FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees


 Britton Lamb
 3 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees George Metcalfe Mathematics Institute University of Bern LATD 2014, Vienna Summer of Logic, July 2014 George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
2 The Inebriation Principle There is someone at the party such that if he or she is drunk, then everyone is drunk. ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) Either everyone is drunk and we choose anyone, or someone is not drunk and classically if this person is drunk, then everyone is drunk. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
3 The Inebriation Principle There is someone at the party such that if he or she is drunk, then everyone is drunk. ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) Either everyone is drunk and we choose anyone, or someone is not drunk and classically if this person is drunk, then everyone is drunk. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
4 The Inebriation Principle There is someone at the party such that if he or she is drunk, then everyone is drunk. ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) Either everyone is drunk and we choose anyone, or someone is not drunk and classically if this person is drunk, then everyone is drunk. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
5 Classical Inebriation By prenexation, ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) is equivalent to ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)), which, by Skolemization, is valid if and only if ( x)(d(x) D(f (x))) is valid, which, using Herbrand s theorem, it is, because (D(c) D(f (c))) (D(f (c)) D(f (f (c)))) is propositionally valid in classical logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
6 Classical Inebriation By prenexation, ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) is equivalent to ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)), which, by Skolemization, is valid if and only if ( x)(d(x) D(f (x))) is valid, which, using Herbrand s theorem, it is, because (D(c) D(f (c))) (D(f (c)) D(f (f (c)))) is propositionally valid in classical logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
7 Classical Inebriation By prenexation, ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) is equivalent to ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)), which, by Skolemization, is valid if and only if ( x)(d(x) D(f (x))) is valid, which, using Herbrand s theorem, it is, because (D(c) D(f (c))) (D(f (c)) D(f (f (c)))) is propositionally valid in classical logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
8 ManyValued Inebriation How does our inebriation principle fare with respect to truth values in [0, 1]... truth as 1 and falsity as 0... as minimum and as maximum... as inf and as sup? Roughly, the principle holds for finitely many truth values, but for infinitely many values, it depends on how we interpret implication. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
9 ManyValued Inebriation How does our inebriation principle fare with respect to truth values in [0, 1]... truth as 1 and falsity as 0... as minimum and as maximum... as inf and as sup? Roughly, the principle holds for finitely many truth values, but for infinitely many values, it depends on how we interpret implication. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
10 ManyValued Inebriation How does our inebriation principle fare with respect to truth values in [0, 1]... truth as 1 and falsity as 0... as minimum and as maximum... as inf and as sup? Roughly, the principle holds for finitely many truth values, but for infinitely many values, it depends on how we interpret implication. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
11 ManyValued Inebriation How does our inebriation principle fare with respect to truth values in [0, 1]... truth as 1 and falsity as 0... as minimum and as maximum... as inf and as sup? Roughly, the principle holds for finitely many truth values, but for infinitely many values, it depends on how we interpret implication. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
12 ManyValued Inebriation How does our inebriation principle fare with respect to truth values in [0, 1]... truth as 1 and falsity as 0... as minimum and as maximum... as inf and as sup? Roughly, the principle holds for finitely many truth values, but for infinitely many values, it depends on how we interpret implication. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
13 ManyValued Inebriation How does our inebriation principle fare with respect to truth values in [0, 1]... truth as 1 and falsity as 0... as minimum and as maximum... as inf and as sup? Roughly, the principle holds for finitely many truth values, but for infinitely many values, it depends on how we interpret implication. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
14 Two Logics Gödel vs Lukasiewicz George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
15 Ordered Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Gödel implication { 1 if a b a b = b otherwise, the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) fails. Suppose that there are people p 1, p 2,... and that each person p n is drunk to degree 1 n. Then everyone is drunk is completely false, as is p n is drunk implies everyone is drunk. So the inebriation principle has degree 0. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
16 Ordered Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Gödel implication { 1 if a b a b = b otherwise, the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) fails. Suppose that there are people p 1, p 2,... and that each person p n is drunk to degree 1 n. Then everyone is drunk is completely false, as is p n is drunk implies everyone is drunk. So the inebriation principle has degree 0. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
17 Ordered Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Gödel implication { 1 if a b a b = b otherwise, the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) fails. Suppose that there are people p 1, p 2,... and that each person p n is drunk to degree 1 n. Then everyone is drunk is completely false, as is p n is drunk implies everyone is drunk. So the inebriation principle has degree 0. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
18 Ordered Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Gödel implication { 1 if a b a b = b otherwise, the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) fails. Suppose that there are people p 1, p 2,... and that each person p n is drunk to degree 1 n. Then everyone is drunk is completely false, as is p n is drunk implies everyone is drunk. So the inebriation principle has degree 0. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
19 Ordered Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Gödel implication { 1 if a b a b = b otherwise, the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) fails. Suppose that there are people p 1, p 2,... and that each person p n is drunk to degree 1 n. Then everyone is drunk is completely false, as is p n is drunk implies everyone is drunk. So the inebriation principle has degree 0. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
20 Ordered Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Gödel implication { 1 if a b a b = b otherwise, the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) fails. Suppose that there are people p 1, p 2,... and that each person p n is drunk to degree 1 n. Then everyone is drunk is completely false, as is p n is drunk implies everyone is drunk. So the inebriation principle has degree 0. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
21 Continuous Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Lukasiewicz implication a b = min(1, 1 a + b), the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) holds. Suppose that everybody is drunk to at least degree k and that k is the greatest truth value with this property. Then for each ɛ > 0, there is a person p ɛ drunk to at most degree k + ɛ and p ɛ is drunk implies everyone is drunk has degree at least 1 ɛ. So the inebriation principle has value 1. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
22 Continuous Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Lukasiewicz implication a b = min(1, 1 a + b), the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) holds. Suppose that everybody is drunk to at least degree k and that k is the greatest truth value with this property. Then for each ɛ > 0, there is a person p ɛ drunk to at most degree k + ɛ and p ɛ is drunk implies everyone is drunk has degree at least 1 ɛ. So the inebriation principle has value 1. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
23 Continuous Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Lukasiewicz implication a b = min(1, 1 a + b), the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) holds. Suppose that everybody is drunk to at least degree k and that k is the greatest truth value with this property. Then for each ɛ > 0, there is a person p ɛ drunk to at most degree k + ɛ and p ɛ is drunk implies everyone is drunk has degree at least 1 ɛ. So the inebriation principle has value 1. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
24 Continuous Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Lukasiewicz implication a b = min(1, 1 a + b), the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) holds. Suppose that everybody is drunk to at least degree k and that k is the greatest truth value with this property. Then for each ɛ > 0, there is a person p ɛ drunk to at most degree k + ɛ and p ɛ is drunk implies everyone is drunk has degree at least 1 ɛ. So the inebriation principle has value 1. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
