Results 1 
6 of
6
Possible Worlds and Resources: The Semantics of BI
 THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2003
"... The logic of bunched implications, BI, is a substructural system which freely combines an additive (intuitionistic) and a multiplicative (linear) implication via bunches (contexts with two combining operations, one which admits Weakening and Contraction and one which does not). BI may be seen to a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The logic of bunched implications, BI, is a substructural system which freely combines an additive (intuitionistic) and a multiplicative (linear) implication via bunches (contexts with two combining operations, one which admits Weakening and Contraction and one which does not). BI may be seen to arise from two main perspectives. On the one hand, from prooftheoretic or categorical concerns and, on the other, from a possibleworlds semantics based on preordered (commutative) monoids. This semantics may be motivated from a basic model of the notion of resource. We explain BI's prooftheoretic, categorical and semantic origins. We discuss in detail the question of completeness, explaining the essential distinction between BI with and without ? (the unit of _). We give an extensive discussion of BI as a semantically based logic of resources, giving concrete models based on Petri nets, ambients, computer memory, logic programming, and money.
Classifying Toposes for First Order Theories
 Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
, 1997
"... By a classifying topos for a firstorder theory T, we mean a topos E such that, for any topos F , models of T in F correspond exactly to open geometric morphisms F ! E . We show that not every (infinitary) firstorder theory has a classifying topos in this sense, but we characterize those which ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
By a classifying topos for a firstorder theory T, we mean a topos E such that, for any topos F , models of T in F correspond exactly to open geometric morphisms F ! E . We show that not every (infinitary) firstorder theory has a classifying topos in this sense, but we characterize those which do by an appropriate `smallness condition', and we show that every Grothendieck topos arises as the classifying topos of such a theory. We also show that every firstorder theory has a conservative extension to one which possesses a classifying topos, and we obtain a Heytingvalued completeness theorem for infinitary firstorder logic.
Lambda Definability with Sums via Grothendieck Logical Relations
, 1999
"... . We introduce a notion of Grothendieck logical relation and use it to characterise the definability of morphisms in stable bicartesian closed categories by terms of the simplytyped lambda calculus with finite products and finite sums. Our techniques are based on concepts from topos theory, how ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We introduce a notion of Grothendieck logical relation and use it to characterise the definability of morphisms in stable bicartesian closed categories by terms of the simplytyped lambda calculus with finite products and finite sums. Our techniques are based on concepts from topos theory, however our exposition is elementary. Introduction The use of logical relations as a tool for characterising the definable elements in a model of the simplytyped calculus originated in the work of Plotkin [10], who obtained such a characterisation of the definable elements in the full type hierarchy using a notion of Kripke logical relation. Subsequently, the more general notion of a Kripke logical relation of varying arity was developed by Jung and Tiuryn, and shown to characterise the definable elements in any Henkin model [4]. Although not emphasised in [4], relations of varying arity are powerful enough to characterise relative definability with respect to any given set of elements con...
Forcing in Proof Theory
 BULL SYMB LOGIC
, 2004
"... Paul Cohen's method of forcing, together with Saul Kripke's related semantics for modal and intuitionistic logic, has had profound effects on a number of branches of mathematical logic, from set theory and model theory to constructive and categorical logic. Here, I argue that forcing also has a pla ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Paul Cohen's method of forcing, together with Saul Kripke's related semantics for modal and intuitionistic logic, has had profound effects on a number of branches of mathematical logic, from set theory and model theory to constructive and categorical logic. Here, I argue that forcing also has a place in traditional Hilbertstyle proof theory, where the goal is to formalize portions of ordinary mathematics in restricted axiomatic theories, and study those theories in constructive or syntactic terms. I will discuss the aspects of forcing that are useful in this respect, and some sample applications. The latter include ways of obtaining conservation results for classical and intuitionistic theories, interpreting classical theories in constructive ones, and constructivizing modeltheoretic arguments.
An Elementary Definability Theorem for First Order Logic
"... this paper, we will present a definability theorem for first order logic. This theorem is very easy to state, and its proof only uses elementary tools. To explain the theorem, let us first observe that if M is a model of a theory T in a language L, then, clearly, any definable subset S ae M (i.e., a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper, we will present a definability theorem for first order logic. This theorem is very easy to state, and its proof only uses elementary tools. To explain the theorem, let us first observe that if M is a model of a theory T in a language L, then, clearly, any definable subset S ae M (i.e., a subset S = fa j M j= '(a)g defined by some formula ') is invariant under all automorphisms of M . The same is of course true for subsets of M