Towards an adequate definition of distribution for first-order logic

1995 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-192
Author(s):  
Joel I. Friedman
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 1311-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri T Hella ◽  
Miikka S Vilander

Abstract We propose a new version of formula size game for modal logic. The game characterizes the equivalence of pointed Kripke models up to formulas of given numbers of modal operators and binary connectives. Our game is similar to the well-known Adler–Immerman game. However, due to a crucial difference in the definition of positions of the game, its winning condition is simpler, and the second player does not have a trivial optimal strategy. Thus, unlike the Adler–Immerman game, our game is a genuine two-person game. We illustrate the use of the game by proving a non-elementary succinctness gap between bisimulation invariant first-order logic $\textrm{FO}$ and (basic) modal logic $\textrm{ML}$. We also present a version of the game for the modal $\mu $-calculus $\textrm{L}_\mu $ and show that $\textrm{FO}$ is also non-elementarily more succinct than $\textrm{L}_\mu $.


Author(s):  
Rohit Parikh

Church’s theorem, published in 1936, states that the set of valid formulas of first-order logic is not effectively decidable: there is no method or algorithm for deciding which formulas of first-order logic are valid. Church’s paper exhibited an undecidable combinatorial problem P and showed that P was representable in first-order logic. If first-order logic were decidable, P would also be decidable. Since P is undecidable, first-order logic must also be undecidable. Church’s theorem is a negative solution to the decision problem (Entscheidungsproblem), the problem of finding a method for deciding whether a given formula of first-order logic is valid, or satisfiable, or neither. The great contribution of Church (and, independently, Turing) was not merely to prove that there is no method but also to propose a mathematical definition of the notion of ‘effectively solvable problem’, that is, a problem solvable by means of a method or algorithm.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-15
Author(s):  
V. V. Tselishchev

The application of game-theoretic semantics for first-order logic is based on a certain kind of semantic assumptions, directly related to the asymmetry of the definition of truth and lies as the winning strategies of the Verifier (Abelard) and the Counterfeiter (Eloise). This asymmetry becomes apparent when applying GTS to IFL. The legitimacy of applying GTS when it is transferred to IFL is based on the adequacy of GTS for FOL. But this circumstance is not a reason to believe that one can hope for the same adequacy in the case of IFL. Then the question arises if GTS is a natural semantics for IFL. Apparently, the intuitive understanding of negation in natural language can be explicated in formal languages in various ways, and the result of an incomplete grasp of the concept in these languages can be considered a certain kind of anomalies, in view of the apparent simplicity of the explicated concept. Comparison of the theoretical-model and game theoretic semantics in application to two kinds of language – the first-order language and friendly-independent logic – allows to discover the causes of the anomaly and outline ways to overcome it.


Author(s):  
Zeno Swijtink

Beth’s theorem is a central result about definability of non-logical symbols in classical first-order theories. It states that a symbol P is implicitly defined by a theory T if and only if an explicit definition of P in terms of some other expressions of the theory T can be deduced from the theory T. Intuitively, the symbol P is implicitly defined by T if, given the extension of these other symbols, T fixes the extension of the symbol P uniquely. In a precise statement of Beth’s theorem this will be replaced by a condition on the models of T. An explicit definition of a predicate symbol states necessary and sufficient conditions: for example, if P is a one-place predicate symbol, an explicit definition is a sentence of the form (x) (Px ≡φ(x)), where φ(x) is a formula with free variable x in which P does not occur. Thus, Beth’s theorem says something about the expressive power of first-order logic: there is a balance between the syntax (the deducibility of an explicit definition) and the semantics (across models of T the extension of P is uniquely determined by the extension of other symbols). Beth’s definability theorem follows immediately from Craig’s interpolation theorem. For first-order logic with identity, Craig’s theorem says that if φ is deducible from ψ, there is an interpolant θ, a sentence whose non-logical symbols are common to φ and ψ, such that θ is deducible from ψ, while φ is deducible from θ. Craig’s theorem and Beth’s theorem also hold for a number of non-classical logics, such as intuitionistic first-order logic and classical second-order logic, but fail for other logics, such as logics with expressions of infinite length.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. ACHOURIOTI ◽  
M. VAN LAMBALGEN

