Extracting and Learning Semantics from Social Web Data

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Extracting and Learning Semantics from Social Web Data Thomas Niebler Extracting and Learning Semantics from Social Web Data Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Dok- tors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) in der Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik der Universität Würzburg Würzburg, im Oktober 2018 For my family: my safe harbour and the source of my strength. Acknowledgements A long journey now comes to an end. I would have never arrived here, if not for the many, many wonderful people that supported me in writing this dissertation. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to thank everyone in person: Still, I want to explicitly mention some of them. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor Andreas Hotho for the extremely interesting topic of my thesis, the encouraging research environment as well as his guidance and belief in me throughout the years. Many thanks also go out to Robert Jäschke, who agreed to review this thesis. I also want to thank my former students Daniel Schlör, Luzian Hahn, and Tobias Koopmann, who contributed some parts to this thesis. At this point, I also want to thank my colleagues from far away, with whom I could collaborate on many parts of this thesis: Markus Strohmaier, Philipp Singer, and Stephan Doerfel. I especially want to express my sincerest gratitude to the great band of people that I was allowed to call my colleagues: Albin Zehe, Alexander Dallmann, Christian Pölitz, Daniel Schlör, Daniel Zoller, Lena Hettinger, Markus Ring, and Martin Becker from the DMIR Group, as well as the guys from the AI Chair, especially Georg Dietrich, Georg Fette, Jonathan Krebs, Marian Ifland, Markus Krug, and Maximilian Ertl. Your openness for interesting and fruitful discussions but also for a quick chat and last but not least, some casual table soccer sessions make me very happy to have you as my friends. Special thanks go out to my decade-old accomplice in many things, Martin Becker. You played an immeasurable role in my journey by always encouraging and supporting me, both in research and real life. Speaking of decades, I also want to mention my friends that I was very lucky to meet and keep with me for over 12 years (and so many years to come!): Alexander Kleinschrodt, Andreas Freimann, Isabel Runge, Ralf Zeuka, Dogan Cinbir, Andreas Bauer, Thien Anh Le, Jonas Meier, and Sven Gehwald. Thank you for the many days (and nights) of big and small adventures! Then there are those that, many, many years ago, laid the groundwork upon which I was able to build my life as it is now. Since my first thoughts, I knew that I could rely on my family in each and every aspect, most prominently Christine, Günther, Stefan, Rudolf, and Hannelore. You provided me a loving, safe, and stable environment in which I could explore my interests and to which I could retreat in bad times. Words cannot express how grateful I am for knowing you are there. The last person that I want to thank, but can never thank enough, is my wife Nicola. Without your unconditional love, your unfaltering support, your constant encourage- ment, and finally your unshakeable belief in me, I would have never been able to complete this work. Thank you for being the most important part of my life. I love you. Es gibt nichts Schöneres, als geliebt zu werden, geliebt um seiner selbst willen oder vielmehr: trotz seiner selbst. Victor Hugo Abstract Making machines understand natural language is a dream of mankind that existed since a very long time. Early attempts at programming machines to converse with humans in a supposedly intelligent way with humans relied on phrase lists and simple keyword matching. However, such approaches cannot provide semantically adequate answers, as they do not consider the specific meaning of the conversation. Thus, if we want to enable machines to actually understand language, we need to be able to access semantically relevant background knowledge. For this, it is possible to query so-called ontologies, which are large networks containing knowledge about real-world entities and their semantic relations. However, creating such ontologies is a tedious task, as often extensive expert knowledge is required. Thus, we need to find ways to automatically construct and update ontologies that fit human intuition of semantics and semantic relations. More specifically, we need to determine semantic entities and find relations between them. While this is usually done on large corpora of unstructured text, previous work has shown that we can at least facilitate the first issue of extracting entities by considering special data such as tagging data or human navigational paths. Here, we do not need to detect the actual semantic entities, as they are already provided because of the way those data are collected. Thus we can mainly focus on the problem of assessing the degree of semantic relatedness between tags or web pages. However, there exist several issues which need to be overcome, if we want to approximate human intuition of semantic relatedness. For this, it is necessary to represent words and concepts in a way that allows easy