Results 1 
9 of
9
Ellipsis and higherorder unification
 Linguistics and Philosophy
, 1991
"... We present a new method for characterizing the interpretive possibilities generated by elliptical constructions in natural language. Unlike previous analyses, which postulate ambiguity of interpretation or derivation in the full clause source of the ellipsis, our analysis requires no such hidden amb ..."
Abstract

Cited by 109 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a new method for characterizing the interpretive possibilities generated by elliptical constructions in natural language. Unlike previous analyses, which postulate ambiguity of interpretation or derivation in the full clause source of the ellipsis, our analysis requires no such hidden ambiguity. Further, the analysis follows relatively directly from an abstract statement of the ellipsis interpretation problem. It predicts correctly a wide range of interactions between ellipsis and other semantic phenomena such as quantifier scope and bound anaphora. Finally, although the analysis itself is stated nonprocedurally, it admits of a direct computational method for generating interpretations. This article is available through the Computation and Language EPrint Archive as cmplg/9503008, and also appears in Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4):399–452. cmplg/9503008 Ellipsis and HigherOrder Unification 1
Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone
, 2009
"... Category theory is a very general formalism, but there is a certain special way that physicists use categories which turns out to have close analogues in topology, logic and computation. A category has objects and morphisms, which represent things and ways to go between things. In physics, the objec ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Category theory is a very general formalism, but there is a certain special way that physicists use categories which turns out to have close analogues in topology, logic and computation. A category has objects and morphisms, which represent things and ways to go between things. In physics, the objects are often physical systems, and the morphisms are processes turning a state of one physical system into a state of another system — perhaps
HigherOrder Categorical Grammars
 Proceedings of Categorial Grammars 04
"... into two principal paradigms: modeltheoretic syntax (MTS), which ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
into two principal paradigms: modeltheoretic syntax (MTS), which
To appear in Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity,
, 2004
"... General relativity may seem very different from quantum theory, but work on quantum gravity has revealed a deep analogy between the two. General relativity makes heavy use of the category nCob, whose objects are (n − 1)dimensional manifolds representing ‘space ’ and whose morphisms are ndimensiona ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
General relativity may seem very different from quantum theory, but work on quantum gravity has revealed a deep analogy between the two. General relativity makes heavy use of the category nCob, whose objects are (n − 1)dimensional manifolds representing ‘space ’ and whose morphisms are ndimensional cobordisms representing ‘spacetime’. Quantum theory makes heavy use of the category Hilb, whose objects are Hilbert spaces used to describe ‘states’, and whose morphisms are bounded linear operators used to describe ‘processes’. Moreover, the categories nCob and Hilb resemble each other far more than either resembles Set, the category whose objects are sets and whose morphisms are functions. In particular, both Hilb and nCob but not Set are ∗categories with a noncartesian monoidal structure. We show how this accounts for many of the famously puzzling features of quantum theory: the failure of local realism, the impossibility of duplicating quantum information, and so on. We argue that these features only seem puzzling when we try to treat Hilb as analogous to Set rather than nCob, so that quantum theory will make more sense when regarded as part of a theory of spacetime. 1
A Proof Theory for Machine Code
"... This paper develops a proof theory for lowlevel code languages. We first define a proof system, which we refer to as the sequential sequent calculus, and show that it enjoys the cut elimination property and that its expressive power is the same as that of the natural deduction proof system. We then ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper develops a proof theory for lowlevel code languages. We first define a proof system, which we refer to as the sequential sequent calculus, and show that it enjoys the cut elimination property and that its expressive power is the same as that of the natural deduction proof system. We then establish the CurryHoward isomorphism between this proof system and a lowlevel code language by showing the following properties: (1) the set of proofs and the set of typed codes is in onetoone correspondence, (2) the operational semantics of the code language is directly derived from the cut elimination procedure of the proof system, and (3) compilation and decompilation algorithms between the code language and the typed lambda calculus are extracted from the proof transformations between the sequential sequent calculus and the natural deduction proof system. This logical framework serves as a basis for the development of type systems of various lowlevel code languages, typepreserving compilation, and static code analysis.
Deriving Category Theory from Type Theory
, 1993
"... This work expounds the notion that (structured) categories are syntax free presentations of type theories, and shows some of the ideas involved in deriving categorical semantics for given type theories. It is intended for someone who has some knowledge of category theory and type theory, but who doe ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
This work expounds the notion that (structured) categories are syntax free presentations of type theories, and shows some of the ideas involved in deriving categorical semantics for given type theories. It is intended for someone who has some knowledge of category theory and type theory, but who does not fully understand some of the intimate connections between the two topics. We begin by showing how the concept of a category can be derived from some simple and primitive mechanisms of monadic type theory. We then show how the notion of a category with finite products can model the most fundamental syntactical constructions of (algebraic) type theory. The idea of naturality is shown to capture, in a syntax free manner, the notion of substitution, and therefore provides a syntax free coding of a multiplicity of type theoretical constructs. Using these ideas we give a direct derivation of a cartesian closed category as a very general model of simply typed λcalculus with binary products and a unit type. This article provides a new presentation of some old ideas. It is intended to be a tutorial paper aimed at audiences interested in elementary categorical type theory. Further details can be found in [Cro93]. 1 1
TYPES, SETS AND CATEGORIES
"... This essay is an attempt to sketch the evolution of type theory from its beginnings early in the last century to the present day. Central to the development of the type concept has been its close relationship with set theory to begin with and later its even more intimate relationship with category t ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
This essay is an attempt to sketch the evolution of type theory from its beginnings early in the last century to the present day. Central to the development of the type concept has been its close relationship with set theory to begin with and later its even more intimate relationship with category theory. Since it is effectively impossible to describe these relationships (especially in regard to the latter) with any pretensions to completeness within the space of a comparatively short article, I have elected to offer detailed technical presentations of just a few important instances. 1 THE ORIGINS OF TYPE THEORY The roots of type theory lie in set theory, to be precise, in Bertrand Russell’s efforts to resolve the paradoxes besetting set theory at the end of the 19 th century. In analyzing these paradoxes Russell had come to find the set, or class, concept itself philosophically perplexing, and the theory of types can be seen as the outcome of his struggle to resolve these perplexities. But at first he seems to have regarded type theory as little more than a faute de mieux.
Category Theory for Scientists
, 2013
"... an observa*on when executed results in analyzed by a person yields an experiment a hypothesis mo*vates the specifica*on of analyzed by a person produces a predic*on ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
an observa*on when executed results in analyzed by a person yields an experiment a hypothesis mo*vates the specifica*on of analyzed by a person produces a predic*on