Semantic Groundedness
|
|
- Donna Harrington
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Semantic Groundedness Hannes Leitgeb LMU Munich August 2011 Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
2 Luca told you about groundedness in set theory. Now we turn to groundedness in semantics. Plan of the talk: 1 What is Semantic Groundedness? 2 Groundedness and Dependence 3 Beyond Semantic Groundedness 4 An Afterthought: Semantic vs. Set-Theoretic Groundedness 5 [Bibliography] Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
3 What is Semantic Groundedness? Herzberger (1970): grounding as a link between set theory and semantics (p. 146) Every sentence is assumed to be about a set of entities, its domain. The general notion of a domain is more readily indicated than explicated, but the analysis to follow depends on no problematic cases, and ultimately proves independent of any particular explication of domain (p. 148) A sentence is groundless iff it is the first member of some infinite sequence of sentences each of which belongs to the domain of its predecessor. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
4 Groundless sentences, like groundless classes, are pathological; to adapt Mirimanoff s term, they are extraordinary. Some of them give rise to paradox, which is to say they collide with cherished conceptual principles like the abstraction principle of naive set theory (that every condition determines a set) or its counterpart in naive semantics (that every sentence determines a statement). In both set theory and semantics there is a temptation to banish everything extraordinary by some grounding axiom that denies groundless classes the status of sets or denies groundless sentences the status of statement. In set theory, grounding requirements have wide-currency; in semantics they have been widely honored though seldom acknowledged, and hardly brought to the level of explicit formulation. A first effort in this direction might read: Semantic Grounding Condition: Any given sentence determines a statement only if it is grounded or is nonsemantic... (pp. 148f) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
5 Groundless sentences, like groundless classes, are pathological; to adapt Mirimanoff s term, they are extraordinary. Some of them give rise to paradox, which is to say they collide with cherished conceptual principles like the abstraction principle of naive set theory (that every condition determines a set) or its counterpart in naive semantics (that every sentence determines a statement). In both set theory and semantics there is a temptation to banish everything extraordinary by some grounding axiom that denies groundless classes the status of sets or denies groundless sentences the status of statement. In set theory, grounding requirements have wide-currency; in semantics they have been widely honored though seldom acknowledged, and hardly brought to the level of explicit formulation. A first effort in this direction might read: Semantic Grounding Condition: Any given sentence determines a statement only if it is grounded or is nonsemantic... (pp. 148f) The concept grounded term for any elementary conceptual system is inexpressible within that system (p. 157) no language is universal in the sense of Tarski (p. 164) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
6 Kripke (1975): The downwards view of groundedness (cf. Kremer 1988) if a sentence... asserts that (all, some, most, etc.) of the sentences of a certain class C are true, its truth value can be ascertained if the truth values of the sentences in the class are ascertained. If some of these sentences themselves involve the notion of truth, their truth value in turn must be ascertained by looking at other sentences, and so on. If ultimately this process terminates in sentences not mentioning the concept of truth, so that the truth value of the original statement can be ascertained, we call the original sentence grounded; otherwise, ungrounded (pp. 693f) whether a sentence is grounded is not [...] an intrinsic [...] property of a sentence, but usually depends on the empirical facts (p. 694) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
7 Additionally, Kripke presents an upwards view of groundedness: Suppose we are explaining the word true to someone who does not yet understand it. We may say that we are entitled to assert (or deny) of any sentence that it is true precisely under the circumstances when we can assert (or deny) the sentence itself. [...] In this manner, the subject will eventually be able to attribute truth to more and more statements involving the notion of truth itself. There is no reason to suppose that all statements involving true will become decided in this way, but most will. Indeed, our suggestion is that the grounded sentences can be characterized as those which eventually get a truth value in this process (p. 701) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
8 Additionally, Kripke presents an upwards view of groundedness: Suppose we are explaining the word true to someone who does not yet understand it. We may say that we are entitled to assert (or deny) of any sentence that it is true precisely under the circumstances when we can assert (or deny) the sentence itself. [...] In this manner, the subject will eventually be able to attribute truth to more and more statements involving the notion of truth itself. There is no reason to suppose that all statements involving true will become decided in this way, but most will. Indeed, our suggestion is that the grounded sentences can be characterized as those which eventually get a truth value in this process (p. 701) Either understanding motivates a jump operator, such that ϕ can be defined as grounded if it has a truth value in the least fixed point of that operator. Such semantical notions as grounded, paradoxical, etc. belong to the metalanguage. [...] The ghost of the Tarski hierarchy is still with us (p. 714) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