and highly precise semantic characterization. This also largely depends on the quality of data from which these representations are constructed. In this thesis, we extract semantic information from both tagging data created by users of social tagging systems and human navigation data in different semantic-driven social web systems. Our main goal is to construct high quality and robust vector representa- tions of words which can the be used to measure the relatedness of semantic concepts. First, we show that navigation in the social media systems Wikipedia and BibSonomy is driven by a semantic component. After this, we discuss and extend methods to model the semantic information in tagging data as low-dimensional vectors. Furthermore, we show that tagging pragmatics influences different facets of tagging semantics. We then investigate the usefulness of human navigational paths in several different settings on Wikipedia and BibSonomy for measuring semantic relatedness. Finally, we propose a metric-learning based algorithm in adapt pre-trained word embeddings to datasets v containing human judgment of semantic relatedness. This work contributes to the field of studying semantic relatedness between words by proposing methods to extract semantic relatedness from web navigation, learn high- quality and low-dimensional word representations from tagging data, and to learn semantic relatedness from any kind of vector representation by exploiting human feedback. Applications first and foremest lie in ontology learning for the Semantic Web, but also semantic search or query expansion. vi Zusammenfassung Einer der großen Träume der Menschheit ist es, Maschinen dazu zu bringen, natürliche Sprache zu verstehen. Frühe Versuche, Computer dahingehend zu programmieren, dass sie mit Menschen vermeintlich intelligente Konversationen führen können, basierten hauptsächlich auf Phrasensammlungen und einfachen Stichwortabgleichen. Solche Ansätze sind allerdings nicht in der Lage, inhaltlich adäquate Antworten zu liefern, da der tatsächliche Inhalt der Konversation nicht erfasst werden kann. Folgerichtig ist es notwendig, dass Maschinen auf semantisch relevantes Hintergrundwissen zugreifen können, um diesen Inhalt zu verstehen. Solches Wissen ist beispielsweise in Ontologien vorhanden. Ontologien sind große Datenbanken von vernetztem Wissen über Objekte und Gegenstände der echten Welt sowie über deren semantische Beziehungen. Das Erstellen solcher Ontologien ist eine sehr kostspielige und aufwändige Aufgabe, da oft tiefgreifendes Expertenwissen benötigt wird. Wir müssen also Wege finden, um Ontolo- gien automatisch zu erstellen und aktuell zu halten, und zwar in einer Art und Weise, dass dies auch menschlichem Empfinden von Semantik und semantischer Ähnlichkeit entspricht. Genauer gesagt ist es notwendig, semantische Entitäten und deren Beziehun- gen zu bestimmen. Während solches Wissen üblicherweise aus Textkorpora extrahiert wird, ist es möglich, zumindest das erste Problem - semantische Entitäten zu bestimmen - durch Benutzung spezieller Datensätze zu umgehen, wie zum Beispiel Tagging- oder Navigationsdaten. In diesen Arten von Datensätzen ist es nicht notwendig, Entitäten zu extrahieren, da sie bereits aufgrund inhärenter Eigenschaften bei der Datenakquise vorhanden sind. Wir können uns also hauptsächlich auf die Bestimmung von semantis- chen Relationen und deren Intensität fokussieren. Trotzdem müssen hier noch einige Hindernisse überwunden werden. Beispielsweise ist es notwendig, Repräsentationen für semantische Entitäten zu finden, so dass es möglich ist, sie einfach und semantisch hochpräzise zu charakterisieren. Dies hängt allerdings auch erheblich von der Qualität der Daten ab, aus denen diese Repräsentationen konstruiert werden. In der vorliegenden Arbeit extrahieren wir semantische Informationen sowohl aus Taggingdaten, von Benutzern sozialer Taggingsysteme erzeugt, als auch aus Naviga- tionsdaten von Benutzern semantikgetriebener Social Media-Systeme. Das Hauptziel dieser Arbeit ist es, hochqualitative und robuste Vektordarstellungen von Worten zu konstruieren, die dann dazu benutzt werden können, die semantische Ähnlichkeit von Konzepten zu bestimmen. Als erstes zeigen wir, dass Navigation in Social Media- Systemen unter anderem durch eine semantische Komponente getrieben wird. Danach vii diskutieren und erweitern wir Methoden, um die semantische Information in Tagging- daten als niedrigdimensionale sogenannte “Embeddings” darzustellen. Darüberhinaus demonstrieren wir,
Recommended publications
  • Constructive Design of a Hierarchy of Semantics of a Transition System by Abstract Interpretation
