena, wherever one looks: ecological systems, astronomy, human history, stock markets - but what is their role in logic and - turning the tables - what is the logic of these concepts? The possibility of nesting quantifiers, thus expressing patterns of dependence and independence between variables, accounts for much of the expressive power of first order logic. However, first order logic is not capable of expressing all such patterns, and as a consequence various generalizations - such as branching quantifiers, or the various variants of independence-friendly logic - have been introduced during the last fifty years. Dependence logic is a recent formalism, which brings to the forefront the very concept of dependence, isolating it from the notion of quantifier and making it one of the primitive elements of the language. It can also be added to other logics, such as modal logic. This has opened up an opportunity to develop logical tools for the study of complex forms of dependence, with applications to computer science, philosophy, linguistics, game theory and mathematics. Recently there has been an increasing interest in this topic, especially among young researchers. The goal of this workshop is to provide an opportunity for researchers to further explore the
    [Show full text]