9 We find two justifications for ascribing truth or falsity (non-trivially) only to grounded sentences: all paradoxical sentences seem to be ungrounded, and ascribing truth or falsity to ungrounded sentences means to go beyond the facts. But: Ultimately this commits one to give up on universality. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
10 We find two justifications for ascribing truth or falsity (non-trivially) only to grounded sentences: all paradoxical sentences seem to be ungrounded, and ascribing truth or falsity to ungrounded sentences means to go beyond the facts. But: Ultimately this commits one to give up on universality. As Kremer (1988) summarizes: Thus a grounded sentence is one whose truth-value can be ascertained on the basis of facts not involving the concept of truth. We can say that the original sentence depends on non-semantic facts (p. 227) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
11 Groundedness and Dependence What is conceptually prior: groundedness or dependency? The latter. (Groundedness is well-foundedness of... what?) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
12 Groundedness and Dependence What is conceptually prior: groundedness or dependency? The latter. (Groundedness is well-foundedness of... what?) But it is not so clear what this dependency relation is meant to be in fact, there are different proposals: Yablo (1982): compositional, Strong-Kleene dependence E.g., what ϕ ψ depends on is determined by what ϕ depends on and what ψ depends on. Leitgeb (2005): non-compositional, classical dependence E.g., ϕ ϕ depends on nothing (the empty set). (There are further approaches, e.g., Gaifman 1992.) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
13 The way to proceed in the classical case: Define a semantic notion of dependence, such that, e.g., Tr( ϕ ) depends on {ϕ} Tr( Tr( ϕ ) ) depends on {Tr( ϕ )}... x(p(x) Tr(x)), x(p(x) Tr(x)) depend on the extension of P the Liar sentence λ depends on {λ} Define the set Φ lf of grounded sentences in terms of direct or indirect dependency on the non-semantic base language L. Define truth for the extended language L Tr in a way, such that all T-biconditionals for members of Φ lf are derivable. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
14 We consider an example: Let L be the language of first-order arithmetic, L Tr = L + Tr be our object language. L Tr extended by the language of set theory (and fragments of English) is our metalanguage. For ϕ L Tr, let Val Φ (ϕ) be the truth value of ϕ as being given by (i) the standard model of arithmetic, (ii) with Φ as the extension of Tr (mod coding). Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
15 We consider an example: Let L be the language of first-order arithmetic, L Tr = L + Tr be our object language. L Tr extended by the language of set theory (and fragments of English) is our metalanguage. For ϕ L Tr, let Val Φ (ϕ) be the truth value of ϕ as being given by (i) the standard model of arithmetic, (ii) with Φ as the extension of Tr (mod coding). Now we can define (for ϕ L Tr, Φ L Tr ): Definition ϕ depends on Φ iff for all Ψ 1, Ψ 2 L Tr : if Val Ψ1 (ϕ) Val Ψ2 (ϕ) then Ψ 1 Φ Ψ 2 Φ. This is semantic supervenience: no difference concerning the truth value of ϕ without a corresponding difference concerning the presence/absence of members of Φ in/from the extension of Tr. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
16 We consider an example: Let L be the language of first-order arithmetic, L Tr = L + Tr be our object language. L Tr extended by the language of set theory (and fragments of English) is our metalanguage. For ϕ L Tr, let Val Φ (ϕ) be the truth value of ϕ as being given by (i) the standard model of arithmetic, (ii) with Φ as the extension of Tr (mod coding). Now we can define (for ϕ L Tr, Φ L Tr ): Definition ϕ depends on Φ iff for all Ψ 1, Ψ 2 L Tr : if Val Ψ1 (ϕ) Val Ψ2 (ϕ) then Ψ 1 Φ Ψ 2 Φ. This is semantic supervenience: no difference concerning the truth value of ϕ without a corresponding difference concerning the presence/absence of members of Φ in/from the extension of Tr. Equivalently: for all Ψ L Tr : Val Ψ (ϕ) = Val Ψ Φ (ϕ) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
17 Example 1 For ϕ L: ϕ depends on. 2 Tr( ϕ ), Tr( ϕ ) depend on {ϕ}. 3 The liar sentence λ depends on {λ} (but λ λ, λ λ depend on ). 4 (Tr( α ) Tr( β )) ( Tr( α ) Tr( γ )) depends on {α,β,γ}. 5 For P in L: x(p(x) Tr(x)), x(p(x) Tr(x)) depend on the extension of P. 6 x(tr(x) Tr(. x)) depends on L Tr. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
18 Fix the left-hand side of dependency, and this will yield a filter: Lemma For all ϕ L Tr, for all Φ, Ψ L Tr : If ϕ depends on Φ, Φ Ψ, then ϕ depends on Ψ. If ϕ depends on Φ, ϕ depends on Ψ, then ϕ depends on Φ Ψ. ϕ depends on L Tr. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
19 Fix the right-hand side of dependency, and this will yield (something like) an algebra: Lemma D 1 (Φ) := {ϕ L Tr ϕ depends on Φ} is closed under sentential operations, substitutional quantification, logical equivalence. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
20 Fix the right-hand side of dependency, and this will yield (something like) an algebra: Lemma D 1 (Φ) := {ϕ L Tr ϕ depends on Φ} is closed under sentential operations, substitutional quantification, logical equivalence. Furthermore, one can iterate D 1 : Lemma For all Φ, Ψ L Tr : if Φ Ψ, then D 1 (Φ) D 1 (Ψ). There is a least fixed point Φ lf of D 1. For all ϕ L Tr : ϕ Φ lf iff ϕ depends on Φ lf ϕ Φ lf iff Tr( ϕ ) Φ lf. L Φ lf L Tr, and Φ lf satisfies the closure conditions from above. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
