DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Representation of Distributed Behavior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Representation of Distributed Behavior On the Representation of Distributed Behavior Christopher Shaver Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2016-206 http://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2016/EECS-2016-206.html December 16, 2016 Copyright © 2016, by the author(s). All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission. On the Representation of Distributed Behavior by Christopher Daniel Shaver A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Edward A. Lee, Chair Professor Marjan Sirjani Adjunct Professor Stavros Tripakis Professor John Steel Fall 2016 On the Representation of Distributed Behavior Copyright 2016 by Christopher Daniel Shaver 1 Abstract On the Representation of Distributed Behavior by Christopher Daniel Shaver Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Edward A. Lee, Chair Technologies pervasive today have enabled a plethora of diverse networked devices to prolif- erate in the market. Among these devices are sensors, wearables, mobile devices, and many other embedded systems, in addition to conventional computers. This diverse tapestry of networked devices, often termed the Internet of Things (IoT) and the Swarm, has the po- tential to serve as a platform for a new breed of sophisticated distributed applications that leverage the ubiquity, concurrency, and flexibility of these devices, often to integrate the sim- ilarly diverse information to which these devices have access. These kinds of applications, which we are calling Highly Dynamic Distributed Applications (HDDAs), are particularly important in the domain of automated environments such as smart homes, buildings, and even cities. In contrast with the kind of concurrent computation that can be represented with petri nets, synchronous systems, and other rigid models of concurrent computation, applications running on networks of devices such as the IoT demand models that are more dynamic, semantically heterogeneous, and composable. Because these devices are more than just peripherals to central servers, themselves capable of significant amounts of computation, HDDAs can involve the establishment of direct connections between these devices to share and process information. From the perspective of the platform this will look like an ever- evolving network of dynamic configuration and communication that may have no clear sense of a center, or even a central point of observation. Computation in this fashion begins to look less like a sequence of coherent states and more like a physical interaction in space. Designing and reasoning about these kinds of applications in a rigorous and scalable fashion will require the development of new programming language semantics, specification logics, verification methods, and synthesis algorithms. At the core of all of these components of a robust programming model will be a need for an appropriate mathematical represen- tation of behavior, specifying precisely what happens in these spaces of devices during the execution of a HDDA. This behavioral representation must characterize an application in as much detail as is necessary, without having to introduce details regarding the realization of the execution on a particular platform, bound to a specific architecture of concrete pro- 2 cess and communication relationships. This representation must also be itself as scalable, modular, and composable as the distributed computations it describes. The aim of this thesis is to identify the mathematical representation of behavior best fit to meet the challenges HDDAs pose to formal semantics and formal verification. To this end, this thesis proposes a new mathematical representation of concurrent computational behavior called an Ontological Event Graph (OEG), which generalizes, subsumes, or improves upon other representations of concurrent behavior such as Mazurkiewicz Traces, Event Structures, and Actor Event Diagrams. In contrast with many other representations of concurrent behavior, which are either graphs or partial orders, OEGs are, in essence, acyclic ported block diagrams. In these diagrams, each ported block represents an event and each connection between ports represents a direct dependency between events, while each port around a block represents the specific kind of information or influence consumed or produced in the event. OEGs have the advantage over other representations of concurrent behavior of being both modular and composable, as well as possessing a clear concept of hierarchy and abstraction. The motivations and reasoning behind this choice of representation will be developed from two directions. The first will be an exploration of the context, consisting of networks of devices such as the IoT. The potential of these networks to serve as a distributed compu- tational platform for HDDAs will be understood through the construction of a conceptual application model that will be called a Process Field. The demands of this application model and some concrete examples will be used to construct an