Results 1  10
of
15
Multilanguage Hierarchical Logics (or: How We Can Do Without Modal Logics)
, 1994
"... MultiLanguage systems (ML systems) are formal systems allowing the use of multiple distinct logical languages. In this paper we introduce a class of ML systems which use a hierarchy of first order languages, each language containing names for the language below, and propose them as an alternative to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 178 (47 self)
 Add to MetaCart
MultiLanguage systems (ML systems) are formal systems allowing the use of multiple distinct logical languages. In this paper we introduce a class of ML systems which use a hierarchy of first order languages, each language containing names for the language below, and propose them as an alternative to modal logics. The motivations of our proposal are technical, epistemological and implementational. From a technical point of view, we prove, among other things, that the set of theorems of the most common modal logics can be embedded (under the obvious bijective mapping between a modal and a first order language) into that of the corresponding ML systems. Moreover, we show that ML systems have properties not holding for modal logics and argue that these properties are justified by our intuitions. This claim is motivated by the study of how ML systems can be used in the representation of beliefs (more generally, propositional attitudes) and provability, two areas where modal logics have been extensively used. Finally, from an implementation point of view, we argue that ML systems resemble closely the current practice in the computer representation of propositional attitudes and metatheoretic theorem proving.
The Origin of Relation Algebras in the Development and Axiomatization of the Calculus of Relations
, 1991
"... ..."
A Proof Planning Framework for Isabelle
, 2005
"... Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully formal proofs. This thesis concerns the development and analysis of a novel approach to proof planning that focuses on an explicit representation of choices during search. We embody our approach as a proof planner for the generic proof assistant Isabelle and use the Isar language, which is humanreadable and machinecheckable, to represent proof plans. Within this framework we develop an inductive theorem prover as a case study of our approach to proof planning. Our prover uses the difference reduction heuristic known as rippling to automate the step cases of the inductive proofs. The development of a flexible approach to rippling that supports its various modifications and extensions is the second major focus of this thesis. Here, our inductive theorem prover provides a context in which to evaluate rippling experimentally. This work results in an efficient and powerful inductive theorem prover for Isabelle as well as proposals for further improving the efficiency of rippling. We also draw observations in order
Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?
 American Mathematical Monthly
, 1999
"... this article I will be looking at the leading question from the point of view of the logician, and for a substantial part of that, from the perspective of one supremely important logician: Kurt Godel. From the time of his stunning incompleteness results in 1931 to the end of his life, Godel called f ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this article I will be looking at the leading question from the point of view of the logician, and for a substantial part of that, from the perspective of one supremely important logician: Kurt Godel. From the time of his stunning incompleteness results in 1931 to the end of his life, Godel called for the pursuit of new axioms to settle undecided arithmetical problems. And from 1947 on, with the publication of his unusual article, "What is Cantor's continuum problem?" [11], he called in addition for the pursuit of new axioms to settle Cantor's famous conjecture about the cardinal number of the continuum. In both cases, he pointed primarily to schemes of higher infinity in set theory as the direction in which to seek these new principles. Logicians have learned a great deal in recent years that is relevant to Godel's program, but there is considerable disagreement about what conclusions to draw from their results. I'm far from unbiased in this respect, and you'll see how I come out on these matters by the end of this essay, but I will try to give you a fair presentation of other positions along the way so you can decide for yourself which you favor.
A Multicontext Architecture for Formalizing Complex Reasoning
 International Journal of Intelligent Systems
, 1995
"... We propose multicontext systems (MC systems) as a formal framework for the specification of complex reasoning. MC systems provide the ability to structure the specification of "global" reasoning in terms of "local" reasoning subpatterns. Each subpattern is modeled as a deduction in a context, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose multicontext systems (MC systems) as a formal framework for the specification of complex reasoning. MC systems provide the ability to structure the specification of "global" reasoning in terms of "local" reasoning subpatterns. Each subpattern is modeled as a deduction in a context, formally defined as an axiomatic formal system. The global reasoning pattern is modeled as a concatenation of contextual deductions via bridge rules, i.e. inference rules that infer a fact in one context from facts asserted in other contexts. Besides the formal framework, in this paper we propose a three layer architecture designed to specify and automatize complex reasoning. At the first level we have objectlevel contexts (called scontexts) for domain specifications. Problem solving principles and, more in general, metalevel knowledge about the application domain is specified in a distinct context, called Problem Solving Context (PSC). On top of scontexts and PSC, we have a further context, called MT , where it is possible to specify strategies to control multicontext reasoning spanning through scontexts and PSC. We show how GETFOL can be used as a computer tool for the implementation of MC systems and for the automatization of multicontext deductions.