21 Definition For ϕ L Tr : ϕ depends directly on non-semantic soa s iff ϕ depends on L. [Groundedness:] ϕ depends (directly or indirectly) on non-semantic soa s iff ϕ Φ lf. ϕ is ungrounded iff ϕ does not depend on non-semantic soa s. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
22 Definition For ϕ L Tr : ϕ depends directly on non-semantic soa s iff ϕ depends on L. [Groundedness:] ϕ depends (directly or indirectly) on non-semantic soa s iff ϕ Φ lf. ϕ is ungrounded iff ϕ does not depend on non-semantic soa s. But dependency gives us more than just groundedness: Definition ϕ is selfreferential iff for all Φ L Tr : if ϕ depends on Φ, then ϕ Φ. (cf. Leitgeb 2002) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
23 Lemma ϕ depends on non-semantic soa s iff Tr( ϕ ) depends on non-semantic soa s. If ϕ is selfreferential, then ϕ is ungrounded. There are sentences ϕ for which there is no least set Φ on which they depend. (From this point of view, Herzberger s criterion of ungroundedness is sufficient, but not necessary.) Tr( = 4 ) depends directly on non-semantic soa s. Tr( Tr( = 4 ) ) depends on non-semantic soa s. λ and x(tr(x) Tr(. x)) are self-referential. The members of Yablo s sequence are ungrounded but not self-referential (cf. Yablo 1993, Schlenker 2007; search also m-phi.blogspot.com) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
24 Finally, truth: Theorem There is a set Γ lf, such that for all ϕ Φ lf : ϕ Γ lf iff Val Γlf (ϕ) = 1. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
25 Finally, truth: Theorem There is a set Γ lf, such that for all ϕ Φ lf : ϕ Γ lf iff Val Γlf (ϕ) = 1. So if we finally define for ϕ L Tr, Definition ϕ is true (in-l Tr ) iff ϕ Γ lf. then this definition is formally correct and entails all T-biconditionals for Φ lf. Contra Field (2008): Do we really want more than just the grounded instances of the T-scheme? Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
26 Finally, truth: Theorem There is a set Γ lf, such that for all ϕ Φ lf : ϕ Γ lf iff Val Γlf (ϕ) = 1. So if we finally define for ϕ L Tr, Definition ϕ is true (in-l Tr ) iff ϕ Γ lf. then this definition is formally correct and entails all T-biconditionals for Φ lf. Contra Field (2008): Do we really want more than just the grounded instances of the T-scheme? Note that there is no arithmetical formula whose extension would be Φ lf, and more generally there is no sentence in L Tr for which Φ lf would be the least set on which it depends. (Herzberger s Paradoxes of Grounding!) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
27 Beyond Semantic Groundedness Groundedness and dependence are studied also in other contexts: Generalized dependency: Leitgeb (2005), Van Vugt and Bonnay (unpublished), Meadows (under review). Grounded truth and games: Welch (2009). Groundedness and abstraction / individuation: Linnebo (2008, 2009), Horsten & Leitgeb (2009), Horsten (2010), Leitgeb (forthcoming). Groundedness for modal predicates: Leitgeb (2008), Fischer (forthcoming project). Groundedness and truthmakers: Liggins (2008), Scharp (under review) Grounding and the in-virtue-of relation: Fine (2010, forthcoming), Rosen (forthcoming). Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
28 An Afterthought: Semantic vs. Set-Theoretic Groundedness Philip Welch and I are working on a paper in which we build an axiomatic theory of propositional functions ( sets), with a primitive relation of aboutness ( inverse ) that determines what a propositional function quantifies over ( members) such that two propositional functions are equal iff (i) they have the same conceptual structure and (ii) they are about the same objects ( Extensionality; cf. Barwise & Etchemendy 1987) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
29 An Afterthought: Semantic vs. Set-Theoretic Groundedness Philip Welch and I are working on a paper in which we build an axiomatic theory of propositional functions ( sets), with a primitive relation of aboutness ( inverse ) that determines what a propositional function quantifies over ( members) such that two propositional functions are equal iff (i) they have the same conceptual structure and (ii) they are about the same objects ( Extensionality; cf. Barwise & Etchemendy 1987) and finally we will inductively define satisfaction and truth for propositional functions in a quasi-tarskian manner. Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
30 An Afterthought: Semantic vs. Set-Theoretic Groundedness Philip Welch and I are working on a paper in which we build an axiomatic theory of propositional functions ( sets), with a primitive relation of aboutness ( inverse ) that determines what a propositional function quantifies over ( members) such that two propositional functions are equal iff (i) they have the same conceptual structure and (ii) they are about the same objects ( Extensionality; cf. Barwise & Etchemendy 1987) and finally we will inductively define satisfaction and truth for propositional functions in a quasi-tarskian manner. every propositional function has a certain range of significance, within which lie the arguments for which the function has values. Within this range of arguments, the function is true or false; outside this range, it is nonsense. (Russell 1908) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
31 !"# $"%# " "#$%&!! Our universe PF of propositional functions, including propositions, will thus be subject to an iterative conception (cf. Incurvati 2011). Groundedness in set theory and semantics coming together? (cf. Terzian 2008) Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