25 Continuous Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Lukasiewicz implication a b = min(1, 1 a + b), the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) holds. Suppose that everybody is drunk to at least degree k and that k is the greatest truth value with this property. Then for each ɛ > 0, there is a person p ɛ drunk to at most degree k + ɛ and p ɛ is drunk implies everyone is drunk has degree at least 1 ɛ. So the inebriation principle has value 1. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
26 Continuous Inebriation Given truth values [0, 1] and the Lukasiewicz implication a b = min(1, 1 a + b), the inebriation principle ( x)(d(x) ( y)d(y)) holds. Suppose that everybody is drunk to at least degree k and that k is the greatest truth value with this property. Then for each ɛ > 0, there is a person p ɛ drunk to at most degree k + ɛ and p ɛ is drunk implies everyone is drunk has degree at least 1 ɛ. So the inebriation principle has value 1. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
27 This Talk Logical consequence in firstorder classical logic, Γ = ϕ, reduces to the unsatisfiability of Γ { ϕ} via doublenegation and the deduction theorem a set of prenex formulas via quantifier shifts a set of universal formulas via Skolemization a set of propositional formulas via Herbrand s theorem. Main Question Which of these steps can be applied in the manyvalued setting? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
28 This Talk Logical consequence in firstorder classical logic, Γ = ϕ, reduces to the unsatisfiability of Γ { ϕ} via doublenegation and the deduction theorem a set of prenex formulas via quantifier shifts a set of universal formulas via Skolemization a set of propositional formulas via Herbrand s theorem. Main Question Which of these steps can be applied in the manyvalued setting? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
29 This Talk Logical consequence in firstorder classical logic, Γ = ϕ, reduces to the unsatisfiability of Γ { ϕ} via doublenegation and the deduction theorem a set of prenex formulas via quantifier shifts a set of universal formulas via Skolemization a set of propositional formulas via Herbrand s theorem. Main Question Which of these steps can be applied in the manyvalued setting? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
30 This Talk Logical consequence in firstorder classical logic, Γ = ϕ, reduces to the unsatisfiability of Γ { ϕ} via doublenegation and the deduction theorem a set of prenex formulas via quantifier shifts a set of universal formulas via Skolemization a set of propositional formulas via Herbrand s theorem. Main Question Which of these steps can be applied in the manyvalued setting? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
31 This Talk Logical consequence in firstorder classical logic, Γ = ϕ, reduces to the unsatisfiability of Γ { ϕ} via doublenegation and the deduction theorem a set of prenex formulas via quantifier shifts a set of universal formulas via Skolemization a set of propositional formulas via Herbrand s theorem. Main Question Which of these steps can be applied in the manyvalued setting? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
32 This Talk Logical consequence in firstorder classical logic, Γ = ϕ, reduces to the unsatisfiability of Γ { ϕ} via doublenegation and the deduction theorem a set of prenex formulas via quantifier shifts a set of universal formulas via Skolemization a set of propositional formulas via Herbrand s theorem. Main Question Which of these steps can be applied in the manyvalued setting? George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
33 Disclaimer This talk is based partly on P. Cintula and G. Metcalfe. Herbrand Theorems for Substructural Logics. Proceedings of LPAR 2013, LNCS 8312, Springer, For further details and references see George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
34 Beyond Two Values We consider a propositional language L and (classes of) Lalgebras A = A,,, { i } i I,, where A,,,, is a complete chain (e.g., {0, 1}, [0, 1], N { }). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
35 OrderBased Algebras For Gödel implication on A, only the order of values matters... { if a b a b = b otherwise and similarly for operations such as { if a = a = and a b = otherwise { b if b a otherwise. More formally, such operations are definable in A by a quantifierfree formula in the firstorder language with only,, and constants of L. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
36 OrderBased Algebras For Gödel implication on A, only the order of values matters... { if a b a b = b otherwise and similarly for operations such as { if a = a = and a b = otherwise { b if b a otherwise. More formally, such operations are definable in A by a quantifierfree formula in the firstorder language with only,, and constants of L. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
37 OrderBased Algebras For Gödel implication on A, only the order of values matters... { if a b a b = b otherwise and similarly for operations such as { if a = a = and a b = otherwise { b if b a otherwise. More formally, such operations are definable in A by a quantifierfree formula in the firstorder language with only,, and constants of L. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
38 The Standard Lukasiewicz Algebra Lukasiewicz implication on [0, 1] is the continuous function a b = min(1, 1 a + b). The functions min and max are definable using and 0, as are a = 1 a and a b = min(1, a + b). Indeed, interpretations of formulas relate 11 to piecewise linear continuous functions on [0, 1] with integer coefficients (McNaughton 1951). Other logics of continuous functions include rational Pavelka logic, continuous logic, and abelian logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
39 The Standard Lukasiewicz Algebra Lukasiewicz implication on [0, 1] is the continuous function a b = min(1, 1 a + b). The functions min and max are definable using and 0, as are a = 1 a and a b = min(1, a + b). Indeed, interpretations of formulas relate 11 to piecewise linear continuous functions on [0, 1] with integer coefficients (McNaughton 1951). Other logics of continuous functions include rational Pavelka logic, continuous logic, and abelian logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
40 The Standard Lukasiewicz Algebra Lukasiewicz implication on [0, 1] is the continuous function a b = min(1, 1 a + b). The functions min and max are definable using and 0, as are a = 1 a and a b = min(1, a + b). Indeed, interpretations of formulas relate 11 to piecewise linear continuous functions on [0, 1] with integer coefficients (McNaughton 1951). Other logics of continuous functions include rational Pavelka logic, continuous logic, and abelian logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
41 The Standard Lukasiewicz Algebra Lukasiewicz implication on [0, 1] is the continuous function a b = min(1, 1 a + b). The functions min and max are definable using and 0, as are a = 1 a and a b = min(1, a + b). Indeed, interpretations of formulas relate 11 to piecewise linear continuous functions on [0, 1] with integer coefficients (McNaughton 1951). Other logics of continuous functions include rational Pavelka logic, continuous logic, and abelian logic. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
42 FirstOrder Languages A predicate language P is a triple P, F, ar where P and F are nonempty sets of predicate symbols and function symbols, respectively, and ar is a function assigning to P F an arity ar( ) N. Pterms s, t,... and Pformulas ϕ, ψ,... are defined as in classical logic using a fixed countably infinite set OV of object variables x, y,..., propositional connectives from L, and the quantifiers and. A Ptheory Γ is just a set of Pformulas. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
43 FirstOrder Languages A predicate language P is a triple P, F, ar where P and F are nonempty sets of predicate symbols and function symbols, respectively, and ar is a function assigning to P F an arity ar( ) N. Pterms s, t,... and Pformulas ϕ, ψ,... are defined as in classical logic using a fixed countably infinite set OV of object variables x, y,..., propositional connectives from L, and the quantifiers and. A Ptheory Γ is just a set of Pformulas. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
44 FirstOrder Languages A predicate language P is a triple P, F, ar where P and F are nonempty sets of predicate symbols and function symbols, respectively, and ar is a function assigning to P F an arity ar( ) N. Pterms s, t,... and Pformulas ϕ, ψ,... are defined as in classical logic using a fixed countably infinite set OV of object variables x, y,..., propositional connectives from L, and the quantifiers and. A Ptheory Γ is just a set of Pformulas. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
45 FirstOrder Structures A Pstructure M = A, M consists of an Lalgebra A based on a complete chain, and M = M, {P M } P P, {f M } f F where M is a nonempty set, P M : M n A is a function for each nary P P, and f M : M n M is a function for each nary f F. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
