Fraïssé–Hintikka theorem in institutions

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 1377-1399
Author(s):  
Daniel Găină ◽  
Tomasz Kowalski
Keyword(s):  
Classical Case ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Specification Languages ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
First Order

Abstract We generalize the characterization of elementary equivalence by Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé games to arbitrary institutions whose sentences are finitary. These include many-sorted first-order logic, higher-order logic with types, as well as a number of other logics arising in connection to specification languages. The gain for the classical case is that the characterization is proved directly for all signatures, including infinite ones.

Resolution in type theory

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter B. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Axiomatic Set Theory ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

In [8] J. A. Robinson introduced a complete refutation procedure called resolution for first order predicate calculus. Resolution is based on ideas in Herbrand's Theorem, and provides a very convenient framework in which to search for a proof of a wff believed to be a theorem. Moreover, it has proved possible to formulate many refinements of resolution which are still complete but are more efficient, at least in many contexts. However, when efficiency is a prime consideration, the restriction to first order logic is unfortunate, since many statements of mathematics (and other disciplines) can be expressed more simply and naturally in higher order logic than in first order logic. Also, the fact that in higher order logic (as in many-sorted first order logic) there is an explicit syntactic distinction between expressions which denote different types of intuitive objects is of great value where matching is involved, since one is automatically prevented from trying to make certain inappropriate matches. (One may contrast this with the situation in which mathematical statements are expressed in the symbolism of axiomatic set theory.).

scholarly journals Formalization of Linear Space Theory in the Higher-Order Logic Proving System

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Danwen Mao ◽  
Yong Guan
Keyword(s):  
Linear Space ◽  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Predicate Logic ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Space Theory ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Important Approach

Theorem proving is an important approach in formal verification. Higher-order logic is a form of predicate logic that is distinguished from first-order logic by additional quantifiers and stronger semantics. Higher-order logic is more expressive. This paper presents the formalization of the linear space theory in HOL4. A set of properties is characterized in HOL4. This result is used to build the underpinnings for the application of higher-order logic in a wider spectrum of engineering applications.

scholarly journals Antirealism/realism of Hintikka’s game-theoretical semantics

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heda Festini
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theory Of Meaning ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
Context Dependent ◽  
Extended Notion

Hintikka’s game-theoretical semantics (GTS) is presented as an anti-Tarskian semantical approach to the context-dependent fragments of Englisch, which overcomes the usual notion of semantical realism. Analysing Hintikka’s critique of Tarski’s interpretation of the truth-conditional theory of meaning, its recursive fashion and the narrow notion of realism, Hintikka’s basic conception is presented in the following manner:1. the Context-Principle vs. the Frege Principle,2.First-order logic together with higher-order logic vs. the primacy of first-order logic,3.verificationist/falsificationist theory vs. Taraski’s narrow truth- conditional theory.Comparing some reviews of Hintikka’s GTS (M. Dummett, E. Itkonen, E. Saarinen, M. Hand) with a short examination of the antirealistic/realistic controversis by C. Wright and M. Dummett, the following was reached:Hintikka’s GTS introduces a new, more extended notion of realism, which embraces Taraski-type realistic semantics, Hintikka’s GTS and with this the question of the possibility to also include Dummett’s neoverificationism or other orientations, remains open.

scholarly journals Making Higher-Order Superposition Work

2021 ◽  
pp. 415-432
Author(s):  
Petar Vukmirović ◽  
Alexander Bentkamp ◽  
Jasmin Blanchette ◽  
Simon Cruanes ◽  
Visa Nummelin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Rules ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
New Challenges

AbstractSuperposition is among the most successful calculi for first-order logic. Its extension to higher-order logic introduces new challenges such as infinitely branching inference rules, new possibilities such as reasoning about formulas, and the need to curb the explosion of specific higher-order rules. We describe techniques that address these issues and extensively evaluate their implementation in the Zipperposition theorem prover. Largely thanks to their use, Zipperposition won the higher-order division of the CASC-J10 competition.

scholarly journals Using the TPTP Language for Representing Derivations in Tableau and Connection Calculi

10.29007/jcqn ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Otten ◽  
Geoff Sutcliffe
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Standard Tableau ◽  
Representation Of Solutions ◽  
Problems And Solutions

The TPTP language, developed within the framework of the TPTP library, allows the representation of problems and solutions in first-order and higher-order logic. Whereas the writing of solutions in resolution calculi is well documented and used, an appropriate representation of solutions in tableau or connection calculi using the TPTP syntax has not yet been specified. This paper describes how the TPTP language can be used to represent derivations and solutions in standard tableau, sequent and connection calculi for classical first-order logic.