32 Bibliography: Barwise, J. and J. Etchemendy (1987): The Liar, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, H. (2008): Saving Truth from Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fine, K. (2010): Some puzzles of ground, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51, Fine, K. (forthcoming): The pure logic of ground, Review of Symbolic Logic. Gaifman, H. (1992): Pointers to truth, The Journal of Philosophy 89, Herzberger, H. (1970): Paradoxes of grounding in semantics, Journal of Philosophy 67, Horsten, L. (2010): Impredicative identity criteria, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80, Horsten, L. and H. Leitgeb (2009): How abstraction works, in: A. Hieke and H. Leitgeb (eds.), Reduction, Abstraction, Analysis, Frankfurt: Ontos Press, Incurvati, L. (2011): How to be a minimalist about sets, forthcoming in Philosophical Studies. Kremer, M. (1988): Kripke and the logic of truth, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, Kripke, S.A. (1975): Outline of a theory of truth, Journal of Philosophy 72, Leitgeb, H. (2002): What is a self-referential sentence? Critical remarks on the alleged (non-)circularity of Yablo s paradox, Logique et Analyse , Leitgeb, H. (2005): What truth depends on, Journal of Philosophical Logic 34, Leitgeb, H., (2008): Towards a logic of type-free modality and truth, in: C. Dimitracopoulos et al. (eds.), Logic Colloquium 05, Lecture Notes in Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Leitgeb, H. (2011): Abstraction grounded. A note on abstraction and truth, to appear in: P. Ebert and M. Rossberg (eds.), Abstractionism in Mathematics: Status Belli. Liggins, D. (2008): Truthmakers and the groundedness of truth, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108, Linnebo, Ø. (2008): Structuralism and the notion of dependence, The Philosophical Quarterly 58, Linnebo, Ø. (2009): Bad company tamed, Synthese 170, Meadows, T. (under review): Truth, dependence and supervaluation: living with the ghost. Rosen, G. (forthcoming): Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. Russel, B. (1908): Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types, Amer. J. of Mathematics 30, Scharp, K. (under review): Truthmakers for truths about truth: A problem. Schlenker, P. (2007): The elimination of self-reference (generalized Yablo-eries and the theory of truth, Journal of Philosophical Logic 36, Terzian, G. (2008): Structure of the Paradoxes, Structure of the Theories: A Logical Comparison of Set Theory and Semantics, in: A. Hieke and H. Leitgeb (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Wittgenstein Symposium, Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, Van Vugt, F.T. and D. Bonnay (2009): What makes a sentence be about the world? Towards a unified account of groundedness, unpublished manuscript. Welch, P. (2009): Games for truth, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 15, Yablo, S. (1982): Grounding, dependence, and paradox, Journal of Philosophical Logic 11, Yablo, S. (1993): Paradox without self-reference, Analysis 53, Hannes Leitgeb (LMU Munich) Semantic Groundedness August / 20
This 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 informationRemarks on Non-Fregean Logic
STUDIES IN LOGIC, GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC 10 (23) 2007 Remarks on Non-Fregean Logic Mieczys law Omy la Institute of Philosophy University of Warsaw Poland m.omyla@uw.edu.pl 1 Introduction In 1966 famous Polish
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 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 informationThe inexpressibility of validity
The inexpressibility of validity JULIEN MURZI 5 Tarski s Undefinability of Truth Theorem comes in two versions: that no consistent theory which interprets Robinson s Arithmetic (Q) can prove all instances
More informationMathematical Induction
Mathematical Induction In logic, we often want to prove that every member of an infinite set has some feature. E.g., we would like to show: N 1 : is a number 1 : has the feature Φ ( x)(n 1 x! 1 x) How
More informationDiscrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 2
CS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 2 Proofs Intuitively, the concept of proof should already be familiar We all like to assert things, and few of us
More informationHow To Prove The Cellosauric Cardinal Compactness (For A Cardinal Cardinal Compact)
Cellular objects and Shelah s singular compactness theorem Logic Colloquium 2015 Helsinki Tibor Beke 1 Jiří Rosický 2 1 University of Massachusetts tibor beke@uml.edu 2 Masaryk University Brno rosicky@math.muni.cz
More informationCHAPTER 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 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 informationThings That Might Not Have Been Michael Nelson University of California at Riverside mnelson@ucr.edu
Things That Might Not Have Been Michael Nelson University of California at Riverside mnelson@ucr.edu Quantified Modal Logic (QML), to echo Arthur Prior, is haunted by the myth of necessary existence. Features
More informationWe would like to state the following system of natural deduction rules preserving falsity:
A Natural Deduction System Preserving Falsity 1 Wagner de Campos Sanz Dept. of Philosophy/UFG/Brazil sanz@fchf.ufg.br Abstract This paper presents a natural deduction system preserving falsity. This new
More informationTruth as Modality. Amsterdam Workshop on Truth 13 March 2013 truth be told again. Theodora Achourioti. ILLC University of Amsterdam
Truth as Modality Amsterdam Workshop on Truth 13 March 2013 truth be told again Theodora Achourioti ILLC University of Amsterdam Philosophical preliminaries i The philosophical idea: There is more to truth
More informationFixed-Point Logics and Computation
1 Fixed-Point 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 informationThe History of Logic. Aristotle (384 322 BC) invented logic.