46 Evaluations Given an Mevaluation v mapping object variables to M, x M v = v(x) (x OV ) f (t 1,..., t n ) M v = f M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v P(t 1,..., t n ) M v = P M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v (ϕ 1,..., ϕ n ) M v = A ( ϕ 1 M v,..., ϕ n M v ) (f F) ) (P P) ) ( L), and letting v[x a](x) = a and v[x a](y) = v(y) for y x, ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a] ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a]. Notation. Given v( x) = a, we often write ϕ( a) M for ϕ( x) M v. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
47 Evaluations Given an Mevaluation v mapping object variables to M, x M v = v(x) (x OV ) f (t 1,..., t n ) M v = f M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v P(t 1,..., t n ) M v = P M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v (ϕ 1,..., ϕ n ) M v = A ( ϕ 1 M v,..., ϕ n M v ) (f F) ) (P P) ) ( L), and letting v[x a](x) = a and v[x a](y) = v(y) for y x, ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a] ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a]. Notation. Given v( x) = a, we often write ϕ( a) M for ϕ( x) M v. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
48 Evaluations Given an Mevaluation v mapping object variables to M, x M v = v(x) (x OV ) f (t 1,..., t n ) M v = f M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v P(t 1,..., t n ) M v = P M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v (ϕ 1,..., ϕ n ) M v = A ( ϕ 1 M v,..., ϕ n M v ) (f F) ) (P P) ) ( L), and letting v[x a](x) = a and v[x a](y) = v(y) for y x, ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a] ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a]. Notation. Given v( x) = a, we often write ϕ( a) M for ϕ( x) M v. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
49 Evaluations Given an Mevaluation v mapping object variables to M, x M v = v(x) (x OV ) f (t 1,..., t n ) M v = f M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v P(t 1,..., t n ) M v = P M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v (ϕ 1,..., ϕ n ) M v = A ( ϕ 1 M v,..., ϕ n M v ) (f F) ) (P P) ) ( L), and letting v[x a](x) = a and v[x a](y) = v(y) for y x, ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a] ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a]. Notation. Given v( x) = a, we often write ϕ( a) M for ϕ( x) M v. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
50 Evaluations Given an Mevaluation v mapping object variables to M, x M v = v(x) (x OV ) f (t 1,..., t n ) M v = f M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v P(t 1,..., t n ) M v = P M ( t 1 M v,..., t n M v (ϕ 1,..., ϕ n ) M v = A ( ϕ 1 M v,..., ϕ n M v ) (f F) ) (P P) ) ( L), and letting v[x a](x) = a and v[x a](y) = v(y) for y x, ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a] ( x)ϕ M v = A a M ϕ M v[x a]. Notation. Given v( x) = a, we often write ϕ( a) M for ϕ( x) M v. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
51 Models Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains and let A K. Then a Pstructure M = A, M is a Kmodel of a Ptheory Γ, written M = Γ, if ϕ M v = A for each ϕ Γ and Mevaluation v. Note. A Pstructure M = A, M is called witnessed if for each Pformula ϕ(x, y) and a M, there exist b, c M such that ( x)ϕ(x, a) M = ϕ(b, a) M and ( x)ϕ(x, a) M = ϕ(c, a) M. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
52 Models Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains and let A K. Then a Pstructure M = A, M is a Kmodel of a Ptheory Γ, written M = Γ, if ϕ M v = A for each ϕ Γ and Mevaluation v. Note. A Pstructure M = A, M is called witnessed if for each Pformula ϕ(x, y) and a M, there exist b, c M such that ( x)ϕ(x, a) M = ϕ(b, a) M and ( x)ϕ(x, a) M = ϕ(c, a) M. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
53 Models Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains and let A K. Then a Pstructure M = A, M is a Kmodel of a Ptheory Γ, written M = Γ, if ϕ M v = A for each ϕ Γ and Mevaluation v. Note. A Pstructure M = A, M is called witnessed if for each Pformula ϕ(x, y) and a M, there exist b, c M such that ( x)ϕ(x, a) M = ϕ(b, a) M and ( x)ϕ(x, a) M = ϕ(c, a) M. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
54 Consequence If Γ {ϕ} is a Ptheory and for each A K and Pstructure M = A, M, M = Γ = M = ϕ, then we say that ϕ is a consequence of Γ in K, written Γ = K ϕ. In particular, if = K ϕ, then ϕ is said to be valid in K. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
55 Consequence If Γ {ϕ} is a Ptheory and for each A K and Pstructure M = A, M, M = Γ = M = ϕ, then we say that ϕ is a consequence of Γ in K, written Γ = K ϕ. In particular, if = K ϕ, then ϕ is said to be valid in K. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
56 FirstOrder Gödel Logic When K consists of just the standard Gödel algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Gödel logic (and write = G ) which admits the deduction theorem Γ {ϕ} = G ψ Γ = G ϕ ψ (ϕ, ψ sentences) but not double negation, i.e., = G ϕ ϕ admits some quantifier shifts such as = G (( x)ϕ ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ψ) but not others, e.g., = G (ϕ ( x)ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ϕ) George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
57 FirstOrder Gödel Logic When K consists of just the standard Gödel algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Gödel logic (and write = G ) which admits the deduction theorem Γ {ϕ} = G ψ Γ = G ϕ ψ (ϕ, ψ sentences) but not double negation, i.e., = G ϕ ϕ admits some quantifier shifts such as = G (( x)ϕ ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ψ) but not others, e.g., = G (ϕ ( x)ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ϕ) George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
58 FirstOrder Gödel Logic When K consists of just the standard Gödel algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Gödel logic (and write = G ) which admits the deduction theorem Γ {ϕ} = G ψ Γ = G ϕ ψ (ϕ, ψ sentences) but not double negation, i.e., = G ϕ ϕ admits some quantifier shifts such as = G (( x)ϕ ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ψ) but not others, e.g., = G (ϕ ( x)ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ϕ) George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
59 FirstOrder Gödel Logic When K consists of just the standard Gödel algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Gödel logic (and write = G ) which admits the deduction theorem Γ {ϕ} = G ψ Γ = G ϕ ψ (ϕ, ψ sentences) but not double negation, i.e., = G ϕ ϕ admits some quantifier shifts such as = G (( x)ϕ ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ψ) but not others, e.g., = G (ϕ ( x)ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ϕ) George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
60 FirstOrder Gödel Logic When K consists of just the standard Gödel algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Gödel logic (and write = G ) which admits the deduction theorem Γ {ϕ} = G ψ Γ = G ϕ ψ (ϕ, ψ sentences) but not double negation, i.e., = G ϕ ϕ admits some quantifier shifts such as = G (( x)ϕ ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ψ) but not others, e.g., = G (ϕ ( x)ψ) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (x not free in ϕ) George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
61 FirstOrder Gödel Logic is (recursively) axiomatizable (Horn 1969) as the extension of firstorder intuitionistic logic with is finitary, i.e., (prl) (ϕ ψ) (ψ ϕ) (cd) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (ϕ ( x)ψ) (x not free in ϕ) Γ = G ϕ Γ = G ϕ for some finite Γ Γ but not complete with respect to witnessed models has an elegant proof theory (Avron 1991, Baaz & Zach 2000). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
62 FirstOrder Gödel Logic is (recursively) axiomatizable (Horn 1969) as the extension of firstorder intuitionistic logic with is finitary, i.e., (prl) (ϕ ψ) (ψ ϕ) (cd) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (ϕ ( x)ψ) (x not free in ϕ) Γ = G ϕ Γ = G ϕ for some finite Γ Γ but not complete with respect to witnessed models has an elegant proof theory (Avron 1991, Baaz & Zach 2000). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
63 FirstOrder Gödel Logic is (recursively) axiomatizable (Horn 1969) as the extension of firstorder intuitionistic logic with is finitary, i.e., (prl) (ϕ ψ) (ψ ϕ) (cd) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (ϕ ( x)ψ) (x not free in ϕ) Γ = G ϕ Γ = G ϕ for some finite Γ Γ but not complete with respect to witnessed models has an elegant proof theory (Avron 1991, Baaz & Zach 2000). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
64 FirstOrder Gödel Logic is (recursively) axiomatizable (Horn 1969) as the extension of firstorder intuitionistic logic with is finitary, i.e., (prl) (ϕ ψ) (ψ ϕ) (cd) ( x)(ϕ ψ) (ϕ ( x)ψ) (x not free in ϕ) Γ = G ϕ Γ = G ϕ for some finite Γ Γ but not complete with respect to witnessed models has an elegant proof theory (Avron 1991, Baaz & Zach 2000). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
65 FirstOrder Gödel Logics Remark. Restricting the standard Gödel algebra to a closed infinite subset of [0, 1] containing {0, 1}, we obtain countably infinitely many different firstorder Gödel logics (Beckmann, Goldstern, and Preining 2008). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
66 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic When K consists of the standard Lukasiewicz algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Lukasiewicz logic (and write = Ł ), which admits double negation, but not the deduction theorem admits all quantifier shifts and therefore has prenexation is not finitary, but is complete with respect to witnessed models George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