Logic, sheaves, and factorization systems

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 872-893
Author(s):  
G. P. Monro
Keyword(s):  
Full Subcategory ◽  
Functional Relation ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
Completeness Proof ◽  
Factorization System ◽  
First Order ◽  
Functional Relations

In this paper we extend the models for the “logic of categories” to a wider class of categories than is usually considered. We consider two kinds of logic, a restricted first-order logic and the full higher-order logic of elementary topoi.The restricted first-order logic has as its only logical symbols ∧, ∃, Τ, and =. We interpret this logic in a category with finite limits equipped with a factorization system (in the sense of [4]). We require to satisfy two additional conditions: ⊆ Monos, and any pullback of an arrow in is again in . A category with a factorization system satisfying these conditions will be called an EM-category.The interpretation of the restricted logic in EM-categories is given in §1. In §2 we give an axiomatization for the logic, and in §§3 and 5 we give two completeness proofs for this axiomatization. The first completeness proof constructs an EM-category out of the logic, in the spirit of Makkai and Reyes [8], though the construction used here differs from theirs. The second uses Boolean-valued models and shows that the restricted logic is exactly the ∧, ∃-fragment of classical first-order logic (adapted to categories). Some examples of EM-categories are given in §4.The restricted logic is powerful enough to handle relations, and in §6 we assign to each EM-category a bicategory of relations Rel() and a category of “functional relations” fr. fr is shown to be a regular category, and it turns out that Rel( and Rel(fr) are biequivalent bicategories. In §7 we study complete objects in an EM-category where an object of is called complete if every functional relation into is yielded by a unique morphism into . We write c for the full subcategory of consisting of the complete objects. Complete objects have some, but not all, of the properties that sheaves have in a category of presheaves.

scholarly journals Superposition for Full Higher-order Logic

2021 ◽  
pp. 396-412
Author(s):  
Alexander Bentkamp ◽  
Jasmin Blanchette ◽  
Sophie Tourret ◽  
Petar Vukmirović
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Stepping Stones ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
New Challenges

AbstractWe recently designed two calculi as stepping stones towards superposition for full higher-order logic: Boolean-free $$\lambda $$ λ -superposition and superposition for first-order logic with interpreted Booleans. Stepping on these stones, we finally reach a sound and refutationally complete calculus for higher-order logic with polymorphism, extensionality, Hilbert choice, and Henkin semantics. In addition to the complexity of combining the calculus’s two predecessors, new challenges arise from the interplay between $$\lambda $$ λ -terms and Booleans. Our implementation in Zipperposition outperforms all other higher-order theorem provers and is on a par with an earlier, pragmatic prototype of Booleans in Zipperposition.

Higher‐order Logic

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Mathematics ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Deductive Systems ◽  
Second Order Logic

The philosophical literature contains numerous claims on behalf of and numerous claims against higher-order logic. Virtually all of the issues apply to second-order logic (vis-à-vis first-order logic), so this article focuses on that. It develops the syntax of second-order languages and present typical deductive systems and model-theoretic semantics for them. This will help to explain the role of higher-order logic in the philosophy of mathematics. It is assumed that the reader has at least a passing familiarity with the theory and metatheory of first-order logic.

scholarly journals Superposition with First-class Booleans and Inprocessing Clausification

2021 ◽  
pp. 378-395
Author(s):  
Visa Nummelin ◽  
Alexander Bentkamp ◽  
Sophie Tourret ◽  
Petar Vukmirović
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Superposition Calculus

AbstractWe present a complete superposition calculus for first-order logic with an interpreted Boolean type. Our motivation is to lay the foundation for refutationally complete calculi in more expressive logics with Booleans, such as higher-order logic, and to make superposition work efficiently on problems that would be obfuscated when using clausification as preprocessing. Working directly on formulas, our calculus avoids the costly axiomatic encoding of the theory of Booleans into first-order logic and offers various ways to interleave clausification with other derivation steps. We evaluate our calculus using the Zipperposition theorem prover, and observe that, with no tuning of parameters, our approach is on a par with the state-of-the-art approach.

On the elementary equivalence of automorphism groups of Boolean algebras; downward Skolem Löwenheim theorems and compactness of related quantifiers

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matatyahu Rubin ◽  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Automorphism Groups ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
First Order ◽  
Finite Models ◽  
Countably Compact

AbstractTheorem 1. (◊ℵ1,) If B is an infinite Boolean algebra (BA), then there is B1, such that ∣ Aut (B1) ≤∣B1∣ = ℵ1 and 〈B1, Aut (B1)〉 ≡ 〈B, Aut(B)〉.Theorem 2. (◊ℵ1) There is a countably compact logic stronger than first-order logic even on finite models.This partially answers a question of H. Friedman. These theorems appear in §§1 and 2.Theorem 3. (a) (◊ℵ1) If B is an atomic ℵ-saturated infinite BA, Ψ Є Lω1ω and 〈B, Aut (B)〉 ⊨Ψ then there is B1, Such that ∣Aut(B1)∣ ≤ ∣B1∣ =ℵ1, and 〈B1, Aut(B1)〉⊨Ψ. In particular if B is 1-homogeneous so is B1. (b) (a) holds for B = P(ω) even if we assume only CH.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document