The Proposition. Roger Bishop Jones. Abstract. A place to play formally with the concept of proposition. Created 2009/11/22

Similar documents
This is already grossly inconvenient in present formalisms. Why do we want to make this convenient? GENERAL GOALS

Pure Type Systems and HOL-Omega in ProofPower

Category Theory. Roger Jones. Abstract. Formalisation of some of the concepts of category theory in ProofPower-HOL. Created 2006/04/09

An Introduction to ProofPower

Semantics of programming languages

NFU and NF in ProofPower-HOL

Formalizing Dijkstra

Going beyond propositional logic

Introduction to Counting, Some Basic Principles

The Category of Categories

Haskell 98 in short! CPSC 449 Principles of Programming Languages

Semantics of programming languages

Semantics of programming languages

CS152: Programming Languages. Lecture 11 STLC Extensions and Related Topics. Dan Grossman Spring 2011

NP-Complete Problems

Intro. Scheme Basics. scm> 5 5. scm>

Introduction to Homotopy Type Theory

Propositional Calculus: Boolean Functions and Expressions. CS 270: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science Jeremy Johnson

Propositional Logic Formal Syntax and Semantics. Computability and Logic

Lecture 1: Conjunctive Queries

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING DESIGN I

COMP 410 Lecture 1. Kyle Dewey

To prove something about all Boolean expressions, we will need the following induction principle: Axiom 7.1 (Induction over Boolean expressions):

Lists. Michael P. Fourman. February 2, 2010

λ-calculus Lecture 1 Venanzio Capretta MGS Nottingham

Propositional Logic. Part I

axiomatic semantics involving logical rules for deriving relations between preconditions and postconditions.

To prove something about all Boolean expressions, we will need the following induction principle: Axiom 7.1 (Induction over Boolean expressions):

CS 457/557: Functional Languages

Lecture 1: Overview

CS1 Lecture 3 Jan. 18, 2019

Typed Lambda Calculus for Syntacticians

Introductory logic and sets for Computer scientists

Lecture 3: Recursion; Structural Induction

CS1 Lecture 3 Jan. 22, 2018

AN APPROACH TO THE FORMAL REPRESENTATION OF MATHEMATICAL PROPOSITIONS

λ calculus Function application Untyped λ-calculus - Basic Idea Terms, Variables, Syntax β reduction Advanced Formal Methods

Recursively Enumerable Languages, Turing Machines, and Decidability

LOGIC AND DISCRETE MATHEMATICS

Computer-Aided Program Design

Com S 541. Programming Languages I

Outline. Data Definitions and Templates Syntax and Semantics Defensive Programming

Typed Lambda Calculus

Theorem proving. PVS theorem prover. Hoare style verification PVS. More on embeddings. What if. Abhik Roychoudhury CS 6214

Hoare Logic. COMP2600 Formal Methods for Software Engineering. Rajeev Goré

1.7 Limit of a Function

MergeSort, Recurrences, Asymptotic Analysis Scribe: Michael P. Kim Date: April 1, 2015

(Refer Slide Time: 4:00)

6.001 Notes: Section 4.1

Type Systems COMP 311 Rice University Houston, Texas

Introduction to Denotational Semantics. Brutus Is An Honorable Man. Class Likes/Dislikes Survey. Dueling Semantics

Introduction to Lexical Analysis

Lecture 2: SML Basics

Keep Track of Your Passwords Easily

CS 342 Lecture 7 Syntax Abstraction By: Hridesh Rajan

CS103 Handout 29 Winter 2018 February 9, 2018 Inductive Proofwriting Checklist

Fundamental Concepts. Chapter 1

7. Relational Calculus (Part I) 7.1 Introduction

Foundations, Reasoning About Algorithms, and Design By Contract CMPSC 122

1 Algorithms, Inputs, Outputs

Summer 2017 Discussion 10: July 25, Introduction. 2 Primitives and Define

Th(N, +) is decidable

CS 242. Fundamentals. Reading: See last slide

Handout 10: Imperative programs and the Lambda Calculus

Concepts of programming languages

Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences CS 152: Programming Languages

CSC 501 Semantics of Programming Languages

Processadors de Llenguatge II. Functional Paradigm. Pratt A.7 Robert Harper s SML tutorial (Sec II)

Introduction to Haskell

6. Hoare Logic and Weakest Preconditions

Automated Reasoning. Natural Deduction in First-Order Logic

Database Management System Prof. D. Janakiram Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture No.