67 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic When K consists of the standard Lukasiewicz algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Lukasiewicz logic (and write = Ł ), which admits double negation, but not the deduction theorem admits all quantifier shifts and therefore has prenexation is not finitary, but is complete with respect to witnessed models George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
68 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic When K consists of the standard Lukasiewicz algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Lukasiewicz logic (and write = Ł ), which admits double negation, but not the deduction theorem admits all quantifier shifts and therefore has prenexation is not finitary, but is complete with respect to witnessed models George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
69 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic When K consists of the standard Lukasiewicz algebra on [0, 1], we obtain firstorder Lukasiewicz logic (and write = Ł ), which admits double negation, but not the deduction theorem admits all quantifier shifts and therefore has prenexation is not finitary, but is complete with respect to witnessed models George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
70 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic is not (recursively) axiomatizable (Scarpellini 1962), and indeed is Π 2 complete (Ragaz 1981) has an elegant proof theory with an infinitary rule (Metcalfe, Olivetti, and Gabbay 2005, Baaz and Metcalfe 2009) provides a basis for continuous model theory (Ben Yaacov 2008). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
71 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic is not (recursively) axiomatizable (Scarpellini 1962), and indeed is Π 2 complete (Ragaz 1981) has an elegant proof theory with an infinitary rule (Metcalfe, Olivetti, and Gabbay 2005, Baaz and Metcalfe 2009) provides a basis for continuous model theory (Ben Yaacov 2008). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
72 FirstOrder Lukasiewicz Logic is not (recursively) axiomatizable (Scarpellini 1962), and indeed is Π 2 complete (Ragaz 1981) has an elegant proof theory with an infinitary rule (Metcalfe, Olivetti, and Gabbay 2005, Baaz and Metcalfe 2009) provides a basis for continuous model theory (Ben Yaacov 2008). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
73 Other Possibilities... If K consists of the standard product algebra on [0, 1] with { 1 a b a b = ab and a b = otherwise, then we obtain firstorder product logic. If K consists of the complete chains of certain varieties of integral commutative residuated lattices, then we obtain a (recursively) axiomatizable and finitary firstorder logic (e.g., firstorder MTL). b a George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
74 Other Possibilities... If K consists of the standard product algebra on [0, 1] with { 1 a b a b = ab and a b = otherwise, then we obtain firstorder product logic. If K consists of the complete chains of certain varieties of integral commutative residuated lattices, then we obtain a (recursively) axiomatizable and finitary firstorder logic (e.g., firstorder MTL). b a George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
75 HalfTime Score Classical Gödel Lukasiewicz Product Double Negation YES NO YES NO Deduction Theorem YES YES NO NO Prenex Forms YES NO YES NO Witnessed Models YES NO YES NO Axiomatizable YES YES NO NO Finitary YES YES NO NO George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
76 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
77 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
78 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
79 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
80 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
81 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
82 Skolemization Right Theorem Let K be a class of Lalgebras based on complete chains. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y)} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ = K ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). Proof. ( ) Easy, because ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y). ( ) Suppose Γ = K ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y): i.e., ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M < A for some A K and model M = A, M of Γ. Then ( y)( x)ϕ(x, y) M r for some r < A. So for each m M, there is a d M satisfying ϕ(d, m) M r. Now define (using the axiom of choice) f ϕ ( m) = d with ϕ(d, m) M r, giving ( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y) M r < A. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
83 Skolemization Left Theorem Let K consist of the standard Lukasiewicz or Gödel algebra. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y), ψ} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ {( y)( x)ϕ(x, y)} = K ψ Γ {( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y)} = K ψ. Moreover, firstorder Lukasiewicz logic has prenexation, so in this case we can Skolemize all formulas on both sides of the consequence relation. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
84 Skolemization Left Theorem Let K consist of the standard Lukasiewicz or Gödel algebra. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y), ψ} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ {( y)( x)ϕ(x, y)} = K ψ Γ {( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y)} = K ψ. Moreover, firstorder Lukasiewicz logic has prenexation, so in this case we can Skolemize all formulas on both sides of the consequence relation. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
85 Skolemization Left and Regular Completions A class K of integral commutative residuated lattices admits regular completions if for each A K, there is an embedding of A into some complete B K that preserves infinite meets and joins when they exist. Theorem Let K be the class of complete chains of a variety of integral commutative residuated lattices whose class of chains admits regular completions. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y), ψ} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ {( y)( x)ϕ(x, y)} = K ψ Γ {( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y)} = K ψ. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
86 Skolemization Left and Regular Completions A class K of integral commutative residuated lattices admits regular completions if for each A K, there is an embedding of A into some complete B K that preserves infinite meets and joins when they exist. Theorem Let K be the class of complete chains of a variety of integral commutative residuated lattices whose class of chains admits regular completions. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y), ψ} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ {( y)( x)ϕ(x, y)} = K ψ Γ {( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y)} = K ψ. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
87 Skolemization Left and Regular Completions A class K of integral commutative residuated lattices admits regular completions if for each A K, there is an embedding of A into some complete B K that preserves infinite meets and joins when they exist. Theorem Let K be the class of complete chains of a variety of integral commutative residuated lattices whose class of chains admits regular completions. For any Ptheory Γ {ϕ(x, y), ψ} and function symbol f ϕ P with arity y : Γ {( y)( x)ϕ(x, y)} = K ψ Γ {( y)ϕ(f ϕ ( y), y)} = K ψ. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
88 A Herbrand Theorem for FirstOrder Gödel Logic The Herbrand universe U(P) for a predicate language P with at least one constant is the set of ground (variablefree) Pterms. Theorem For any quantifierfree Pformula ϕ( x): n = G ( x)ϕ( x) = G ϕ( t i ) for some t 1,..., t n U(P). i=1 This has been proved prooftheoretically by Baaz and Zach (2000) and semantically by Baaz, Ciabattoni, and Fermüller (2001). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
89 A Herbrand Theorem for FirstOrder Gödel Logic The Herbrand universe U(P) for a predicate language P with at least one constant is the set of ground (variablefree) Pterms. Theorem For any quantifierfree Pformula ϕ( x): n = G ( x)ϕ( x) = G ϕ( t i ) for some t 1,..., t n U(P). i=1 This has been proved prooftheoretically by Baaz and Zach (2000) and semantically by Baaz, Ciabattoni, and Fermüller (2001). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
90 An Expansion Lemma Let 0 denote the quantifierfree Pformulas, and define using BNF: guniversal formulas P ::= 0 P P P P ( x)p N P gexistential formulas N ::= 0 N N N N ( x)n P N. We refer to theories containing only guniversal and gexistential formulas as guniversal and gexistential theories, respectively. Lemma For each gexistential Pformula ψ and guniversal Ptheory Γ {ϕ}: Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = G ψ Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = G ψ. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
91 An Expansion Lemma Let 0 denote the quantifierfree Pformulas, and define using BNF: guniversal formulas P ::= 0 P P P P ( x)p N P gexistential formulas N ::= 0 N N N N ( x)n P N. We refer to theories containing only guniversal and gexistential formulas as guniversal and gexistential theories, respectively. Lemma For each gexistential Pformula ψ and guniversal Ptheory Γ {ϕ}: Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = G ψ Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = G ψ. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