    1 Constructive Design of a Hierarchy of Semantics of a Transition System by Abstract Interpretation Patrick Cousota aD´epartement d’Informatique, Ecole´ Normale Sup´erieure, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris cedex 05, France, [email protected], http://www.di.ens.fr/~cousot We construct a hierarchy of semantics by successive abstract interpretations. Starting from the maximal trace semantics of a transition system, we derive the big-step seman- tics, termination and nontermination semantics, Plotkin’s natural, Smyth’s demoniac and Hoare’s angelic relational semantics and equivalent nondeterministic denotational se- mantics (with alternative powerdomains to the Egli-Milner and Smyth constructions), D. Scott’s deterministic denotational semantics, the generalized and Dijkstra’s conser- vative/liberal predicate transformer semantics, the generalized/total and Hoare’s partial correctness axiomatic semantics and the corresponding proof methods. All the semantics are presented in a uniform fixpoint form and the correspondences between these seman- tics are established through composable Galois connections, each semantics being formally calculated by abstract interpretation of a more concrete one using Kleene and/or Tarski fixpoint approximation transfer theorems. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Abstraction of Fixpoint Semantics 3 2.1 Fixpoint Semantics ............................... 3 2.2 Fixpoint Semantics Approximation ...................... 4 2.3 Fixpoint Semantics Transfer .......................... 5 2.4 Semantics Abstraction ............................. 7 2.5 Fixpoint Semantics Fusion ........................... 8 2.6 Fixpoint Iterates Reordering .......................... 8 3 Transition/Small-Step Operational Semantics 9 4 Finite and Infinite Sequences 9 4.1 Sequences .................................... 9 4.2 Concatenation of Sequences .......................... 10 4.3 Junction of Sequences ............................. 10 5 Maximal Trace Semantics 10 2 5.1 Fixpoint Finite Trace Semantics .......................
    [Show full text]
  • A Game Theoretical Semantics for a Logic of Formal Inconsistency
    A game theoretical semantics for a logic of formal inconsistency CAN BA¸SKENT∗, Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, England. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jigpal/article/28/5/936/5213088 by guest on 25 September 2020 PEDRO HENRIQUE CARRASQUEIRA∗∗, Center for Logic, Epistemology and the History of Science (CLE), Institute of Philosophy and the Humanities (IFCH), State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas 13083-896, Brazil. Abstract This paper introduces a game theoretical semantics for a particular logic of formal inconsistency called mbC. Keywords: Game theoretical semantics, logic of formal inconsistency, mbC, non-deterministic runs, oracles 1 Motivation Paraconsistent logics are the logics of inconsistencies. They are designed to reason about and with inconsistencies and generate formal systems that do not get trivialized under the presence of inconsistencies. Formally, a logic is paraconsistent if the explosion principle does not hold—in paraconsistent systems, there exist some formulas ϕ, ψ such that ϕ, ¬ϕ ψ. Within the broad class of paraconsistent logics, Logics of Formal Inconsistency (LFIs, for short) present an original take on inconsistencies. Similar to the da Costa systems, LFIs form a large class of paraconsistent logics and make use of a special operator to control inconsistencies [8, 9]. Another interesting property of LFIs is that they internalize consistency and inconsistency at the object level. To date, the semantics for LFIs has been suggested using truth tables and algebraic structures. What we aim for in this paper is to present a game theoretical semantics for a particular logic within the class of LFIs. By achieving this, we attempt at both presenting a wider perspective for the semantics of paraconsistency and a broader, more nuanced understanding of semantic games.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Semantics of Homotopy Type Theory
    Game Semantics of Homotopy Type Theory Norihiro Yamada [email protected] University of Minnesota Homotopy Type Theory Electronic Seminar Talks (HoTTEST) Department of Mathematics, Western University February 11, 2021 N. Yamada (Univ. of Minnesota) Game semantics of HoTT Feb. 11, 2021, Western 1 / 19 Just like axiomatic set theory is explained by sets in an informal sense, the conceptual foundation of Martin-L¨oftype theory (MLTT) is computations in an informal sense (a.k.a. the BHK-interpretation). Proofs/objects as computations (e.g., succ : : max N); MLTT as a foundation of constructive maths. On the other hand, homotopy type theory (HoTT) is motivated by the homotopical interpretation of MLTT. HoTT = MLTT + univalence + higher inductive types (HITs); Homotopical interpretation: formulas as spaces, proofs/objects as points, and higher proofs/objects as paths/homotopies. Introduction Background: MLTT vs. HoTT N. Yamada (Univ. of Minnesota) Game semantics of HoTT Feb. 11, 2021, Western 2 / 19 Proofs/objects as computations (e.g., succ : : max N); MLTT as a foundation of constructive maths. On the other hand, homotopy type theory (HoTT) is motivated by the homotopical interpretation of MLTT. HoTT = MLTT + univalence + higher inductive types (HITs); Homotopical interpretation: formulas as spaces, proofs/objects as points, and higher proofs/objects as paths/homotopies. Introduction Background: MLTT vs. HoTT Just like axiomatic set theory is explained by sets in an informal sense, the conceptual foundation of Martin-L¨oftype theory (MLTT) is computations in an informal sense (a.k.a. the BHK-interpretation). N. Yamada (Univ. of Minnesota) Game semantics of HoTT Feb. 11, 2021, Western 2 / 19 MLTT as a foundation of constructive maths.