6.001 Notes: Section 6.1

Lecture 5: Predicate Calculus. ffl Predicate Logic ffl The Language ffl Semantics: Structures

Chapter 3. Describing Syntax and Semantics

Chamberlin and Boyce - SEQUEL: A Structured English Query Language

CMSC 336: Type Systems for Programming Languages Lecture 5: Simply Typed Lambda Calculus Acar & Ahmed January 24, 2008

Compositional Syntax and Semantics of Tables

Consider a description of arithmetic. It includes two equations that define the structural types of digit and operator:

Steven Skiena. skiena

Lecture 2: NP-Completeness

Semantics. KR4SW Winter 2011 Pascal Hitzler 1

15-819M: Data, Code, Decisions

locales ISAR IS BASED ON CONTEXTS CONTENT Slide 3 Slide 1 proof - fix x assume Ass: A. x and Ass are visible Slide 2 Slide 4 inside this context

Denotational Semantics. Domain Theory

type classes & locales

Goals: Define the syntax of a simple imperative language Define a semantics using natural deduction 1

CS354 gdb Tutorial Written by Chris Feilbach

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Review. CS152: Programming Languages. Lecture 11 STLC Extensions and Related Topics. Let bindings (CBV) Adding Stuff. Booleans and Conditionals

Types, Expressions, and States

Static verification of program running time

14.1 Encoding for different models of computation

Lecture Notes on Binary Decision Diagrams

C311 Lab #3 Representation Independence: Representation Independent Interpreters

Diagonalization. The cardinality of a finite set is easy to grasp: {1,3,4} = 3. But what about infinite sets?

Shared Subtypes. Subtyping Recursive Parameterized Algebraic Data Types

Recap: Pointers. int* int& *p &i &*&* ** * * * * IFMP 18, M. Schwerhoff

Pierce Ch. 3, 8, 11, 15. Type Systems

Basic Structure of Denotational Definitions

Transcription:

The Proposition Roger Bishop Jones Abstract A place to play formally with the concept of proposition. Created 2009/11/22 Last Change Date: 2010-08-05 12:04:21 http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/pp/doc/t033.pdf Id: t033.doc,v 1.2 2010-08-05 12:04:21 rbj Exp c Roger Bishop Jones; Licenced under Gnu LGPL

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Some Ideas About Propositions............................... 3 2 FRIEDMAN 4 2.1 Boolean Relation Theory.................................. 4 2.2 BRT Syntax.......................................... 4 2.3 Semantics........................................... 4 2.4 Concept Calculus....................................... 5 A The Theory BRT 7 A.1 Parents............................................ 7 A.2 Constants........................................... 7 A.3 Aliases............................................ 7 A.4 Fixity............................................. 7 A.5 Definitions.......................................... 7 B The Theory CC 8 B.1 Parents............................................ 8 C INDEX 9 2

1 INTRODUCTION This document started as an exploration of Friedman s Concept Calculus. What I was really intending was a critique which would serve as a vehicle for my own ideas. Then I decided that probably would not get very far and decided to set it in a context which reflected the relevance of the idea of a concept calculus in my ideas. 1.1 Some Ideas About Propositions For some time I have had a pluralistic conception of the proposition. A proposition has been, in my scheme of things, the meaning of a sentence in some language. My knowledge of the history of the idea of proposition is almost nil, (I must look into this!). So in terms of known historical context there is not very much, and it is really just the very recent history of formal semantics which provides the context and origins of this conception of the proposition. As to semantics, I begin with the idea of truth functional semantics, since I am preocupied with formalisation (and mechanisation), and a truth functional semantics is what you need to make the notion of sound derivation definite. The most simplistic notion of proposition which comes out of this is just the extensional truth conditions, the set of models of the sentence. This isn t very satisfactory, and the most obvious way it fails is in identifying the meaning of all logical truths (which in this conception includes all of mathematics). But you have to have a reason for a richer notion of proposition, and I didn t have one until quite recently (or I didn t recognise the proposition as an answer to the problems which I cared about). 3