92 An Expansion Lemma Let 0 denote the quantifierfree Pformulas, and define using BNF: guniversal formulas P ::= 0 P P P P ( x)p N P gexistential formulas N ::= 0 N N N N ( x)n P N. We refer to theories containing only guniversal and gexistential formulas as guniversal and gexistential theories, respectively. Lemma For each gexistential Pformula ψ and guniversal Ptheory Γ {ϕ}: Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = G ψ Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = G ψ. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
93 Herbrand Expansions The PHerbrand expansion E(ϕ) of a Pformula ϕ consists of formulas obtained by applying the following steps repeatedly: (1) Replace ϕ[( x)ψ( x, y)] where ψ is quantifierfree with ϕ[ t H ψ( t, y)] for some finite H U(P). (2) Replace ϕ[( x)ψ( x, y)] where ψ is quantifierfree with ϕ[ t H ψ( t, y)] for some finite H U(P). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
94 Herbrand Expansions The PHerbrand expansion E(ϕ) of a Pformula ϕ consists of formulas obtained by applying the following steps repeatedly: (1) Replace ϕ[( x)ψ( x, y)] where ψ is quantifierfree with ϕ[ t H ψ( t, y)] for some finite H U(P). (2) Replace ϕ[( x)ψ( x, y)] where ψ is quantifierfree with ϕ[ t H ψ( t, y)] for some finite H U(P). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
95 Herbrand Expansions The PHerbrand expansion E(ϕ) of a Pformula ϕ consists of formulas obtained by applying the following steps repeatedly: (1) Replace ϕ[( x)ψ( x, y)] where ψ is quantifierfree with ϕ[ t H ψ( t, y)] for some finite H U(P). (2) Replace ϕ[( x)ψ( x, y)] where ψ is quantifierfree with ϕ[ t H ψ( t, y)] for some finite H U(P). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
96 More General Herbrand Theorems Theorem For every guniversal Ptheory Γ {ϕ} and gexistential Pformula ψ: Γ {ϕ} = G ψ there exists ϕ E(ϕ) such that Γ {ϕ } = G ψ. Theorem For every guniversal Ptheory Γ and gexistential Pformula ψ: Γ = G ψ there exists ψ E(ψ) such that Γ = G ψ. These theorems hold for any finitary K e.g., if K is the class of complete chains of a variety of integral commutative residuated lattices whose class of chains admits regular completions (see also recent work of Terui). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
97 More General Herbrand Theorems Theorem For every guniversal Ptheory Γ {ϕ} and gexistential Pformula ψ: Γ {ϕ} = G ψ there exists ϕ E(ϕ) such that Γ {ϕ } = G ψ. Theorem For every guniversal Ptheory Γ and gexistential Pformula ψ: Γ = G ψ there exists ψ E(ψ) such that Γ = G ψ. These theorems hold for any finitary K e.g., if K is the class of complete chains of a variety of integral commutative residuated lattices whose class of chains admits regular completions (see also recent work of Terui). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
98 More General Herbrand Theorems Theorem For every guniversal Ptheory Γ {ϕ} and gexistential Pformula ψ: Γ {ϕ} = G ψ there exists ϕ E(ϕ) such that Γ {ϕ } = G ψ. Theorem For every guniversal Ptheory Γ and gexistential Pformula ψ: Γ = G ψ there exists ψ E(ψ) such that Γ = G ψ. These theorems hold for any finitary K e.g., if K is the class of complete chains of a variety of integral commutative residuated lattices whose class of chains admits regular completions (see also recent work of Terui). George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
99 Failure of the Herbrand Theorem in Lukasiewicz Logic Easily, by prenexation, So, by Skolemization right, = Ł ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)). = Ł ( x)(d(f (x)) D(x)). For Herbrand s Theorem, we would need for some n N, n = Ł (D(f i+1 (c)) D(f i (c))), i=1 but we can build a structure M such that D(f i+1 (c)) M > D(f i (c)) M for i = 1... n, where such a disjunction is not valid. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
100 Failure of the Herbrand Theorem in Lukasiewicz Logic Easily, by prenexation, So, by Skolemization right, = Ł ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)). = Ł ( x)(d(f (x)) D(x)). For Herbrand s Theorem, we would need for some n N, n = Ł (D(f i+1 (c)) D(f i (c))), i=1 but we can build a structure M such that D(f i+1 (c)) M > D(f i (c)) M for i = 1... n, where such a disjunction is not valid. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
101 Failure of the Herbrand Theorem in Lukasiewicz Logic Easily, by prenexation, So, by Skolemization right, = Ł ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)). = Ł ( x)(d(f (x)) D(x)). For Herbrand s Theorem, we would need for some n N, n = Ł (D(f i+1 (c)) D(f i (c))), i=1 but we can build a structure M such that D(f i+1 (c)) M > D(f i (c)) M for i = 1... n, where such a disjunction is not valid. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
102 Failure of the Herbrand Theorem in Lukasiewicz Logic Easily, by prenexation, So, by Skolemization right, = Ł ( x)( y)(d(x) D(y)). = Ł ( x)(d(f (x)) D(x)). For Herbrand s Theorem, we would need for some n N, n = Ł (D(f i+1 (c)) D(f i (c))), i=1 but we can build a structure M such that D(f i+1 (c)) M > D(f i (c)) M for i = 1... n, where such a disjunction is not valid. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
103 Approximate Consequence Let us define for a Ptheory Γ, Psentence ψ, and r [0, 1] Q, Γ = Ł r < ψ r < ψ M for every model M of Γ, and note that if the propositional atom P does not occur in Γ {ψ}, Γ = Ł n n+1 < ψ Γ {ψ (P Pn )} = Ł. Firstorder Lukasiewicz logic is not finitary, but Γ = Ł Γ = Ł for some finite Γ Γ. Moreover, for every universal theory Γ {ϕ}, Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = Ł Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = Ł. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
104 Approximate Consequence Let us define for a Ptheory Γ, Psentence ψ, and r [0, 1] Q, Γ = Ł r < ψ r < ψ M for every model M of Γ, and note that if the propositional atom P does not occur in Γ {ψ}, Γ = Ł n n+1 < ψ Γ {ψ (P Pn )} = Ł. Firstorder Lukasiewicz logic is not finitary, but Γ = Ł Γ = Ł for some finite Γ Γ. Moreover, for every universal theory Γ {ϕ}, Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = Ł Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = Ł. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
105 Approximate Consequence Let us define for a Ptheory Γ, Psentence ψ, and r [0, 1] Q, Γ = Ł r < ψ r < ψ M for every model M of Γ, and note that if the propositional atom P does not occur in Γ {ψ}, Γ = Ł n n+1 < ψ Γ {ψ (P Pn )} = Ł. Firstorder Lukasiewicz logic is not finitary, but Γ = Ł Γ = Ł for some finite Γ Γ. Moreover, for every universal theory Γ {ϕ}, Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = Ł Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = Ł. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
106 Approximate Consequence Let us define for a Ptheory Γ, Psentence ψ, and r [0, 1] Q, Γ = Ł r < ψ r < ψ M for every model M of Γ, and note that if the propositional atom P does not occur in Γ {ψ}, Γ = Ł n n+1 < ψ Γ {ψ (P Pn )} = Ł. Firstorder Lukasiewicz logic is not finitary, but Γ = Ł Γ = Ł for some finite Γ Γ. Moreover, for every universal theory Γ {ϕ}, Γ {( x)ϕ( x)} = Ł Γ {ϕ( t) t U(P)} = Ł. George Metcalfe (University of Bern) FirstOrder Logics and Truth Degrees LATD / 39
CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS 1 Introduction Proof systems are built to prove statements. They can be thought as an inference machine with special statements, called provable statements, or sometimes
More informationHandout #1: Mathematical Reasoning
Math 101 Rumbos Spring 2010 1 Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning 1 Propositional Logic A proposition is a mathematical statement that it is either true or false; that is, a statement whose certainty or
More informationAn introduction to Good old fashioned model theory
[Held in 120../A000wholething.. Last changed July 26, 2004] An introduction to Good old fashioned model theory [Held in 120../Preamble.. Last changed July 26, 2004] The course will be taught Each Tuesday
More informationUltraproducts and Applications I
Ultraproducts and Applications I Brent Cody Virginia Commonwealth University September 2, 2013 Outline Background of the Hyperreals Filters and Ultrafilters Construction of the Hyperreals The Transfer
More informationON FUNCTIONAL SYMBOLFREE LOGIC PROGRAMS
PROCEEDINGS OF THE YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY Physical and Mathematical Sciences 2012 1 p. 43 48 ON FUNCTIONAL SYMBOLFREE LOGIC PROGRAMS I nf or m at i cs L. A. HAYKAZYAN * Chair of Programming and Information
More informationComputational Logic and Cognitive Science: An Overview
Computational Logic and Cognitive Science: An Overview Session 1: Logical Foundations Technical University of Dresden 25th of August, 2008 University of Osnabrück Who we are Helmar Gust Interests: Analogical
More informationINTRODUCTORY SET THEORY
M.Sc. program in mathematics INTRODUCTORY SET THEORY Katalin Károlyi Department of Applied Analysis, Eötvös Loránd University H1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 68. CONTENTS 1. SETS Set, equal sets, subset,
More informationSummary Last Lecture. Automated Reasoning. Outline of the Lecture. Definition sequent calculus. Theorem (Normalisation and Strong Normalisation)
Summary Summary Last Lecture sequent calculus Automated Reasoning Georg Moser Institute of Computer Science @ UIBK Winter 013 (Normalisation and Strong Normalisation) let Π be a proof in minimal logic
More informationGROUPS SUBGROUPS. Definition 1: An operation on a set G is a function : G G G.