intuitive picture of how the corre- sponding behavioral representation must look, and what it would need to serve the purposes of constructing semantics and performing verification in the context of HDDAs. The second direction will reflect on the mathematical details of two classes of sequential representations of behavior, sequences and free monoids, and look at the ways these two classes generalize from the sequential case to the concurrent one. This will suggest, as po- tential generalizations of the two classes, generalized sequences and free monoidal categories. The former of these classes already has many instances prevalent in the literature. These existing representations based on generalized sequences, along with some other similar es- tablished means to represent concurrent behavior, will be reviewed in detail, and reasons will be given for why they do not meet the demands for modularity and composability needed for reasoning about HDDAs. It will be concluded that the latter, far less investigated class of free monoidal categories offers a richer mathematical structure that is more appropriate for the demands of construct- ing formal models of HDDAs. In particular, free monoidal categories offer a very general form of composition involving both a parallel and a sequential product. These products, along with a collection of distinguished constants, form an algebra that can be used to con- struct semantics or to formulate specifications and prove properties of behaviors. Time will be taken to first review the concepts from category theory needed to define these structures, particularly focusing on monoidal categories and the concept of free structures and universal properties. The construction of free monoidal categories, and the particular variant of free symmetric monoidal categories, will then be detailed, and several important properties of these structures will be shown and discussed. 3 It will ultimately be established that spaces of OEGs defined in this thesis, along with their compositions, form free symmetric monoidal categories. Consequently, the study of OEGs can leverage all of the mathematical tools of monoidal category theory to study and better understand distributed behavior. A chapter will be devoted to showing specifically how the π-calculus can be given a particularly elegant and powerful behavioral semantics using OEGs. i To my Kitty. ii Contents Contents ii List of Figures iv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Behavioral Representations . 2 1.2 Outline of This Thesis . 5 1.3 Structures and Notations . 8 2 Highly Dynamic Distributed Applications 12 2.1 The Process Field Platform . 13 2.2 The Actor Model . 15 2.3 A MoC for the Process Field . 17 2.4 Examples of HDDAs . 19 2.5 Process Field Theory . 28 3 Generalizing Representations of Sequential Behavior 34 3.1 Representing Sequential Systems . 37 3.2 Generalizing . 54 4 Existing Representations of Distributed Behavior 62 4.1 Which Kinds of Systems? . 63 4.2 Traces . 64 4.3 True Concurrency . 69 4.4 Other Representations . 78 5 Key Concepts from Category Theory 84 5.1 Monoidal Categories . 85 5.2 Free Objects and Derived Structures . 97 6 Free Monoidal Categories 110 6.1 Monoidal Schemes . 111 6.2 Free Monoidal Categories . 115 iii 6.3 Properties of Monoidal Schemes and Free Monoidal Categories . 126 7 Ontological Event Graphs 135 7.1 An Event Ontology . 136 7.2 Ontological Event Schemes . 141 7.3 The Formalism of Ontological Event Graphs . 155 8 OEG Semantics for Process Calculi 190 8.1 The π-calculus .................................. 192 8.2 OEG Semantics . 199 9 Conclusions and Further Work 216 9.1 More Semantics . 218 9.2 Mathematical Developments . 220 9.3 Logic and Formal Verification . 222 Bibliography 224 iv List of Figures 1.1 The relationship between programs, formulae, and behaviors. 3 1.2 Flow of the thesis. 6 2.1 The Process Field . 14 2.2 Climate control HDDA. 19 2.3 Initial configuration in the Process Field. 21 2.4 A home automation swarmlet. 23 2.5 Final configuration in the Process Field. 24 2.6 Initial configuration in the Process Field. 25 2.7 Simple system with one managing actor P ...................... 26 2.8 A more complex system with two independent processes managing the doors. 28 2.9 A possible set of connections between the two processes. 28 2.10 Execution in a Process Field. 30 2.11 Feynman diagram of electron scattering (polarized). 31 2.12 The same interaction from three frames of reference. 32 2.13 Events as collisions of computational data such as messages or states. 33 3.1 Sequential behavioral representation. 38 3.2 Free monoidal behavioral representation. 40 3.3 Generalized sequence. 54 3.4 Diagram in a monoidal category.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations
    Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson Department of Statistics, Stanford University Abstract We introduce the relational ontology log, or relational olog, a knowledge representation system based on the category of sets and relations. It is inspired by Spivak and Kent’s olog, a recent categorical framework for knowledge representation. Relational ologs interpolate between ologs and description logic, the dominant formalism for knowledge representation today. In this paper, we investigate relational ologs both for their own sake and to gain insight into the relationship between the algebraic and logical approaches to knowledge representation. On a practical level, we show by example that relational ologs have a friendly and intuitive—yet fully precise—graphical syntax, derived from the string diagrams of monoidal categories. We explain several other useful features of relational ologs not possessed by most description logics, such as a type system and a rich, flexible notion of instance data. In a more theoretical vein, we draw on categorical logic to show how relational ologs can be translated to and from logical theories in a fragment of first-order logic. Although we make extensive use of categorical language, this paper is designed to be self-contained and has considerable expository content. The only prerequisites are knowledge of first-order logic and the rudiments of category theory. 1. Introduction arXiv:1706.00526v2 [cs.AI] 1 Nov 2017 The representation of human knowledge in computable form is among the oldest and most fundamental problems of artificial intelligence. Several recent trends are stimulating continued research in the field of knowledge representation (KR).
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Categories As Tools for Building Theories
    Logic and Categories As Tools For Building Theories Samson Abramsky Oxford University Computing Laboratory 1 Introduction My aim in this short article is to provide an impression of some of the ideas emerging at the interface of logic and computer science, in a form which I hope will be accessible to philosophers. Why is this even a good idea? Because there has been a huge interaction of logic and computer science over the past half-century which has not only played an important r^olein shaping Computer Science, but has also greatly broadened the scope and enriched the content of logic itself.1 This huge effect of Computer Science on Logic over the past five decades has several aspects: new ways of using logic, new attitudes to logic, new questions and methods. These lead to new perspectives on the question: What logic is | and should be! Our main concern is with method and attitude rather than matter; nevertheless, we shall base the general points we wish to make on a case study: Category theory. Many other examples could have been used to illustrate our theme, but this will serve to illustrate some of the points we wish to make. 2 Category Theory Category theory is a vast subject. It has enormous potential for any serious version of `formal philosophy' | and yet this has hardly been realized. We shall begin with introduction to some basic elements of category theory, focussing on the fascinating conceptual issues which arise even at the most elementary level of the subject, and then discuss some its consequences and philosophical ramifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Databases
    Categorical databases David I. Spivak [email protected] Mathematics Department Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presented on 2014/02/28 at Oracle David I. Spivak (MIT) Categorical databases Presented on 2014/02/28 1 / 1 Introduction Purpose of the talk Purpose of the talk There is an fundamental connection between databases and categories. Category theory can simplify how we think about and use databases. We can clearly see all the working parts and how they fit together. Powerful theorems can be brought to bear on classical DB problems. David I. Spivak (MIT) Categorical databases Presented on 2014/02/28 2 / 1 Introduction The pros and cons of relational databases The pros and cons of relational databases Relational databases are reliable, scalable, and popular. They are provably reliable to the extent that they strictly adhere to the underlying mathematics. Make a distinction between the system you know and love, vs. the relational model, as a mathematical foundation for this system. David I. Spivak (MIT) Categorical databases Presented on 2014/02/28 3 / 1 Introduction The pros and cons of relational databases You're not really using the relational model. Current implementations have departed from the strict relational formalism: Tables may not be relational (duplicates, e.g from a query). Nulls (and labeled nulls) are commonly used. The theory of relations (150 years old) is not adequate to mathematically describe modern DBMS. The relational model does not offer guidance for schema mappings and data migration. Databases have been intuitively moving toward what's best described with a more modern mathematical foundation. David I.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics and the Brain: a Category Theoretical Approach to Go Beyond the Neural Correlates of Consciousness