Constructive Mathematics, in Theory and Programming Practice
, 1997
"... The first part of the paper introduces the varieties of modern constructive mathematics, concentrating on Bishop's constructive mathematics (BISH). It gives a sketch of both Myhill's axiomatic system for BISH and a constructive axiomatic development of the real line R. The second part of the pap ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The first part of the paper introduces the varieties of modern constructive mathematics, concentrating on Bishop's constructive mathematics (BISH). It gives a sketch of both Myhill's axiomatic system for BISH and a constructive axiomatic development of the real line R. The second part of the paper focusses on the relation between constructive mathematics and programming, with emphasis on MartinLof's theory of types as a formal system for BISH.
The Borel hierarchy and the projective hierarchy in intuitionistic mathematics
 University of Nijmegen Department of Mathematics
, 2001
"... this paper. Once we agree to accept and use it we enter a new world and discover many facts for which there does not exist a classical counterpart. The principle entails for instance that the union of the two closed sets [0, 1] and [1, 2] is not a countable intersection of open subsets of R. One ma ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper. Once we agree to accept and use it we enter a new world and discover many facts for which there does not exist a classical counterpart. The principle entails for instance that the union of the two closed sets [0, 1] and [1, 2] is not a countable intersection of open subsets of R. One may also infer that there are unions of three closed sets di#erent from every union of two closed sets. These observations are the tip of an iceberg. The intuitionistic Borel Hierarchy shows o# an exquisite fine structure
Abstract Computerizing Mathematical Text with
"... Mathematical texts can be computerized in many ways that capture differing amounts of the mathematical meaning. At one end, there is document imaging, which captures the arrangement of black marks on paper, while at the other end there are proof assistants (e.g., Mizar, Isabelle, Coq, etc.), which c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Mathematical texts can be computerized in many ways that capture differing amounts of the mathematical meaning. At one end, there is document imaging, which captures the arrangement of black marks on paper, while at the other end there are proof assistants (e.g., Mizar, Isabelle, Coq, etc.), which capture the full mathematical meaning and have proofs expressed in a formal foundation of mathematics. In between, there are computer typesetting systems (e.g., LATEX and Presentation MathML) and semantically oriented systems (e.g., Content MathML, OpenMath, OMDoc, etc.). The MathLang project was initiated in 2000 by Fairouz Kamareddine and Joe Wells with the aim of developing an approach for computerizing mathematical texts and knowledge which is flexible enough to connect the different approaches to computerization, which allows various degrees of formalization, and which is compatible with different logical frameworks (e.g., set theory, category theory, type theory, etc.) and proof systems. The approach is embodied in a computer representation, which we call MathLang, and associated software tools, which are being developed by ongoing work. Three Ph.D. students (Manuel Maarek (2002/2007), Krzysztof Retel (since 2004), and Robert Lamar (since 2006)) and over a dozen master’s degree and undergraduate students have worked on MathLang. The project’s progress and design choices are driven by the needs for computerizing real representative mathematical texts chosen from various
Hermann Weyl’s Intuitionistic Mathematics. Dirk
"... It is common knowledge that for a short while Hermann Weyl joined Brouwer in his pursuit of a revision of mathematics according to intuitionistic principles. There is, however, little in the literature that sheds light on Weyl’s role, and in particular on Brouwer’s reaction to Weyl’s allegiance to t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It is common knowledge that for a short while Hermann Weyl joined Brouwer in his pursuit of a revision of mathematics according to intuitionistic principles. There is, however, little in the literature that sheds light on Weyl’s role, and in particular on Brouwer’s reaction to Weyl’s allegiance to the cause of intuitionism. This short episode certainly raises a number of questions: what made Weyl give up his own program, spelled out in “Das Kontinuum”, how come Weyl was so wellinformed about Brouwer’s new intuitionism, in what respect did Weyl’s intuitionism differ from Brouwer’s intuitionism, what did Brouwer think of Weyl’s views,........? To some of these questions at least partial answers can be put forward on the basis of some of the available correspondence and notes. The present paper will concentrate mostly on the historical issues of the intuitionistic episode in Weyl’s career. Weyl entered the foundational controversy with a bang in 1920 with his sensational paper “On the new foundational crisis in mathematics ” 1. He had already made a name for himself in the foundations of mathematics in 1918 with his monograph “The Continuum” [Weyl 1918] ; this contained in addition to a technical logical – mathematical construction of the continuum, a fairly extensive discussion of the shortcomings of the traditional construction of the continuum on the basis of arbitrary — and hence also impredicative — Dedekind cuts. This book did not cause much of a stir in mathematics, that is to say, it was ritually quoted in the literature but, probably, little understood. It had to wait for a proper appreciation until the phenomenon of impredicativity was better understood 2. The paper “On the new foundational crisis in mathematics ” had a totally different effect, it was the proverbial stone thrown into the quiet pond of mathematics. Weyl characterised it in retrospect with the somewhat apologetic words: Only with some hesitation I acknowledge these lectures, which reflect in their style, which was here and there really bombastic, the mood of excited times — the times immediately following the First World War. 3 Indeed, Weyl’s “New crisis ” reads as a manifesto to the mathematical community, it uses an evocative language with a good many explicit references to the political