Definition 1: GROUPS An operation on a set G is a function : G G G. Definition 2: A group is a set G which is equipped with an operation and a special element e G, called the identity, such that (i) the
More informationCorrespondence analysis for strong threevalued logic
Correspondence analysis for strong threevalued logic A. Tamminga abstract. I apply Kooi and Tamminga s (2012) idea of correspondence analysis for manyvalued logics to strong threevalued logic (K 3 ).
More informationSJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK
SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET Automated Theorem Proving av Tom Everitt 2010  No 8 MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET, 106 91 STOCKHOLM
More informationSchedule. Logic (master program) Literature & Online Material. gic. Time and Place. Literature. Exercises & Exam. Online Material
OLC mputational gic Schedule Time and Place Thursday, 8:15 9:45, HS E Logic (master program) Georg Moser Institute of Computer Science @ UIBK week 1 October 2 week 8 November 20 week 2 October 9 week 9
More information(LMCS, p. 317) V.1. First Order Logic. This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine.
(LMCS, p. 317) V.1 First Order Logic This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine. Our version of firstorder logic will use the following symbols: variables connectives (,,,,
More informationDEFINABLE TYPES IN PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC
DEFINABLE TYPES IN PRESBURGER ARITHMETIC GABRIEL CONANT Abstract. We consider the first order theory of (Z, +,
More informationFixedPoint Logics and Computation
1 FixedPoint Logics and Computation Symposium on the Unusual Effectiveness of Logic in Computer Science University of Cambridge 2 Mathematical Logic Mathematical logic seeks to formalise the process of
More informationLogic, Algebra and Truth Degrees 2008. Siena. A characterization of rst order rational Pavelka's logic
Logic, Algebra and Truth Degrees 2008 September 811, 2008 Siena A characterization of rst order rational Pavelka's logic Xavier Caicedo Universidad de los Andes, Bogota Under appropriate formulations,
More information2. The Language of Firstorder Logic
2. The Language of Firstorder Logic KR & R Brachman & Levesque 2005 17 Declarative language Before building system before there can be learning, reasoning, planning, explanation... need to be able to
More informationCODING TRUE ARITHMETIC IN THE MEDVEDEV AND MUCHNIK DEGREES
CODING TRUE ARITHMETIC IN THE MEDVEDEV AND MUCHNIK DEGREES PAUL SHAFER Abstract. We prove that the firstorder theory of the Medvedev degrees, the firstorder theory of the Muchnik degrees, and the thirdorder
More informationEQUATIONAL LOGIC AND ABSTRACT ALGEBRA * ABSTRACT
EQUATIONAL LOGIC AND ABSTRACT ALGEBRA * Taje I. Ramsamujh Florida International University Mathematics Department ABSTRACT Equational logic is a formalization of the deductive methods encountered in studying
More informationUndergraduate Notes in Mathematics. Arkansas Tech University Department of Mathematics
Undergraduate Notes in Mathematics Arkansas Tech University Department of Mathematics An Introductory Single Variable Real Analysis: A Learning Approach through Problem Solving Marcel B. Finan c All Rights
More informationA Beginner s Guide to Modern Set Theory
A Beginner s Guide to Modern Set Theory Martin Dowd Product of Hyperon Software PO Box 4161 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 www.hyperonsoft.com Copyright c 2010 by Martin Dowd 1. Introduction..... 1 2. Formal logic......
More informationValidity Checking. Propositional and FirstOrder Logic (part I: semantic methods)
Validity Checking Propositional and FirstOrder Logic (part I: semantic methods) Slides based on the book: Rigorous Software Development: an introduction to program verification, by José Bacelar Almeida,
More informationFinite Sets. Theorem 5.1. Two nonempty finite sets have the same cardinality if and only if they are equivalent.
MATH 337 Cardinality Dr. Neal, WKU We now shall prove that the rational numbers are a countable set while R is uncountable. This result shows that there are two different magnitudes of infinity. But we
More informationContinued Fractions and the Euclidean Algorithm
Continued Fractions and the Euclidean Algorithm Lecture notes prepared for MATH 326, Spring 997 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University at Albany William F Hammond Table of Contents Introduction
More information3. Mathematical Induction
3. MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION 83 3. Mathematical Induction 3.1. First Principle of Mathematical Induction. Let P (n) be a predicate with domain of discourse (over) the natural numbers N = {0, 1,,...}. If (1)
More informationCHAPTER 3. Methods of Proofs. 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs
CHAPTER 3 Methods of Proofs 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs 1.1. Basic Terminology. An axiom is a statement that is given to be true. A rule of inference is a logical rule that is used to deduce
More informationominimality and Uniformity in n 1 Graphs
ominimality and Uniformity in n 1 Graphs Reid Dale July 10, 2013 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Languages and Structures 2 3 Definability and Tame Geometry 4 4 Applications to n 1 Graphs 6 5 Further Directions
More informationA Primer on Infinitary Logic
A Primer on Infinitary Logic Fall 2007 These lectures are a brief survey of some elements of the model theory of the infinitary logics L,ω and L ω1,ω. It is intended to serve as an introduction to Baldwin
More informationx < y iff x < y, or x and y are incomparable and x χ(x,y) < y χ(x,y).
12. Large cardinals The study, or use, of large cardinals is one of the most active areas of research in set theory currently. There are many provably different kinds of large cardinals whose descriptions
More informationMathematics Course 111: Algebra I Part IV: Vector Spaces
Mathematics Course 111: Algebra I Part IV: Vector Spaces D. R. Wilkins Academic Year 19967 9 Vector Spaces A vector space over some field K is an algebraic structure consisting of a set V on which are
More informationPredicate logic. Logic in computer science. Logic in Computer Science (lecture) PART II. first order logic
PART II. Predicate logic first order logic Logic in computer science Seminar: INGK401K5; INHK401; INJK401K4 University of Debrecen, Faculty of Informatics kadek.tamas@inf.unideb.hu 1 / 19 Alphabets Logical
More informationScalable Automated Symbolic Analysis of Administrative RoleBased Access Control Policies by SMT solving
Scalable Automated Symbolic Analysis of Administrative RoleBased Access Control Policies by SMT solving Alessandro Armando 1,2 and Silvio Ranise 2, 1 DIST, Università degli Studi di Genova, Italia 2 Security
More informationA HennessyMilner Property for ManyValued Modal Logics
A HennessyMilner Property for ManyValued Modal Logics Michel Marti 1 Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of Bern Neubrückstrasse 10, CH3012 Bern, Switzerland mmarti@iam.unibe.ch
More informationMathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson
Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement
More informationRigorous Software Development CSCIGA 3033009
Rigorous Software Development CSCIGA 3033009 Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2013 Lecture 11 Semantics of Programming Languages Denotational Semantics Meaning of a program is defined as the mathematical
More informationChapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm.
Chapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm. We begin by defining the ring of polynomials with coefficients in a ring R. After some preliminary results, we specialize
More informationBeyond Propositional Logic Lukasiewicz s System
Beyond Propositional Logic Lukasiewicz s System Consider the following set of truth tables: 1 0 0 1 # # 1 0 # 1 1 0 # 0 0 0 0 # # 0 # 1 0 # 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 # # 1 # # 1 0 # 1 1 0 # 0 1 1 1 # 1 # 1 Brandon
More informationManyvalued Intuitionistic Implication and Inference Closure in a Bilatticebased Logic
1 Manyvalued Intuitionistic Implication and Inference Closure in a Bilatticebased Logic Zoran Majkić Dept. of Computer Science,UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 zoran@cs.umd.edu
More informationLecture notes  Model Theory (Math 411) Autumn 2002.