The History of Logic Aristotle (384 322 BC) invented logic. Predecessors: Fred Flintstone, geometry, sophists, pre-socratic philosophers, Socrates & Plato. Syllogistic logic, laws of non-contradiction
More informationFACTORING POLYNOMIALS IN THE RING OF FORMAL POWER SERIES OVER Z
FACTORING POLYNOMIALS IN THE RING OF FORMAL POWER SERIES OVER Z DANIEL BIRMAJER, JUAN B GIL, AND MICHAEL WEINER Abstract We consider polynomials with integer coefficients and discuss their factorization
More informationCorrespondence analysis for strong three-valued logic
Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic A. Tamminga abstract. I apply Kooi and Tamminga s (2012) idea of correspondence analysis for many-valued logics to strong three-valued logic (K 3 ).
More informationPredicate Logic Review
Predicate Logic Review UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Grammar A term is an individual constant or a variable. An individual constant is a lowercase letter from the beginning
More informationCONCEPTUAL CONTINGENCY AND ABSTRACT EXISTENCE
87 CONCEPTUAL CONTINGENCY AND ABSTRACT EXISTENCE BY MARK COLYVAN Mathematical statements such as There are infinitely many prime numbers and 2 ℵ 0 > ℵ 0 are usually thought to be necessarily true. Not
More informationThe Double Lives of Objects: An Essay in the Metaphysics of the Ordinary World
252 The Double Lives of Objects: An Essay in the Metaphysics of the Ordinary World, by Thomas Sattig. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, 288 pages, ISBN 9780199683017 (hbk). In The Double Lives of
More information7. Some irreducible polynomials
7. Some irreducible polynomials 7.1 Irreducibles over a finite field 7.2 Worked examples Linear factors x α of a polynomial P (x) with coefficients in a field k correspond precisely to roots α k [1] of
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 informationThe Refutation of Relativism
The Refutation of Relativism There are many different versions of relativism: ethical relativism conceptual relativism, and epistemic relativism are three. In this paper, I will be concerned with only
More informationLecture 13 of 41. More Propositional and Predicate Logic
Lecture 13 of 41 More Propositional and Predicate Logic Monday, 20 September 2004 William H. Hsu, KSU http://www.kddresearch.org http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~bhsu Reading: Sections 8.1-8.3, Russell and Norvig
More informationEquality and dependent type theory. Oberwolfach, March 2 (with some later corrections)
Oberwolfach, March 2 (with some later corrections) The Axiom of Univalence, a type-theoretic view point In type theory, we reduce proof-checking to type-checking Hence we want type-checking to be decidable
More informationQuine on truth by convention
Quine on truth by convention March 8, 2005 1 Linguistic explanations of necessity and the a priori.............. 1 2 Relative and absolute truth by definition.................... 2 3 Is logic true by convention?...........................
More informationstefanwintein-at-gmail-dot-com Adress: Personalia 6-6-1979, Middelburg, Netherlands.
Stefan Wintein Curriculum vitae Contact Information Mobile: +31641470624 E-mail: stefanwintein-at-gmail-dot-com Adress: van Enckevoirtlaan 87, 3052KR, Rotterdam. Webpage: stefanwintein.webklik.nl Personalia
More informationSanford Shieh UNDECIDABILITY, EPISTEMOLOGY AND ANTI-REALIST INTUITIONISM
Sanford Shieh UNDECIDABILITY, EPISTEMOLOGY AND ANTI-REALIST INTUITIONISM In this paper I show that Michael Dummett s anti-realist intuitionism requires a significant place for epistemic principles. Specifically,
More informationJaakko Hintikka Boston University. and. Ilpo Halonen University of Helsinki INTERPOLATION AS EXPLANATION
Jaakko Hintikka Boston University and Ilpo Halonen University of Helsinki INTERPOLATION AS EXPLANATION INTERPOLATION AS EXPLANATION In the study of explanation, one can distinguish two main trends. On
More informationINCIDENCE-BETWEENNESS GEOMETRY
INCIDENCE-BETWEENNESS GEOMETRY MATH 410, CSUSM. SPRING 2008. PROFESSOR AITKEN This document covers the geometry that can be developed with just the axioms related to incidence and betweenness. The full
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 information2. The Language of First-order Logic
2. The Language of First-order 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 informationv w is orthogonal to both v and w. the three vectors v, w and v w form a right-handed set of vectors.
3. Cross product Definition 3.1. Let v and w be two vectors in R 3. The cross product of v and w, denoted v w, is the vector defined as follows: the length of v w is the area of the parallelogram with
More informationMathematical Induction
Mathematical Induction (Handout March 8, 01) The Principle of Mathematical Induction provides a means to prove infinitely many statements all at once The principle is logical rather than strictly mathematical,
More informationBasic Set Theory. 1. Motivation. Fido Sue. Fred Aristotle Bob. LX 502 - Semantics I September 11, 2008
Basic Set Theory LX 502 - Semantics I September 11, 2008 1. Motivation When you start reading these notes, the first thing you should be asking yourselves is What is Set Theory and why is it relevant?