    [Show full text]
  • The Game Semantics of Game Theory
    The game semantics of game theory Jules Hedges We use a reformulation of compositional game theory to reunite game theory with game semantics, by viewing an open game as the System and its choice of contexts as the Environment. Specifically, the system is jointly controlled by n ≥ 0 noncooperative players, each independently optimising a real-valued payoff. The goal of the system is to play a Nash equilibrium, and the goal of the environment is to prevent it. The key to this is the realisation that lenses (from functional programming) form a dialectica category, which have an existing game-semantic interpretation. In the second half of this paper, we apply these ideas to build a com- pact closed category of ‘computable open games’ by replacing the underly- ing dialectica category with a wave-style geometry of interaction category, specifically the Int-construction applied to the traced cartesian category of directed-complete partial orders. 1 Introduction Although the mathematics of games shares a common ancestor in Zermelo’s work on backward induction, it split early on into two subjects that are essentially disjoint: game theory and game semantics. Game theory is the applied study of modelling real-world interacting agents, for example in economics or artificial intelligence. Game semantics, by contrast, uses agents to model – this time in the sense of semantics rather than mathematical modelling – situations in which a system interacts with an environment, but neither would usually be thought of as agents in a philosophical sense. On a technical level, game semantics not only restricts to the two-player zero-sum case, but moreover promotes one of the players to be the Player, and demotes the other to mere Opponent.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theoretical Semantics for Paraconsistent Logics
    Game Theoretical Semantics for Paraconsistent Logics Can Ba¸skent Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, England [email protected], www.canbaskent.net/logic 1 Introduction Game theoretical semantics suggests a very intuitive approach to formal seman- tics. The semantic verification game for classical logic is played by two players, verifier and falsifier who we call Heloise and Abelard respectively. The goal of Heloise in the game is to verify the truth of a given formula in a given model whereas for Abelard it is to falsify it. The rules are specified syntactically based on the form of the formula. During the game, the given formula is broken into subformulas step by step by the players. The game terminates when it reaches the propositional literals and when there is no move to make. If the game ends up with a propositional literal which is true in the model in question, then Heloise wins the game. Otherwise, Abelard wins. Conjunction is ssociated with Abelard, disjunction with Heloise. That is, when the main connective is a conjunction, it is Abelard’s turn to choose and make a move, and similarly, disjunction yields a choice for Heloise. The negation operator switches the roles of the players: Heloise becomes the falsifier, Abelard becomes the verifier. The major result of this approach states that Heloise has a winning strategy if and only if the given formula is true in the given model. The semantic verification game and its rules are shaped by classical logic and consequently by its restrictions. In this work, we first observe how the verification games change in non-classical, especially propositional paraconsistent logics, and give Hintikka-style game theoretical se- mantics for them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Game Theoretical Semantics for Logics of Nonsense
    A Game Theoretical Semantics for Logics of Nonsense Can Bas¸kent Department of Computer Science, Middlesex University, London, UK [email protected] Logics of non-sense allow a third truth value to express propositions that are nonsense. These logics are ideal formalisms to understand how errors are handled in programs and how they propagate throughout the programs once they appear. In this paper, we give a Hintikkan game semantics for logics of non-sense and prove its correctness. We also discuss how a known solution method in game theory, the iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies, relates to semantic games for logics of nonsense. Finally, we extend the logics of nonsense only by means of semantic games, developing a new logic of nonsense, and propose a new game semantics for Priest’s Logic of Paradox. Keywords Game semantics, logics of nonsense, logic of paradox, iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies. 1 Introduction Logics of nonsense allow a third truth value to express propositions that are nonsense. The initial mo- tivation behind introducing nonsensical propositions was to capture the logical behavior of semantic paradoxes that were thought to be nonsensical. As argued by Ferguson, nonsense is “infectious” [8]: “Meaninglessness [...] propagates through the language; that a subformula is meaningless entails that any complex formula in which it finds itself is likewise meaningless.” Logics of nonsense, for this reason, are intriguing. Nonsense appears in various contexts. In mathematics, the expression “1/x” is considered mean- ingless when x = 0. Certain approaches to truth disregard paradoxes of self-reference and exclude them as meaningless.