Lecture notes  Model Theory (Math 411) Autumn 2002. Anand Pillay December 9, 2002 1 Notation and review. Let me begin by briefly discussing manysorted structures. Although in most of the course I will
More informationReview for Final Exam
Review for Final Exam Note: Warning, this is probably not exhaustive and probably does contain typos (which I d like to hear about), but represents a review of most of the material covered in Chapters
More information1. Prove that the empty set is a subset of every set.
1. Prove that the empty set is a subset of every set. Basic Topology Written by MenGen Tsai email: b89902089@ntu.edu.tw Proof: For any element x of the empty set, x is also an element of every set since
More informationSo let us begin our quest to find the holy grail of real analysis.
1 Section 5.2 The Complete Ordered Field: Purpose of Section We present an axiomatic description of the real numbers as a complete ordered field. The axioms which describe the arithmetic of the real numbers
More informationUniversity of Ostrava. Fuzzy Transforms
University of Ostrava Institute for Research and Applications of Fuzzy Modeling Fuzzy Transforms Irina Perfilieva Research report No. 58 2004 Submitted/to appear: Fuzzy Sets and Systems Supported by: Grant
More informationAikaterini Marazopoulou
Imperial College London Department of Computing Tableau Compiled Labelled Deductive Systems with an application to Description Logics by Aikaterini Marazopoulou Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
More informationPART I. THE REAL NUMBERS
PART I. THE REAL NUMBERS This material assumes that you are already familiar with the real number system and the representation of the real numbers as points on the real line. I.1. THE NATURAL NUMBERS
More informationFirstOrder Theories
FirstOrder Theories Ruzica Piskac Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, Germany piskac@mpisws.org Seminar on Decision Procedures 2012 Ruzica Piskac FirstOrder Theories 1 / 39 Acknowledgments Theories
More informationCONTINUED FRACTIONS AND PELL S EQUATION. Contents 1. Continued Fractions 1 2. Solution to Pell s Equation 9 References 12
CONTINUED FRACTIONS AND PELL S EQUATION SEUNG HYUN YANG Abstract. In this REU paper, I will use some important characteristics of continued fractions to give the complete set of solutions to Pell s equation.
More information2. Methods of Proof Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try.
2. METHODS OF PROOF 69 2. Methods of Proof 2.1. Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try. Trivial Proof: If we know q is true then
More informationTHE BANACH CONTRACTION PRINCIPLE. Contents
THE BANACH CONTRACTION PRINCIPLE ALEX PONIECKI Abstract. This paper will study contractions of metric spaces. To do this, we will mainly use tools from topology. We will give some examples of contractions,
More informationCARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE
CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE With the notion of bijection at hand, it is easy to formalize the idea that two finite sets have the same number of elements: we just need to verify
More information4 Domain Relational Calculus
4 Domain Relational Calculus We now present two relational calculi that we will compare to RA. First, what is the difference between an algebra and a calculus? The usual story is that the algebra RA is
More information! " # The Logic of Descriptions. Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation. Terminology. Overview. Three Basic Features. Some History on DLs
,!0((,.+#$),%$(&.& *,2($)%&2.'3&%!&, Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Alessandro Agostini agostini@dit.unitn.it University of Trento Fausto Giunchiglia fausto@dit.unitn.it The Logic of Descriptions!$%&'()*$#)
More informationCSE 459/598: Logic for Computer Scientists (Spring 2012)
CSE 459/598: Logic for Computer Scientists (Spring 2012) Time and Place: T Th 10:3011:45 a.m., M109 Instructor: Joohyung Lee (joolee@asu.edu) Instructor s Office Hours: T Th 4:305:30 p.m. and by appointment
More informationDEGREES OF ORDERS ON TORSIONFREE ABELIAN GROUPS
DEGREES OF ORDERS ON TORSIONFREE ABELIAN GROUPS ASHER M. KACH, KAREN LANGE, AND REED SOLOMON Abstract. We construct two computable presentations of computable torsionfree abelian groups, one of isomorphism
More informationDegrees that are not degrees of categoricity
Degrees that are not degrees of categoricity Bernard A. Anderson Department of Mathematics and Physical Sciences Gordon State College banderson@gordonstate.edu www.gordonstate.edu/faculty/banderson Barbara
More informationit is easy to see that α = a
21. Polynomial rings Let us now turn out attention to determining the prime elements of a polynomial ring, where the coefficient ring is a field. We already know that such a polynomial ring is a UF. Therefore
More informationProblems on Discrete Mathematics 1
Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1 ChungChih Li 2 Kishan Mehrotra 3 Syracuse University, New York L A TEX at January 11, 2007 (Part I) 1 No part of this book can be reproduced without permission from
More informationConsistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica. Tanmay Jaipurkar
Consistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica Tanmay Jaipurkar October 21, 2013 Abstract The fallowing paper discusses the inconsistency and undecidable preposition of Principia
More informationAN INTUITIONISTIC EPISTEMIC LOGIC FOR ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION. Yoichi Hirai. A Master Thesis
AN INTUITIONISTIC EPISTEMIC LOGIC FOR ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION by Yoichi Hirai A Master Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Tokyo on February 10, 2010 in Partial Fulfillment
More informationSMALL SKEW FIELDS CÉDRIC MILLIET
SMALL SKEW FIELDS CÉDRIC MILLIET Abstract A division ring of positive characteristic with countably many pure types is a field Wedderburn showed in 1905 that finite fields are commutative As for infinite
More informationMODELS OF SET THEORY
MODELS OF SET THEORY STEFAN GESCHKE Contents 1. First order logic and the axioms of set theory 2 1.1. Syntax 2 1.2. Semantics 2 1.3. Completeness, compactness and consistency 3 1.4. Foundations of mathematics
More informationThis asserts two sets are equal iff they have the same elements, that is, a set is determined by its elements.
3. Axioms of Set theory Before presenting the axioms of set theory, we first make a few basic comments about the relevant first order logic. We will give a somewhat more detailed discussion later, but
More information4.1. Definitions. A set may be viewed as any well defined collection of objects, called elements or members of the set.
Section 4. Set Theory 4.1. Definitions A set may be viewed as any well defined collection of objects, called elements or members of the set. Sets are usually denoted with upper case letters, A, B, X, Y,
More informationMathematical Induction
Mathematical Induction Victor Adamchik Fall of 2005 Lecture 2 (out of three) Plan 1. Strong Induction 2. Faulty Inductions 3. Induction and the Least Element Principal Strong Induction Fibonacci Numbers
More informationThe Foundations: Logic and Proofs. Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs Rules of Inference Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments
More informationBasic Proof Techniques
Basic Proof Techniques David Ferry dsf43@truman.edu September 13, 010 1 Four Fundamental Proof Techniques When one wishes to prove the statement P Q there are four fundamental approaches. This document
More informationCS 441 Discrete Mathematics for CS Lecture 5. Predicate logic. CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS. Negation of quantifiers
CS 441 Discrete Mathematics for CS Lecture 5 Predicate logic Milos Hauskrecht milos@cs.pitt.edu 5329 Sennott Square Negation of quantifiers English statement: Nothing is perfect. Translation: x Perfect(x)
More informationDiscrete Mathematics. Hans Cuypers. October 11, 2007
Hans Cuypers October 11, 2007 1 Contents 1. Relations 4 1.1. Binary relations................................ 4 1.2. Equivalence relations............................. 6 1.3. Relations and Directed Graphs.......................
More informationHow many numbers there are?