More informationA simple criterion on degree sequences of graphs
Discrete Applied Mathematics 156 (2008) 3513 3517 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Discrete Applied Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dam Note A simple criterion on degree
More informationAutomated Theorem Proving - summary of lecture 1
Automated Theorem Proving - summary of lecture 1 1 Introduction Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) deals with the development of computer programs that show that some statement is a logical consequence of
More informationLogic in general. Inference rules and theorem proving
Logical Agents Knowledge-based agents Logic in general Propositional logic Inference rules and theorem proving First order logic Knowledge-based agents Inference engine Knowledge base Domain-independent
More informationParametric Domain-theoretic models of Linear Abadi & Plotkin Logic
Parametric Domain-theoretic models of Linear Abadi & Plotkin Logic Lars Birkedal Rasmus Ejlers Møgelberg Rasmus Lerchedahl Petersen IT University Technical Report Series TR-00-7 ISSN 600 600 February 00
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 first-order logic will use the following symbols: variables connectives (,,,,
More informationP NP for the Reals with various Analytic Functions
P NP for the Reals with various Analytic Functions Mihai Prunescu Abstract We show that non-deterministic machines in the sense of [BSS] defined over wide classes of real analytic structures are more powerful
More informationα α λ α = = λ λ α ψ = = α α α λ λ ψ α = + β = > θ θ β > β β θ θ θ β θ β γ θ β = γ θ > β > γ θ β γ = θ β = θ β = θ β = β θ = β β θ = = = β β θ = + α α α α α = = λ λ λ λ λ λ λ = λ λ α α α α λ ψ + α =
More informationLinear Algebra. A vector space (over R) is an ordered quadruple. such that V is a set; 0 V ; and the following eight axioms hold:
Linear Algebra A vector space (over R) is an ordered quadruple (V, 0, α, µ) such that V is a set; 0 V ; and the following eight axioms hold: α : V V V and µ : R V V ; (i) α(α(u, v), w) = α(u, α(v, w)),
More informationBuridan and the Avicenna-Johnston semantics
1 2 Buridan and the Avicenna-Johnston semantics Wilfrid Hodges Medieval Philosophy Network Warburg Institute, 1 April 2016 wilfridhodges.co.uk/history24.pdf Avicenna, c. 980 1037 3 4 Fak r al-dīn Rāzī
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 information1/9. Locke 1: Critique of Innate Ideas
1/9 Locke 1: Critique of Innate Ideas This week we are going to begin looking at a new area by turning our attention to the work of John Locke, who is probably the most famous English philosopher of all
More information8 Divisibility and prime numbers
8 Divisibility and prime numbers 8.1 Divisibility In this short section we extend the concept of a multiple from the natural numbers to the integers. We also summarize several other terms that express
More informationF. ABTAHI and M. ZARRIN. (Communicated by J. Goldstein)
Journal of Algerian Mathematical Society Vol. 1, pp. 1 6 1 CONCERNING THE l p -CONJECTURE FOR DISCRETE SEMIGROUPS F. ABTAHI and M. ZARRIN (Communicated by J. Goldstein) Abstract. For 2 < p
More informationThe Fruits of Logicism
The Fruits of Logicism Timothy Bays 1. Introduction. You ll be pleased to know that I don t intend to use these remarks to comment on all of the papers presented at this conference. I won t try to show
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 informationSoftware Modeling and Verification
Software Modeling and Verification Alessandro Aldini DiSBeF - Sezione STI University of Urbino Carlo Bo Italy 3-4 February 2015 Algorithmic verification Correctness problem Is the software/hardware system
More informationBi-approximation Semantics for Substructural Logic at Work
Bi-approximation Semantics for Substructural Logic at Work Tomoyuki Suzuki Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom tomoyuki.suzuki@mcs.le.ac.uk Abstract
More informationJingde Cheng Department of Information and Computer Sciences, Saitama University, Japan cheng@ics.saitama-u.ac.jp. Abstract. 2.
