Results 1  10
of
34
Hierarchical Contextual Reasoning
, 2003
"... VII Zusammenfassung IX Extended Abstract XI Acknowledgements XIII I ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
VII Zusammenfassung IX Extended Abstract XI Acknowledgements XIII I
Types in logic and mathematics before 1940
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 2002
"... Abstract. In this article, we study the prehistory of type theory up to 1910 and its development between Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica ([71], 1910–1912) and Church’s simply typed λcalculus of 1940. We first argue that the concept of types has always been present in mathematics, thou ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this article, we study the prehistory of type theory up to 1910 and its development between Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica ([71], 1910–1912) and Church’s simply typed λcalculus of 1940. We first argue that the concept of types has always been present in mathematics, though nobody was incorporating them explicitly as such, before the end of the 19th century. Then we proceed by describing how the logical paradoxes entered the formal systems of Frege, Cantor and Peano concentrating on Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik for which Russell applied his famous paradox 1 and this led him to introduce the first theory of types, the Ramified Type Theory (rtt). We present rtt formally using the modern notation for type theory and we discuss how Ramsey, Hilbert and Ackermann removed the orders from rtt leading to the simple theory of types stt. We present stt and Church’s own simply typed λcalculus (λ→C 2) and we finish by comparing rtt, stt and λ→C. §1. Introduction. Nowadays, type theory has many applications and is used in many different disciplines. Even within logic and mathematics, there are many different type systems. They serve several purposes, and are formulated in various ways. But, before 1903 when Russell first introduced
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.
An Equational ReEngineering of Set Theories
 Automated Deduction in Classical and NonClassical Logics, LNCS 1761 (LNAI
, 1998
"... New successes in dealing with set theories by means of stateoftheart theoremprovers may ensue from terse and concise axiomatizations, such as can be moulded in the framework of the (fully equational) TarskiGivant map calculus. In this paper we carry out this task in detail, setting the ground fo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
New successes in dealing with set theories by means of stateoftheart theoremprovers may ensue from terse and concise axiomatizations, such as can be moulded in the framework of the (fully equational) TarskiGivant map calculus. In this paper we carry out this task in detail, setting the ground for a number of experiments. Key words: Set theory, relation algebras, firstorder theoremproving, algebraic logic. 1 Introduction Like other mature fields of mathematics, Set Theory deserves sustained efforts that bring to light richer and richer decidable fragments of it [5], general inference rules for reasoning in it [23, 2], effective proof strategies based on its domainknowledge, and so forth. Advances in this specialized area of automated reasoning tend, in spite of their steadiness, to be slow compared to the overall progress in the field. Many experiments with set theories have hence been carried out with standard theoremproving systems. Still today such experiments pose consider...
Ibn Sīnā on analysis: 1. Proof search. Or: Abstract State Machines as a tool for history of logic
"... and I have removed some personal references. The 11th century ArabicPersian logician Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) in section 9.6 of his book Qiyās gives what appears to be a proof search algorithm for syllogisms. We confirm that it is indeed a proof search State Machine from Ibn Sīnā’s text. The paper also ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
and I have removed some personal references. The 11th century ArabicPersian logician Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) in section 9.6 of his book Qiyās gives what appears to be a proof search algorithm for syllogisms. We confirm that it is indeed a proof search State Machine from Ibn Sīnā’s text. The paper also contains a translation of the passage from Ibn Sina’s Arabic, and some notes on the text and translation. 1
Why sets?
 PILLARS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE: ESSAYS DEDICATED TO BORIS (BOAZ) TRAKHTENBROT ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 85TH BIRTHDAY, VOLUME 4800 OF LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2008
"... Sets play a key role in foundations of mathematics. Why? To what extent is it an accident of history? Imagine that you have a chance to talk to mathematicians from a faraway planet. Would their mathematics be setbased? What are the alternatives to the settheoretic foundation of mathematics? Besi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Sets play a key role in foundations of mathematics. Why? To what extent is it an accident of history? Imagine that you have a chance to talk to mathematicians from a faraway planet. Would their mathematics be setbased? What are the alternatives to the settheoretic foundation of mathematics? Besides, set theory seems to play a significant role in computer science; is there a good justification for that? We discuss these and some related issues.
Threevariable statements of setpairing
 Theoretical Computer Science
"... The approach to algebraic specifications of set theories proposed by Tarski and Givant inspires current research aimed at taking advantage of the purely equational nature of the resulting formulations for enhanced automation of reasoning on aggregates of various kinds: sets, bags, hypersets, etc. Th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The approach to algebraic specifications of set theories proposed by Tarski and Givant inspires current research aimed at taking advantage of the purely equational nature of the resulting formulations for enhanced automation of reasoning on aggregates of various kinds: sets, bags, hypersets, etc. The viability of the said approach rests upon the possibility to form ordered pairs and to decompose them by means of conjugated projections. Ordered pairs can be conceived of in many ways: along with the most classic one, several other pairing functions are examined, which can be preferred to it when either the axiomatic assumptions are too weak to enable pairing formation à la Kuratowski, or they are strong enough to make the specification of conjugated projections particularly simple, and their formal properties easy to check within the calculus of binary relations.
Living with Paradoxes
"... A good knowledge representation system has to nd a balance between expressive power on the one hand and ecient reasoning on the other. Furthermore it is necessary to understand its limitations and problems. A logic which contains strings is very expressive and allows for very natural representation ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A good knowledge representation system has to nd a balance between expressive power on the one hand and ecient reasoning on the other. Furthermore it is necessary to understand its limitations and problems. A logic which contains strings is very expressive and allows for very natural representations, which in turn allow for appropriate reasoning patterns. However, such a system has the feature that it is possible to formulate selfreferential paradoxes in it. This can be considered as a strength and as a weakness at the same time. On the one hand it is a positive aspect that it is possible to represent paradoxes, which can be formulated in natural language. On the other hand it is necessary to be careful and not to trivialise the logical system. In the paper dierent aspects of knowledge representation which allows selfreferentiality will be discussed. A system will be presented which is a pragmatic compromise between expressive power on the one hand and simplicity and eciency of the reasoning process on the other hand. It is built on a threevalued system that makes it possible to use reasoning techniques from classical rstorder logic.
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
ΩMKRP: A Proof Development Environment
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH CADE
, 1994
"... In the following we describe the basic ideas underlying\Omega\Gamma mkrp, an interactive proof development environment [6]. The requirements for this system were derived from our experiences in proving an interrelated collection of theorems of a typical textbook on semigroups and automata [3] wi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In the following we describe the basic ideas underlying\Omega\Gamma mkrp, an interactive proof development environment [6]. The requirements for this system were derived from our experiences in proving an interrelated collection of theorems of a typical textbook on semigroups and automata [3] with the firstorder theorem prover mkrp [11]. An important finding was that although current automated theorem provers have evidently reached the power to solve nontrivial problems, they do not provide sufficient assistance for proving the theorems contained in such a textbook. On account of this, we believe that significantly more support for proof development can be provided by a system with the following two features:  The system must provide a comfortable humanoriented problemsolving environment. In particular, a human user should be able to specify the problem to be solved in a natural way and communicate on proof