How many numbers there are? RADEK HONZIK Radek Honzik: Charles University, Department of Logic, Celetná 20, Praha 1, 116 42, Czech Republic radek.honzik@ff.cuni.cz Contents 1 What are numbers 2 1.1 Natural
More informationSome Research Problems in Uncertainty Theory
Journal of Uncertain Systems Vol.3, No.1, pp.310, 2009 Online at: www.jus.org.uk Some Research Problems in Uncertainty Theory aoding Liu Uncertainty Theory Laboratory, Department of Mathematical Sciences
More informationThe Dirichlet Unit Theorem
Chapter 6 The Dirichlet Unit Theorem As usual, we will be working in the ring B of algebraic integers of a number field L. Two factorizations of an element of B are regarded as essentially the same if
More informationAN INTRODUCTION TO SET THEORY. Professor William A. R. Weiss
AN INTRODUCTION TO SET THEORY Professor William A. R. Weiss October 2, 2008 2 Contents 0 Introduction 7 1 LOST 11 2 FOUND 19 3 The Axioms of Set Theory 23 4 The Natural Numbers 31 5 The Ordinal Numbers
More informationx if x 0, x if x < 0.
Chapter 3 Sequences In this chapter, we discuss sequences. We say what it means for a sequence to converge, and define the limit of a convergent sequence. We begin with some preliminary results about the
More informationELLIPTIC CURVES AND LENSTRA S FACTORIZATION ALGORITHM
ELLIPTIC CURVES AND LENSTRA S FACTORIZATION ALGORITHM DANIEL PARKER Abstract. This paper provides a foundation for understanding Lenstra s Elliptic Curve Algorithm for factoring large numbers. We give
More informationNOTES ON LINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS
NOTES ON LINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS Definition 1. Let V and W be vector spaces. A function T : V W is a linear transformation from V to W if the following two properties hold. i T v + v = T v + T v for all
More informationProblem Set I: Preferences, W.A.R.P., consumer choice
Problem Set I: Preferences, W.A.R.P., consumer choice Paolo Crosetto paolo.crosetto@unimi.it Exercises solved in class on 18th January 2009 Recap:,, Definition 1. The strict preference relation is x y
More informationImprecise probabilities, bets and functional analytic methods in Łukasiewicz logic.
Imprecise probabilities, bets and functional analytic methods in Łukasiewicz logic. Martina Fedel joint work with K.Keimel,F.Montagna,W.Roth Martina Fedel (UNISI) 1 / 32 Goal The goal of this talk is to
More informationThis chapter is all about cardinality of sets. At first this looks like a
CHAPTER Cardinality of Sets This chapter is all about cardinality of sets At first this looks like a very simple concept To find the cardinality of a set, just count its elements If A = { a, b, c, d },
More informationCS510 Software Engineering
CS510 Software Engineering Propositional Logic Asst. Prof. Mathias Payer Department of Computer Science Purdue University TA: Scott A. Carr Slides inspired by Xiangyu Zhang http://nebelwelt.net/teaching/15cs510se
More informationInvertible elements in associates and semigroups. 1
Quasigroups and Related Systems 5 (1998), 53 68 Invertible elements in associates and semigroups. 1 Fedir Sokhatsky Abstract Some invertibility criteria of an element in associates, in particular in nary
More information(0, 0) : order 1; (0, 1) : order 4; (0, 2) : order 2; (0, 3) : order 4; (1, 0) : order 2; (1, 1) : order 4; (1, 2) : order 2; (1, 3) : order 4.
11.01 List the elements of Z 2 Z 4. Find the order of each of the elements is this group cyclic? Solution: The elements of Z 2 Z 4 are: (0, 0) : order 1; (0, 1) : order 4; (0, 2) : order 2; (0, 3) : order
More informationNondeterministic Semantics and the Undecidability of Boolean BI
1 Nondeterministic Semantics and the Undecidability of Boolean BI DOMINIQUE LARCHEYWENDLING, LORIA CNRS, Nancy, France DIDIER GALMICHE, LORIA Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy, France We solve the open
More informationLogic in general. Inference rules and theorem proving
Logical Agents Knowledgebased agents Logic in general Propositional logic Inference rules and theorem proving First order logic Knowledgebased agents Inference engine Knowledge base Domainindependent
More information4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings class operator Aclosed Example 1: product Example 2:
4. CLASSES OF RINGS 4.1. Classes of Rings Normally we associate, with any property, a set of objects that satisfy that property. But problems can arise when we allow sets to be elements of larger sets
More informationLecture 8: Resolution theoremproving
Comp24412 Symbolic AI Lecture 8: Resolution theoremproving Ian PrattHartmann Room KB2.38: email: ipratt@cs.man.ac.uk 2014 15 In the previous Lecture, we met SATCHMO, a firstorder theoremprover implemented
More informationGlobal Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump
Global Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump Theodore A. Slaman Department of Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 947203840, USA slaman@math.berkeley.edu Abstract
More informationDEGREES OF CATEGORICITY AND THE HYPERARITHMETIC HIERARCHY
DEGREES OF CATEGORICITY AND THE HYPERARITHMETIC HIERARCHY BARBARA F. CSIMA, JOHANNA N. Y. FRANKLIN, AND RICHARD A. SHORE Abstract. We study arithmetic and hyperarithmetic degrees of categoricity. We extend
More informationA Propositional Dynamic Logic for CCS Programs
A Propositional Dynamic Logic for CCS Programs Mario R. F. Benevides and L. Menasché Schechter {mario,luis}@cos.ufrj.br Abstract This work presents a Propositional Dynamic Logic in which the programs are
More informationFoundational Proof Certificates
An application of proof theory to computer science INRIASaclay & LIX, École Polytechnique CUSO Winter School, Proof and Computation 30 January 2013 Can we standardize, communicate, and trust formal proofs?
More informationAPPLICATIONS OF THE ORDER FUNCTION
APPLICATIONS OF THE ORDER FUNCTION LECTURE NOTES: MATH 432, CSUSM, SPRING 2009. PROF. WAYNE AITKEN In this lecture we will explore several applications of order functions including formulas for GCDs and
More informationOne More Decidable Class of Finitely Ground Programs
One More Decidable Class of Finitely Ground Programs Yuliya Lierler and Vladimir Lifschitz Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin {yuliya,vl}@cs.utexas.edu Abstract. When a logic
More informationFINITE DIMENSIONAL ORDERED VECTOR SPACES WITH RIESZ INTERPOLATION AND EFFROSSHEN S UNIMODULARITY CONJECTURE AARON TIKUISIS
FINITE DIMENSIONAL ORDERED VECTOR SPACES WITH RIESZ INTERPOLATION AND EFFROSSHEN S UNIMODULARITY CONJECTURE AARON TIKUISIS Abstract. It is shown that, for any field F R, any ordered vector space structure
More informationDiscrete Mathematics, Chapter : Predicate Logic
Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 1.41.5: Predicate Logic Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 1.41.5 1 / 23 Outline 1 Predicates
More informationWHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?
WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly
More informationCHAPTER 5. Number Theory. 1. Integers and Division. Discussion
CHAPTER 5 Number Theory 1. Integers and Division 1.1. Divisibility. Definition 1.1.1. Given two integers a and b we say a divides b if there is an integer c such that b = ac. If a divides b, we write a
More informationA set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. (Georg Cantor)
Chapter 4 Set Theory A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. (Georg Cantor) In the previous chapters, we have often encountered sets, for example, prime numbers form a set, domains
More informationComputational Methods for Database Repair by Signed Formulae
Computational Methods for Database Repair by Signed Formulae Ofer Arieli (oarieli@mta.ac.il) Department of Computer Science, The Academic College of TelAviv, 4 Antokolski street, TelAviv 61161, Israel.
More informationAnalysis I: Calculus of One Real Variable
Analysis I: Calculus of One Real Variable Peter Philip Lecture Notes Created for the Class of Winter Semester 2015/2016 at LMU Munich April 14, 2016 Contents 1 Foundations: Mathematical Logic and Set Theory
More informationDiscrete Mathematics Lecture 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof. Harper Langston New York University
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof Harper Langston New York University Proof and Counterexample Discovery and proof Even and odd numbers number n from Z is called
More informationGod created the integers and the rest is the work of man. (Leopold Kronecker, in an afterdinner speech at a conference, Berlin, 1886)
Chapter 2 Numbers God created the integers and the rest is the work of man. (Leopold Kronecker, in an afterdinner speech at a conference, Berlin, 1886) God created the integers and the rest is the work
More information