    entropy Review Mathematics and the Brain: A Category Theoretical Approach to Go Beyond the Neural Correlates of Consciousness 1,2,3, , 4,5,6,7, 8, Georg Northoff * y, Naotsugu Tsuchiya y and Hayato Saigo y 1 Mental Health Centre, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China 2 Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1Z 7K4 Canada 3 Centre for Cognition and Brain Disorders, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310036, China 4 School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia; [email protected] 5 Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia 6 Advanced Telecommunication Research, Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0288, Japan 7 Center for Information and Neural Networks (CiNet), National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan 8 Nagahama Institute of Bio-Science and Technology, Nagahama 526-0829, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: georg.northoff@theroyal.ca All authors contributed equally to the paper as it was a conjoint and equally distributed work between all y three authors. Received: 18 July 2019; Accepted: 9 October 2019; Published: 17 December 2019 Abstract: Consciousness is a central issue in neuroscience, however, we still lack a formal framework that can address the nature of the relationship between consciousness and its physical substrates. In this review, we provide a novel mathematical framework of category theory (CT), in which we can define and study the sameness between different domains of phenomena such as consciousness and its neural substrates. CT was designed and developed to deal with the relationships between various domains of phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory for Dummies (I)
    Category Theory for Dummies (I) James Cheney Programming Languages Discussion Group March 12, 2004 1 Not quite everything you’ve ever wanted to know... • You keep hearing about category theory. • Cool-sounding papers by brilliant researchers (e.g. Wadler’s “Theorems for free!”) • But it’s scary and incomprehensible. • And Category Theory is not even taught here. • Goal of this series: Familarity with basic ideas, not expertise 2 Outline • Categories: Why are they interesting? • Categories: What are they? Examples. • Some familiar properties expressed categorically • Some basic categorical constructions 3 Category theory • An abstract theory of “structured things” and “structure preserving function-like things”. • Independent of the concrete representation of the things and functions. • An alternative foundation for mathematics? (Lawvere) • Closely connected with computation, types and logic. • Forbiddingly complex notation for even simple ideas. 4 A mathematician’s eye view of the world Algebra Topology Logic Groups, Rings,... Topological Spaces Formulas Homomorphisms Continuous Functions Implication Set Theory 5 A category theorist’s eye view of the world Category Theory Objects Arrows Algebra Topology Logic Groups, Rings,... Topological Spaces Formulas Homomorphisms Continuous Functions Implication 6 My view (not authoritative): • Category theory helps organize thought about a collection of related things • and identify patterns that recur over and over. • It may suggest interesting ways of looking at them • but does not necessarily
    [Show full text]
  • Categories and Computability
    Categories and Computability J.R.B. Cockett ∗ Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 1N4, Alberta, Canada February 22, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Categories and foundations . ........ 3 1.2 Categoriesandcomputerscience . ......... 4 1.3 Categoriesandcomputability . ......... 4 I Basic Categories 6 2 Categories and examples 7 2.1 Thedefinitionofacategory . ....... 7 2.1.1 Categories as graphs with composition . ......... 7 2.1.2 Categories as partial semigroups . ........ 8 2.1.3 Categoriesasenrichedcategories . ......... 9 2.1.4 The opposite category and duality . ....... 9 2.2 Examplesofcategories. ....... 10 2.2.1 Preorders ..................................... 10 2.2.2 Finitecategories .............................. 11 2.2.3 Categoriesenrichedinfinitesets . ........ 11 2.2.4 Monoids....................................... 13 2.2.5 Pathcategories................................ 13 2.2.6 Matricesoverarig .............................. 13 2.2.7 Kleenecategories.............................. 14 2.2.8 Sets ......................................... 15 2.2.9 Programminglanguages . 15 2.2.10 Productsandsumsofcategories . ....... 16 2.2.11 Slicecategories .............................. ..... 16 ∗Partially supported by NSERC, Canada. 1 3 Elements of category theory 18 3.1 Epics, monics, retractions, and sections . ............. 18 3.2 Functors........................................ 20 3.3 Natural transformations . ........ 23 3.4 Adjoints........................................ 25 3.4.1 Theuniversalproperty.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Brent Yorgey University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 1-1-2014 Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Brent Yorgey University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Computer Sciences Commons, and the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Yorgey, Brent, "Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures" (2014). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1512. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1512 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1512 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Abstract The theory of combinatorial species was developed in the 1980s as part of the mathematical subfield of enumerative combinatorics, unifying and putting on a firmer theoretical basis a collection of techniques centered around generating functions. The theory of algebraic data types was developed, around the same time, in functional programming languages such as Hope and Miranda, and is still used today in languages such as Haskell, the ML family, and Scala. Despite their disparate origins, the two theories have striking similarities. In particular, both constitute algebraic frameworks in which to construct structures of interest. Though the similarity has not gone unnoticed, a link between combinatorial species and algebraic data types has never been systematically explored. This dissertation lays the theoretical groundwork for a precise—and, hopefully, useful—bridge bewteen the two theories. One of the key contributions is to port the theory of species from a classical, untyped set theory to a constructive type theory. This porting process is nontrivial, and involves fundamental issues related to equality and finiteness; the recently developed homotopy type theory is put to good use formalizing these issues in a satisfactory way.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2-Category Theory of Quasi-Categories
    Advances in Mathematics 280 (2015) 549–642 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advances in Mathematics www.elsevier.com/locate/aim The 2-category theory of quasi-categories Emily Riehl a,∗, Dominic Verity b a Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA b Centre of Australian Category Theory, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: In this paper we re-develop the foundations of the category Received 11 December 2013 theory of quasi-categories (also called ∞-categories) using Received in revised form 13 April 2-category theory. We show that Joyal’s strict 2-category of 2015 quasi-categories admits certain weak 2-limits, among them Accepted 22 April 2015 weak comma objects. We use these comma quasi-categories Available online xxxx Communicated by the Managing to encode universal properties relevant to limits, colimits, Editors of AIM and adjunctions and prove the expected theorems relating these notions. These universal properties have an alternate MSC: form as absolute lifting diagrams in the 2-category, which primary 18G55, 55U35, 55U40 we show are determined pointwise by the existence of certain secondary 18A05, 18D20, 18G30, initial or terminal vertices, allowing for the easy production 55U10 of examples. All the quasi-categorical notions introduced here are equiv- Keywords: alent to the established ones but our proofs are independent Quasi-categories and more “formal”. In particular, these results generalise 2-Category theory Formal category theory immediately to model categories enriched over quasi-cate- gories. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory and Model-Driven Engineering: from Formal Semantics to Design Patterns and Beyond
    Category Theory and Model-Driven Engineering: From Formal Semantics to Design Patterns and Beyond Zinovy Diskin1;2 Tom Maibaum1 1Network for Engineering of Complex Software-Intensive Systems for Automotive Systems (NECSIS), McMaster University, Canada 2Generative Software Development Lab, University of Waterloo, Canada [email protected] [email protected] There is a hidden intrigue in the title. CT is one of the most abstract mathematical disciplines, some- times nicknamed ”abstract nonsense”. MDE is a recent trend in software development, industrially supported by standards, tools, and the status of a new ”silver bullet”. Surprisingly, categorical pat- terns turn out to be directly applicable to mathematical modeling of structures appearing in everyday MDE practice. Model merging, transformation, synchronization, and other important model man- agement scenarios can be seen as executions of categorical specifications. Moreover, the paper aims to elucidate a claim that relationships between CT and MDE are more complex and richer than is normally assumed for ”applied mathematics”. CT provides a toolbox of design patterns and structural principles of real practical value for MDE. We will present examples of how an elementary categorical arrangement of a model management scenario reveals deficiencies in the architecture of modern tools automating the scenario. Keywords: Model-driven engineering, mathematical modeling, category theory 1 Introduction There are several well established applications of category theory (CT) in theoretical computer science; typical examples are programming language semantics and concurrency. Modern software engineering (SE) seems to be an essentially different domain, not obviously suitable for theoretical foundations based on abstract algebra. Too much in this domain appears to be ad hoc and empirical, and the rapid progress of open source and collaborative software development, service-oriented programming, and cloud com- puting far outpaces their theoretical support.
