Natural Deduction for Hybrid Logic

2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Brauner
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Hybrid Logic

scholarly journals Analytic Non-Labelled Proof-Systems for Hybrid Logic: Overview and a couple of striking facts

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torben Braüner
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Hybrid Logic ◽  
Proof Systems ◽  
Sequent Systems ◽  
Tableau Systems

This paper is about non-labelled proof-systems for hybrid logic, that is, proof-systems where arbitrary formulas can occur, not just satisfaction statements. We give an overview of such proof-systems, focusing on analytic systems: Natural deduction systems, Gentzen sequent systems and tableau systems. We point out major results and we discuss a couple of striking facts, in particular that non-labelled hybrid-logical natural deduction systems are analytic, but this is not proved in the usual way via step-by-step normalization of derivations.

scholarly journals Natural Deduction for First-Order Hybrid Logic

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torben BraÜner
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Hybrid Logic ◽  
First Order

Full adder design based on hybrid logic of M4 structure

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Yinshui Xia ◽  
Shiheng Wang ◽  
Libo Qian
Keyword(s):  
Full Adder ◽  
Hybrid Logic

Suppose and Tell

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Conditional Probability ◽  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Special Kind ◽  
Context Sensitivity ◽  
Modal Operator ◽  
Counterfactual Conditionals ◽  
Deduction Rules ◽  
Psychological Sense

The book argues that our use of conditionals is governed by imperfectly reliable heuristics, in the psychological sense of fast and frugal (or quick and dirty) ways of assessing them. The primary heuristic is this: to assess ‘If A, C’, suppose A and on that basis assess C; whatever attitude you take to C conditionally on A (such as acceptance, rejection, or something in between) take unconditionally to ‘If A, C’. This heuristic yields both the equation of the probability of ‘If A, C’ with the conditional probability of C on A and standard natural deduction rules for the conditional. However, these results can be shown to make the heuristic implicitly inconsistent, and so less than fully reliable. There is also a secondary heuristic: pass conditionals freely from one context to another under normal conditions for acceptance of sentences on the basis of memory and testimony. The effect of the secondary heuristic is to undermine interpretations on which ‘if’ introduces a special kind of context-sensitivity. On the interpretation which makes best sense of the two heuristics, ‘if’ is simply the truth-functional conditional. Apparent counterexamples to truth-functionality are artefacts of reliance on the primary heuristic in cases where it is unreliable. The second half of the book concerns counterfactual conditionals, as expressed with ‘if’ and ‘would’. It argues that ‘would’ is an independently meaningful modal operator for contextually restricted necessity: the meaning of counterfactuals is simply that derived compositionally from the meanings of their constituents, including ‘if’ and ‘would’, making them contextually restricted strict conditionals.

TRANSLATIONS BETWEEN LINEAR AND TREE NATURAL DEDUCTION SYSTEMS FOR RELEVANT LOGICS

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
SHAWN STANDEFER
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relevant Logics

Abstract Anderson and Belnap presented indexed Fitch-style natural deduction systems for the relevant logics R, E, and T. This work was extended by Brady to cover a range of relevant logics. In this paper I present indexed tree natural deduction systems for the Anderson–Belnap–Brady systems and show how to translate proofs in one format into proofs in the other, which establishes the adequacy of the tree systems.

scholarly journals On Polymorphic Sessions and Functions

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-55
Author(s):  
Bernardo Toninho ◽  
Nobuko Yoshida
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Linear Logic ◽  
Linear Formulation ◽  
Session Types ◽  
Logical Foundation ◽  
Π Calculus ◽  
Soundness And Completeness ◽  
System F ◽  
Algebraic Representations

This work exploits the logical foundation of session types to determine what kind of type discipline for the Λ-calculus can exactly capture, and is captured by, Λ-calculus behaviours. Leveraging the proof theoretic content of the soundness and completeness of sequent calculus and natural deduction presentations of linear logic, we develop the first mutually inverse and fully abstract processes-as-functions and functions-as-processes encodings between a polymorphic session π-calculus and a linear formulation of System F. We are then able to derive results of the session calculus from the theory of the Λ-calculus: (1) we obtain a characterisation of inductive and coinductive session types via their algebraic representations in System F; and (2) we extend our results to account for value and process passing, entailing strong normalisation.

ON THE NOTION OF CANONICAL DERIVATIONS FROM OPEN ASSUMPTIONS AND ITS ROLE IN PROOF-THEORETIC SEMANTICS

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
NISSIM FRANCEZ
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Logical Constants ◽  
Local Completeness ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe paper proposes an extension of the definition of a canonical proof, central to proof-theoretic semantics, to a definition of a canonical derivation from open assumptions. The impact of the extension on the definition of (reified) proof-theoretic meaning of logical constants is discussed. The extended definition also sheds light on a puzzle regarding the definition of local-completeness of a natural-deduction proof-system, underlying its harmony.

AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
KLAUS GLASHOFF
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Aristotelian Logic ◽  
Categorical Logic ◽  
Characteristic Numbers ◽  
Formal Syntax ◽  
Philosophical Standpoint ◽  
Classical Philosophy

Since Frege’s predicate logical transcription of Aristotelian categorical logic, the standard semantics of Aristotelian logic considers terms as standing for sets of individuals. From a philosophical standpoint, this extensional model poses problems: There exist serious doubts that Aristotle’s terms were meant to refer always to sets, that is, entities composed of individuals. Classical philosophy up to Leibniz and Kant had a different view on this question—they looked at terms as standing for concepts (“Begriffe”). In 1972, Corcoran presented a formal system for Aristotelian logic containing a calculus of natural deduction, while, with respect to semantics, he still made use of an extensional interpretation. In this paper we deal with a simple intensional semantics for Corcoran’s syntax—intensional in the sense that no individuals are needed for the construction of a complete Tarski model of Aristotelian syntax. Instead, we view concepts as containing or excluding other, “higher” concepts—corresponding to the idea which Leibniz used in the construction of his characteristic numbers. Thus, this paper is an addendum to Corcoran’s work, furnishing his formal syntax with an adequate semantics which is free from presuppositions which have entered into modern interpretations of Aristotle’s theory via predicate logic.

scholarly journals Hybrid logic with the difference modality for generalisations of graphs

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S.R. Myers ◽  
Dirk Pattinson
Keyword(s):  
Hybrid Logic ◽  
The Difference
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document