Results 1  10
of
50
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.
Interpretability logic
 Mathematical Logic, Proceedings of the 1988 Heyting Conference
, 1990
"... Interpretations are much used in metamathematics. The first application that comes to mind is their use in reductive Hilbertstyle programs. Think of the kind of program proposed by Simpson, Feferman or Nelson (see Simpson[1988], Feferman[1988], Nelson[1986]). Here they serve to compare the strength ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Interpretations are much used in metamathematics. The first application that comes to mind is their use in reductive Hilbertstyle programs. Think of the kind of program proposed by Simpson, Feferman or Nelson (see Simpson[1988], Feferman[1988], Nelson[1986]). Here they serve to compare the strength of theories, or better to prove
Symmetric Logic of Proofs
 CUNY Ph.D. Program in Computer Science
, 2007
"... The Logic of Proofs LP captures the invariant propositional properties of proof predicates t is a proof of F with a set of operations on proofs sufficient for realizing the whole modal logic S4 and hence the intuitionistic logic IPC. Some intuitive properties of proofs, however, are not invariant an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Logic of Proofs LP captures the invariant propositional properties of proof predicates t is a proof of F with a set of operations on proofs sufficient for realizing the whole modal logic S4 and hence the intuitionistic logic IPC. Some intuitive properties of proofs, however, are not invariant and hence not present in LP. For example, the choice function â+ â in LP, which is specified by the condition s:F âšt:F â (s+t):F, is not necessarily symmetric. In this paper, we introduce an extension of the Logic of Proofs, SLP, which incorporates natural properties of the standard proof predicate in Peano Arithmetic: t is a code of a derivation containing F, including the symmetry of Choice. We show that SLP produces BrouwerHeytingKolmogorov proofs with a rich structure, which can be useful for applications in epistemic logic and other areas. 1
A SetTheoretic Translation Method for Polymodal Logics
, 1995
"... The paper presents a settheoretic translation method for polymodal logics that reduces the derivability problem of a large class of propositional polymodal logics to the derivability problem of a very weak firstorder set theory\Omega\Gamma Unlike most existing translation methods, the one we propos ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The paper presents a settheoretic translation method for polymodal logics that reduces the derivability problem of a large class of propositional polymodal logics to the derivability problem of a very weak firstorder set theory\Omega\Gamma Unlike most existing translation methods, the one we proposed applies to any normal complete finitelyaxiomatizable polymodal logic, regardless if it is firstorder complete or if an explicit semantics is available for it. Moreover, the finite axiomatizability of\Omega makes it possible to implement mechanical proof search procedures via the deduction theorem or more specialized and efficient techniques. In the last part of the paper, we briefly discuss the application of set T resolution to support automated derivability in (a suitable extension of) \Omega\Gamma This work has been supported by funds MURST 40% and 60%. The second author was supported by a grant from the Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR). 1 Introduction The paper...
A Foundation for Metareasoning, Part I: The Proof Theory
, 1997
"... We propose a framework, called OM pairs, for the formalization of metareasoning. OM pairs allow us to generate deductively the object theory and/or the meta theory. This is done by imposing, via appropriate reflection rules, the relation we want to hold between the object theory and the meta theory. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a framework, called OM pairs, for the formalization of metareasoning. OM pairs allow us to generate deductively the object theory and/or the meta theory. This is done by imposing, via appropriate reflection rules, the relation we want to hold between the object theory and the meta theory. In this paper we concentrate on the proof theory of OM pairs. We study them from three different points of view: we compare the strength of the object and meta theories generated by different OM pairs; for each OM pair we study the precise form of the object theory and meta theory; and, finally, we study three important case studies.
Using Reflection to Explain and Enhance Type Theory
 Proof and Computation, volume 139 of NATO Advanced Study Institute, International Summer School held in Marktoberdorf, Germany, July 20August 1, NATO Series F
, 1994
"... The five lectures at Marktoberdorf on which these notes are based were about the architecture of problem solving environments which use theorem provers. Experience with these systems over the past two decades has shown that the prover must be extensible, yet it must be kept safe. We examine a way to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The five lectures at Marktoberdorf on which these notes are based were about the architecture of problem solving environments which use theorem provers. Experience with these systems over the past two decades has shown that the prover must be extensible, yet it must be kept safe. We examine a way to safely add new decision procedures to the Nuprl prover. It relies on a reflection mechanism and is applicable to any tacticoriented prover with sufficient reflection. The lectures explain reflection in the setting of constructive type theory, the core logic of Nuprl.
SelfReferential Justifications in Epistemic Logic
, 2009
"... This paper is devoted to the study of selfreferential proofs and/or justifications, i.e., valid proofs that prove statements about these same proofs. The goal is to investigate whether such selfreferential justifications are present in the reasoning described by standard modal epistemic logics suc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper is devoted to the study of selfreferential proofs and/or justifications, i.e., valid proofs that prove statements about these same proofs. The goal is to investigate whether such selfreferential justifications are present in the reasoning described by standard modal epistemic logics such as S4. We argue that the modal language by itself is too coarse to capture this concept of selfreferentiality and that the language of justification logic can serve as an adequate refinement. We consider wellknown modal logics of knowledge/belief and show, using explicit justifications, that S4, D4, K4, and T with their respective justification counterparts LP, JD4, J4, and JT describe knowledge that is selfreferential in some strong sense. We also demonstrate that selfreferentiality can be avoided for K and D. In order to prove the former result, we develop a machinery of minimal evidence functions used to effectively build models for justification logics. We observe that the calculus used to construct the minimal functions axiomatizes the reflected fragments of justification logics. We also discuss difficulties that result from an introduction of negative introspection.
Staged Computation with Names and Necessity
, 2005
"... Staging is a programming technique for dividing the computation in order to exploit the early availability of some arguments. In the early stages the program uses the available arguments to generate, at run time, the code for the late stages. The late stages may then be explicitly evaluated when app ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Staging is a programming technique for dividing the computation in order to exploit the early availability of some arguments. In the early stages the program uses the available arguments to generate, at run time, the code for the late stages. The late stages may then be explicitly evaluated when appropriate. A type system for staging should ensure that only welltyped expressions are generated, and that only expressions with no free variables are permitted for evaluation.
The Realm of Ordinal Analysis
 SETS AND PROOFS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOGIC COLLOQUIUM '97
, 1997
"... A central theme running through all the main areas of Mathematical Logic is the classification of sets, functions or theories, by means of transfinite hierarchies whose ordinal levels measure their `rank' or `complexity' in some sense appropriate to the underlying context. In Proof Theory this is ma ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A central theme running through all the main areas of Mathematical Logic is the classification of sets, functions or theories, by means of transfinite hierarchies whose ordinal levels measure their `rank' or `complexity' in some sense appropriate to the underlying context. In Proof Theory this is manifest in the assignment of `proof theoretic ordinals' to theories, gauging their `consistency strength' and `computational power'. Ordinaltheoretic proof theory came into existence in 1936, springing forth from Gentzen's head in the course of his consistency proof of arithmetic. To put it roughly, ordinal analyses attach ordinals in a given representation system to formal theories. Though this area of mathematical logic has is roots in Hilbert's "Beweistheorie "  the aim of which was to lay to rest all worries about the foundations of mathematics once and for all by securing mathematics via an absolute proof of consistency  technical results in pro...