Normativeness, Relevance, and Temporality in Specifying and Reasoning about Information Security and Assurance: Can We have a Formal Logic System as a Unified Logical Basis? (Position Paper) Jingde Cheng
More informationGödel s correspondence on proof theory and constructive mathematics
Gödel s correspondence on proof theory and constructive mathematics W. W. Tait The volumes of Gödel s collected papers under review consist almost entirely of a rich selection of his philosophical/scientific
More informationInvalidity in Predicate Logic
Invalidity in Predicate Logic So far we ve got a method for establishing that a predicate logic argument is valid: do a derivation. But we ve got no method for establishing invalidity. In propositional
More informationNon-Archimedean Probability and Conditional Probability; ManyVal2013 Prague 2013. F.Montagna, University of Siena
Non-Archimedean Probability and Conditional Probability; ManyVal2013 Prague 2013 F.Montagna, University of Siena 1. De Finetti s approach to probability. De Finetti s definition of probability is in terms
More informationRegular Languages and Finite Automata
Regular Languages and Finite Automata 1 Introduction Hing Leung Department of Computer Science New Mexico State University Sep 16, 2010 In 1943, McCulloch and Pitts [4] published a pioneering work on a
More informationTHE DIMENSION OF A VECTOR SPACE
THE DIMENSION OF A VECTOR SPACE KEITH CONRAD This handout is a supplementary discussion leading up to the definition of dimension and some of its basic properties. Let V be a vector space over a field
More informationArtificial Intelligence in Knowledge-based Technologies and Systems
Computer Science and Information Technology 4(1): 27-32, 2016 DOI: 10.13189/csit.2016.040105 http://www.hrpub.org Artificial Intelligence in Knowledge-based Technologies and Systems Viktor Krasnoproshin
More informationNotes on Determinant
ENGG2012B Advanced Engineering Mathematics Notes on Determinant Lecturer: Kenneth Shum Lecture 9-18/02/2013 The determinant of a system of linear equations determines whether the solution is unique, without
More informationIterated Dynamic Belief Revision. Sonja Smets, University of Groningen. website: http://www.vub.ac.be/clwf/ss
LSE-Groningen Workshop I 1 Iterated Dynamic Belief Revision Sonja Smets, University of Groningen website: http://www.vub.ac.be/clwf/ss Joint work with Alexandru Baltag, COMLAB, Oxford University LSE-Groningen
More informationMATH 590: Meshfree Methods
MATH 590: Meshfree Methods Chapter 7: Conditionally Positive Definite Functions Greg Fasshauer Department of Applied Mathematics Illinois Institute of Technology Fall 2010 fasshauer@iit.edu MATH 590 Chapter
More informationCould I Have Been a Turnip? A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Modality
Could I Have Been a Turnip? A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Modality Modality If something is possible, it could have happened. If something is necessary, it had to happen. If something
More informationStudent Learning Outcome - The 15 Best Based Performance Criteria
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Department of Philosophy Philosophy M.A. August 16, 2014 David J. Buller, Chair Status Report 1 1. INTRODUCTION The Philosophy M.A. assessment plan submitted along with
More informationA Framework for the Semantics of Behavioral Contracts
A Framework for the Semantics of Behavioral Contracts Ashley McNeile Metamaxim Ltd, 48 Brunswick Gardens, London W8 4AN, UK ashley.mcneile@metamaxim.com Abstract. Contracts have proved a powerful concept
More information[Refer Slide Time: 05:10]
Principles of Programming Languages Prof: S. Arun Kumar Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Lecture no 7 Lecture Title: Syntactic Classes Welcome to lecture
More informationGuide to Ground. A number of philosophers have recently become receptive to the idea that, in addition to
1 Guide to Ground A number of philosophers have recently become receptive to the idea that, in addition to scientific or causal explanation, there may be a distinctive kind of metaphysical explanation,
More informationIntroduction to formal semantics -
Introduction to formal semantics - Introduction to formal semantics 1 / 25 structure Motivation - Philosophy paradox antinomy division in object und Meta language Semiotics syntax semantics Pragmatics
More informationLecture 17 : Equivalence and Order Relations DRAFT
CS/Math 240: Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 3/31/2011 Lecture 17 : Equivalence and Order Relations Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dalibor Zelený DRAFT Last lecture we introduced the notion
More informationTHE CONCEPT OF A SET
THE CONCEPT OF A SET NIK WEAVER Abstract. Metaphysical interpretations of set theory are either inconsistent or incoherent. The uses of sets in mathematics actually involve three distinct kinds of collections
More informationMATH10212 Linear Algebra. Systems of Linear Equations. Definition. An n-dimensional vector is a row or a column of n numbers (or letters): a 1.
MATH10212 Linear Algebra Textbook: D. Poole, Linear Algebra: A Modern Introduction. Thompson, 2006. ISBN 0-534-40596-7. Systems of Linear Equations Definition. An n-dimensional vector is a row or a column
More informationMechanics 1: Vectors
Mechanics 1: Vectors roadly speaking, mechanical systems will be described by a combination of scalar and vector quantities. scalar is just a (real) number. For example, mass or weight is characterized
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 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 informationEquations, Inequalities & Partial Fractions
Contents Equations, Inequalities & Partial Fractions.1 Solving Linear Equations 2.2 Solving Quadratic Equations 1. Solving Polynomial Equations 1.4 Solving Simultaneous Linear Equations 42.5 Solving Inequalities
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 informationBiinterpretability up to double jump in the degrees
Biinterpretability up to double jump in the degrees below 0 0 Richard A. Shore Department of Mathematics Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 July 29, 2013 Abstract We prove that, for every z 0 0 with z
More informationDegrees of Truth: the formal logic of classical and quantum probabilities as well as fuzzy sets.
Degrees of Truth: the formal logic of classical and quantum probabilities as well as fuzzy sets. Logic is the study of reasoning. A language of propositions is fundamental to this study as well as true
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 information11 Ideals. 11.1 Revisiting Z
11 Ideals The presentation here is somewhat different than the text. In particular, the sections do not match up. We have seen issues with the failure of unique factorization already, e.g., Z[ 5] = O Q(
More informationor conventional implicature [1]. If the implication is only pragmatic, explicating logical truth, and, thus, also consequence and inconsistency.