2 FRIEDMAN 2.1 Boolean Relation Theory I m just going to set out from the beginning of [1] formalising in HOL. I shalln t be literal about it though. I don t expect to get through Chapter 1. First we have a new theory. open theory "misc2"; force new theory "BRT "; set merge pcs ["misc21 ", " savedthm cs proof "]; 2.2 BRT Syntax Not sure whether it will be necessary to formalise the syntax so I will leave it until I need it. 2.3 Semantics The treatment of multivariate functions seems cumbersome to me, so I will make some changes which I hope will simplify the formalisation. First note that Harvey says that the n-tuples and m-tuples must be distinct for distinct n and m, so forming tuples by iteration of the ordered pair construction won t do. He doesn t actually say how to do it. I will model a tuple by a function whose domain is an ordinal. The length of the tuple is then recoverable and I do not need to use an ordered pair for the multivariate functions. However, to avoid the ordered pair I will have to treat a multivariate function over 1-tuples as a function whose domain is ordered pairs of which the first element is zero (i.e. functions whose domain is the ordinal 1). It remains to be seen whether that causes problems. A multivariate function is therefore defined as any function over tuples of a consistent arity. MF : GS SET MF = {f :GS x y x g f y g f dom x = dom y ordinal (dom x)} The arity of a multivariate function is obtained as follows: arity: GS GS mf arity mf = dom ( g (dom mf )) Friedman has a syntax for the image of a multivariate function over the relevant power of some set. In fact he just overloaded function application, which we can t do. I will use the symbol and perhaps arrange for it to be printed as a blank. declare infix (300, " "); 4

The required result is obtained by taking the range of the restriction of f to the relevant exponential of A. $ : GS GS GS f A f A = ran (((arity f ) g A) f ) A lot of the notation Harvey is talking about is not far removed from what we get for free. declare infix (300, " g L "); declare infix (300, " g "); $ gl : GS LIST GS BOOL le s le g L s L (Map (λe e g s) le) declare alias (" L ", $ g L ); list g : GS LIST BOOL (list g [] T ) ( h t list g (Cons h t) (if t = [] then T else h g Head t) list g t) declare alias ("list ", list g ); $ g : GS LIST GS BOOL ls s ls g s list ls ls L s declare alias (" ", $ g ); 2.4 Concept Calculus See [2]. open theory "misc2 "; force new theory "CC "; set merge pcs ["hol1 ", " savedthm cs proof "]; 5

References [1] Harvey Friedman. Boolean Relation Theory and The Incompleteness Phenomena. 2007. http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~friedman/pdf/whole103007.pdf. [2] Harvey Friedman. Concept Calulus: Much Better Than. 2009. http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~friedman/pdf/conccalcinf082709.pdf. 6

A The Theory BRT A.1 Parents misc2 A.2 Constants MF GS SET arity GS GS $ GS GS GS $ gl GS LIST GS BOOL list g GS LIST BOOL $ g GS LIST GS BOOL A.3 Aliases L list $ g L : GS LIST GS BOOL list g : GS LIST BOOL $ g : GS LIST GS BOOL A.4 Fixity Right Infix 300 : g gl A.5 Definitions MF MF = {f x y x g f y g f dom x = dom y ordinal (dom x)} arity mf arity mf = dom ( g (dom mf )) f A f A = ran ((arity f g A) f ) gl le s le L s L (Map (λ e e g s) le) list g (list [] T ) ( h t list (Cons h t) (if t = [] then T else h g Head t) list t) g ls s ls s list ls ls L s 7

B The Theory CC B.1 Parents misc2 8

C INDEX......................................... 5, 7 L......................................... 7 gl...................................... 5, 7........................................ 7 g..................................... 5, 7 arity........................................ 7 list...................................... 7 list g................................... 5, 7 MF......................................... 7 9