Although Kant (1998) envisaged a prominent role for logic in the argumentative structure of his Critique of Pure Reason, logicians and philosophers have generally judged Kant’s logic negatively. What Kant called ‘general’ or ‘formal’ logic has been dismissed as a fairly arbitrary subsystem of first-order logic, and what he called ‘transcendental logic’ is considered to be not a logic at all: no syntax, no semantics, no definition of validity. Against this, we argue that Kant’s ‘transcendental logic’ is a logic in the strict formal sense, albeit with a semantics and a definition of validity that are vastly more complex than that of first-order logic. The main technical application of the formalism developed here is a formal proof that Kant’s Table of Judgements in Section 9 of the Critique of Pure Reason, is indeed, as Kant claimed, complete for the kind of semantics he had in mind. This result implies that Kant’s ‘general’ logic is after all a distinguished subsystem of first-order logic, namely what is known as geometric logic.


2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Bos

The syntax of abstract meaning representations (AMRs) can be defined recursively, and a systematic translation to first-order logic (FOL) can be specified, including a proper treatment of negation. AMRs without recurrent variables are in the decidable two-variable fragment of FOL. The current definition of AMRs has limited expressive power for universal quantification (up to one universal quantifier per sentence). A simple extension of the AMR syntax and translation to FOL provides the means to represent projection and scope phenomena.


10.29007/m8ts ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Rudolph ◽  
Mantas Simkus

Past research into decidable fragments of first-order logic (FO) has produced two very prominent fragments: the guarded fragment GF, and the two-variable fragment FO2. These fragments are of crucial importance because they provide significant insights into decidabil- ity and expressiveness of other (computational) logics like Modal Logics (MLs) and various Description Logics (DLs), which play a central role in Verification, Knowledge Represen- tation, and other areas. In this paper, we take a closer look at GF and FO2, and present a new fragment that subsumes them both. This fragment, called the triguarded fragment (denoted TGF), is obtained by relaxing the standard definition of GF: quantification is required to be guarded only for subformulae with three or more free variables. We show that, in the absence of equality, satisfiability in TGF is N2ExpTime-complete, but becomes NExpTime-complete if we bound the arity of predicates by a constant (a natural assumption in the context of MLs and DLs). Finally, we observe that many natural extensions of TGF, including the addition of equality, lead to undecidability.


1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-188
Author(s):  
Lars Svenonius

By an elementary condition in the variablesx1, …, xn, we mean a conjunction of the form x1 ≤ i < j ≤ naij where each aij is one of the formulas xi = xj or xi ≠ xj. (We should add that the formula x1 = x1 should be regarded as an elementary condition in the one variable x1.)Clearly, according to this definition, some elementary conditions are inconsistent, some are consistent. For instance (in the variables x1, x2, x3) the conjunction x1 = x2 & x1 = x3 & x2 ≠ x3 is inconsistent.By an elementary combinatorial function (ex. function) we mean any function which can be given a definition of the formwhere E1(x1, …, xn), …, Ek(x1, …, xn) is an enumeration of all consistent elementary conditions in x1, …, xn, and all the numbers d1, …, dk are among 1, …, n.Examples. (1) The identity function is the only 1-ary e.c. function.(2) A useful 3-ary e.c. function will be called J. The definition is


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liron Cohen ◽  
Robert L Constable

Abstract In this article we define pure intuitionistic Ancestral Logic ( iAL ), extending pure intuitionistic First-Order Logic ( iFOL ). This logic is a dependently typed abstract programming language with computational functionality beyond iFOL given by its realizer for the transitive closure, TC . We derive this operator from the natural type theoretic definition of TC using intersection. We show that provable formulas in iAL are uniformly realizable, thus iAL is sound with respect to constructive type theory. We further show that iAL subsumes Kleene Algebras with tests and thus serves as a natural programming logic for proving properties of program schemes. We also extract schemes from proofs that iAL specifications are solvable.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document