44 ANALYSIS explicating logical truth, and, thus, also consequence and inconsistency. Let C1 and C2 be distinct moral codes formulated in English. Let C1 contain a norm N and C2 its negation. The moral
More informationo-minimality and Uniformity in n 1 Graphs
o-minimality 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 informationUniversity of Ostrava. Reasoning in Description Logic with Semantic Tableau Binary Trees
University of Ostrava Institute for Research and Applications of Fuzzy Modeling Reasoning in Description Logic with Semantic Tableau Binary Trees Alena Lukasová Research report No. 63 2005 Submitted/to
More informationAnswer Key for California State Standards: Algebra I
Algebra I: Symbolic reasoning and calculations with symbols are central in algebra. Through the study of algebra, a student develops an understanding of the symbolic language of mathematics and the sciences.
More informationCHAPTER II THE LIMIT OF A SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS DEFINITION OF THE NUMBER e.
CHAPTER II THE LIMIT OF A SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS DEFINITION OF THE NUMBER e. This chapter contains the beginnings of the most important, and probably the most subtle, notion in mathematical analysis, i.e.,
More informationThe Foundations of Mathematics
The Foundations of Mathematics c 2005,2006,2007 Kenneth Kunen Kenneth Kunen October 29, 2007 Contents 0 Introduction 3 0.1 Prerequisites.................................. 3 0.2 Logical Notation...............................
More informationFRAGMENTABILITY, A FOUNDATIONAL SYSTEMS CONCEPT
FRAGMENTABILITY, A FOUNDATIONAL SYSTEMS CONCEPT LARS LÖFGREN University of Lund Printed in: Cybernetics and Systems 2000, edited by Robert Trappl, Austrian Society of Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, Vol. 1,
More informationHow To Understand The Theory Of Hyperreals
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 informationFrom Logic to Montague Grammar: Some Formal and Conceptual Foundations of Semantic Theory
From Logic to Montague Grammar: Some Formal and Conceptual Foundations of Semantic Theory Syllabus Linguistics 720 Tuesday, Thursday 2:30 3:45 Room: Dickinson 110 Course Instructor: Seth Cable Course Mentor:
More informationVagueness, Uncertainty and Degrees of Clarity
Vagueness, Uncertainty and Degrees of Clarity Paul Égré Denis Bonnay Abstract The focus of the paper is on the logic of clarity and the problem of higherorder vagueness. We first examine the consequences
More informationPRIME FACTORS OF CONSECUTIVE INTEGERS
PRIME FACTORS OF CONSECUTIVE INTEGERS MARK BAUER AND MICHAEL A. BENNETT Abstract. This note contains a new algorithm for computing a function f(k) introduced by Erdős to measure the minimal gap size in
More informationLikewise, we have contradictions: formulas that can only be false, e.g. (p p).
CHAPTER 4. STATEMENT LOGIC 59 The rightmost column of this truth table contains instances of T and instances of F. Notice that there are no degrees of contingency. If both values are possible, the formula
More informationQuotes from Object-Oriented Software Construction
Quotes from Object-Oriented Software Construction Bertrand Meyer Prentice-Hall, 1988 Preface, p. xiv We study the object-oriented approach as a set of principles, methods and tools which can be instrumental
More informationTeaching Formal Methods for Computational Linguistics at Uppsala University
Teaching Formal Methods for Computational Linguistics at Uppsala University Roussanka Loukanova Computational Linguistics Dept. of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University P.O. Box 635, 751 26 Uppsala,
More informationCONTENTS 1. Peter Kahn. Spring 2007
CONTENTS 1 MATH 304: CONSTRUCTING THE REAL NUMBERS Peter Kahn Spring 2007 Contents 2 The Integers 1 2.1 The basic construction.......................... 1 2.2 Adding integers..............................
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 informationFREGE S PARADISE AND THE PARADOXES. Sten Lindström Umeå university, Sweden Sten.Lindstrom@philos.umu.se
Preliminary version, 03-04-19. All comments are welcome! FREGE S PARADISE AND THE PARADOXES Sten Lindström Umeå university, Sweden Sten.Lindstrom@philos.umu.se Abstract The main objective of this paper
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 94720-3840, USA slaman@math.berkeley.edu Abstract
More informationIntroduction to Logic: Argumentation and Interpretation. Vysoká škola mezinárodních a veřejných vztahů PhDr. Peter Jan Kosmály, Ph.D. 9. 3.
Introduction to Logic: Argumentation and Interpretation Vysoká škola mezinárodních a veřejných vztahů PhDr. Peter Jan Kosmály, Ph.D. 9. 3. 2016 tests. Introduction to Logic: Argumentation and Interpretation
More informationA first step towards modeling semistructured data in hybrid multimodal logic
A first step towards modeling semistructured data in hybrid multimodal logic Nicole Bidoit * Serenella Cerrito ** Virginie Thion * * LRI UMR CNRS 8623, Université Paris 11, Centre d Orsay. ** LaMI UMR
More information