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic with Dependent Sorts, with Applications to Category Theory
    First Order Logic with Dependent Sorts, with Applications to Category Theory by M. Makkai McGill University Preliminary version (Nov 6, 1995) Contents: Introduction p. 1 §1. Logic with dependent sorts p. 14 §2. Formal systems p. 32 §3. Quantificational fibrations p. 39 §4. The syntax of first-order logic with dependent sorts as a fibration p. 47 §5. Equivalence p. 58 §6. Equivalence of categories, and diagrams of categories p. 77 §7. Equivalence of bicategories p. 110 Appendix A. An alternative introduction of logic with dependent sorts p. 127 Appendix B. A fibrational theory of L-equivalence p. 133 Appendix C. More on L-equivalence and equality p. 144 Appendix D. Calculations for §7. p. 161 Appendix E. More on equivalence and interpolation p. 174 References p. 198 The author's research is supported by NSERC Canada and FCAR Quebec 0 Introduction 1. This work introduces First-Order Logic with Dependent Sorts (FOLDS). FOLDS is inspired by Martin-Löf's Theory of Dependent Types (TDT) [M-L]; in fact, FOLDS may be regarded a proper part of TDT, similarly to ordinary first-order logic being a proper part of higher-order logic. At the same time, FOLDS is of a much simpler nature than the theory of dependent types. First of all, the expressive power of FOLDS is no more than that of ordinary first-order logic; in fact, FOLDS may be regarded as a constrained form of Multi-Sorted First-Order Logic (MSFOL). Secondly, the syntax of FOLDS is quite simple, only slightly more complicated than that of MSFOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundational Concepts Underlying a Formal Mathematical Basis for Systems Science
    Foundational Concepts Underlying a Formal Mathematical Basis for Systems Science Kenneth A. Lloyd, Jr. Watt Systems Technologies Inc. 10524 Sorrento Drive NW Albuquerque, NM 87114 USA Abstract We propose Category Theory as the formal, mathematical language and theory for studying systems. But, to understand the applicability of Category Theory to Systems Science we must go back to certain prior foundational concepts which, first, must be clearly elucidated and their contexts made explicit. Keywords: science, formal systems, category theory. Science is a Formal System for Developing Valid Knowledge We propose Category Theory as the formal mathematical language for a science of studying systems – all kinds of systems – from the quantum to cosmological, from the social to technological, and beyond. In the same way that Category Theory has been used to study all of mathematics, Category Theory provides a coherently consistent means for studying the systems of science. This approach may lead us to new understandings in the paradigms of science. At present, science is often misunderstood (Pollack, 2003), and there are problems in adequately communicating its concepts without inconsistency, incompleteness or paradoxes. Part of that problem is incompleteness internal to the concepts of science, while another part of the problem manifests externally in communication between elements within the paradigm – specifically, in the way science interacts between our worlds - plural. In communication, Eliezer Yudkowsky of the Machine Intelligence Institute cautions us about expecting short inferential distances (Yudkowsky, 2007), “the legendary difficulty most scientists have in communicating with a lay audience - or even communicating with scientists from other disciplines”. Therefore, inferential distance is the number of necessary transformative steps from a general prior knowledge to a new, adequate understanding of knowledge concepts.
    [Show full text]