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics of Interaction Samson Abramsky
    Semantics of Interaction Samson Abramsky Abstract The “classical” paradigm for denotational semantics models data types as domains, i.e. structured sets of some kind, and programs as (suitable) functions between do- mains. The semantic universe in which the denotational modelling is carried out is thus a category with domains as objects, functions as morphisms, and composition of morphisms given by function composition. A sharp distinction is then drawn between denotational and operational semantics. Denotational semantics is often referred to as “mathematical semantics” because it exhibits a high degree of math- ematical structure; this is in part achieved by the fact that denotational semantics abstracts away from the dynamics of computation—from time. By contrast, op- erational semantics is formulated in terms of the syntax of the language being modelled; it is highly intensional in character; and it is capable of expressing the dynamical aspects of computation. The classical denotational paradigm has been very successful, but has some definite limitations. Firstly, fine-structural features of computation, such as se- quentiality, computational complexity, and optimality of reduction strategies, have either not been captured at all denotationally, or not in a fully satisfactory fashion. Moreover, once languages with features beyond the purely functional are con- sidered, the appropriateness of modelling programs by functions is increasingly open to question. Neither concurrency nor “advanced” imperative features such as local references have been captured denotationally in a fully convincing fashion. This analysis suggests a desideratum of Intensional Semantics, interpolating between denotational and operational semantics as traditionally conceived. This should combine the good mathematical structural properties of denotational se- mantics with the ability to capture dynamical aspects and to embody computational intuitions of operational semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Game Semantics and Component-Based Verification
    Algorithmic Game Semantics and Component-Based Verification Samson Abramsky, Dan R. Ghica, Andrzej S. Murawski, C.-H. Luke Ong Oxford University Computing Laboratory ABSTRACT and strategies on games. Strategies can be seen as certain kinds of We present a research programme dedicated to the application of highly-constrained processes, hence they admit the same kind of Game Semantics to program analysis and verification. We high- automata-theoretic representations central to model checking and light several recent theoretical results and describe a prototypical allied methods in computer-assisted verification. Moreover, games software modeling and verification tool. The distinctive novel fea- and strategies naturally form themselves into rich mathematical tures of the tool are its ability to handle open programs and the structures which yield very accurate models of advanced high-level fact that the models it produces are observationally fully abstract. programming languages, as the various full abstraction results show. These features are essential in the modeling and verification of soft- Thus the promise of this approach is to carry over the methods of ware components such as modules. Incidentally, these features also model checking (see e.g. [10]), which has been so effective in the lead to very compact models of programs. analysis of circuit designs and communications protocols, to much more structured programming situations, in which data-types as well as control flow are important. 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND A further benefit of the algorithmic approach is that by embody- Game Semantics has emerged as a powerful paradigm for giving ing game semantics in tools, and making it concrete and algorith- semantics to a variety of programming languages and logical sys- mic, it should become more accessible and meaningful to practi- tems.
    [Show full text]
  • DIALECTICAL GAMES in the ACADEMY Benoît Castelnérac† & Mathieu Marion‡
    ARGUING FOR INCONSISTENCY: DIALECTICAL GAMES IN THE ACADEMY Benoît Castelnérac† & Mathieu Marion‡ SOCRATES: So now please do whichever of these you like: either ask questions or answer them. Gorgias 462b This paper is part of a larger research programme concerning dialectical games played in Ancient Greece, their origin, their rules, their influence on philosophy, and their role in the origin of logic. By dialectical games, we mean the sort of games exemplified in the dialogues of Plato, with Socrates as the main character trying to drive his opponent into an elenchus, and for which Aristotle wrote later on his textbook, the Topics – there are of course other minor sources. These are games where, typically, the proponent of a thesis, say, A is asked a series of questions by an opponent – the role usually assumed by Socrates in Plato’s dialogues – whose task is to show that, in holding A, the proponent will contradict some other beliefs that he also happens to hold, i.e., if successful, the opponent shows that A is part of an inconsistent set of premises. In other words, these games can be described as games of ‘consistency management’.1 We wish merely to offer here the preliminary groundwork for a formalization of these games, through a listing and brief discussion of their apparent rules. We will provide a snapshot of games that were played in the mid-4th century BC, therefore at a time when both Plato and Aristotle where at the Academy. Within the context of our research programme this period should be seen as a terminus ante quem, from which one could begin the historical search, going back to Parmenides and Zeno.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Semantics
    Game Semantics Samson Abramsky University of Edinburgh Department of Computer Science James Clerk Maxwell Building Edinburgh EH9 3JZ Scotland email: [email protected] Guy McCusker St John’s College Oxford OX1 3JP England email: [email protected] 1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to give an introduction to some recent work on the appli- cation of game semantics to the study of programming languages. An initial success for game semantics was its use in giving the first syntax-free descriptions of the fully abstract model for the functional programming language PCF [1, 14, 31]. One goal of semantics is to characterize the “universe of discourse” implicit in a programming language or a logic. Thus for a typed, higher-order functional programming language such as PCF, one may try to characterize “what it is to be a PCF-definable functional”. Well established domain-theoretic models [12, 35] provide sufficiently rich universes of functionals to interpret languages such as PCF, but in fact they are too rich; they include functionals, even “finitary” ones (defined over the booleans, say), which are not definable in PCF. Moreover, by a remarkable recent result of Ralph Loader [25], this is not an accident; this result (technically the undecidability of observation equivalence on finitary PCF) implies that no effective characterization of which functionals are definable in PCF (even in finitary PCF) can exist. Thus in particular a model containing all and only the PCF-definable functionals cannot be effectively presentable. However, rather than focussing on the functionals in extenso, we may instead seek to characterize those computational processes which arise in computing the functionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominal Game Semantics
    Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2500000017 Nominal Game Semantics Andrzej S. Murawski University of Warwick Nikos Tzevelekos Queen Mary University of London Boston — Delft Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2500000017 Foundations and Trends R in Programming Languages Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 United States Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 The preferred citation for this publication is A. S. Murawski and N. Tzevelekos. Nominal Game Semantics. Foundations and Trends R in Programming Languages, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 191–269, 2015. R This Foundations and Trends issue was typeset in LATEX using a class file designed by Neal Parikh. Printed on acid-free paper. ISBN: 978-1-68083-107-8 c 2016 A. S. Murawski and N. Tzevelekos All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen- ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). The ‘services’ for users can be found on the internet at: www.copyright.com For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
    [Show full text]
  • Intensionality, Definability and Computation
    Chapter 1 Intensionality, Definability and Computation Samson Abramsky Abstract We look at intensionality from the perspective of computation. In par- ticular, we review how game semantics has been used to characterize the sequential functional processes, leading to powerful and flexible methods for constructing fully abstract models of programming languages, with appli- cations in program analysis and verification. In a broader context, we can regard game semantics as a first step towards developing a positive theory of intensional structures with a robust mathematical structure, and finding the right notions of invariance for these structures. Keywords Computation, intentionality, extensionality, definability, game semantics. 1.1 Introduction Our aim in this paper is to give a conceptual discussion of some issues con- cerning intensionality, definability and computation. Intensionality remains an elusive concept in logical theory, but actually becomes much more tangi- arXiv:1705.04744v1 [cs.LO] 12 May 2017 ble and, indeed, inescapable in the context of computation. We will focus on a particular thread of ideas, leading to recent and ongoing work in game se- mantics. Technical details will be kept to a minimum, while ample references will be provided to the literature. Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford Wolfson Building Building, parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QD, U.K. e-mail: [email protected] 1 2 Samson Abramsky It is a pleasure and a privilege to contribute to a volume in honour of Johan van Benthem. Johan has been a friend and an inspiring and support- ive colleague for well over a decade. He has encouraged me to broaden my intellectual horizons and to address wider conceptual issues.
    [Show full text]