Annals of Pure and Applied Logic Automata and logics
... We refer to words in A∗ which satisfy these two conditions as proper words over A. We denote the set of proper words over A by Prop(A). A canonical word w can be ‘‘timed’’ to get a signal in a natural way: thus a signal σ is in timing (w) if untiming (σ ) = w . We extend the definition of timing and ...
... We refer to words in A∗ which satisfy these two conditions as proper words over A. We denote the set of proper words over A by Prop(A). A canonical word w can be ‘‘timed’’ to get a signal in a natural way: thus a signal σ is in timing (w) if untiming (σ ) = w . We extend the definition of timing and ...
Constraint Propagation as a Proof System
... Supported in part by NSF grant IIS-9907419. Supported in part by NSF grants CCR-9988322, CCR-0124077, CCR-0311326, IIS-9908435, IIS-9978135, EIA-0086264, and ANI-0216467, and by BSF grant 9800096. ...
... Supported in part by NSF grant IIS-9907419. Supported in part by NSF grants CCR-9988322, CCR-0124077, CCR-0311326, IIS-9908435, IIS-9978135, EIA-0086264, and ANI-0216467, and by BSF grant 9800096. ...
Coordinate-free logic - Utrecht University Repository
... not a view on relations shared by everyone. According to a nominalistic view on relations, there exist no universal things as ‘relations’, but only facts and complexes. It would be better if the logic was unbiased in this matter. A third weakness of standard logic to be noted concerns symmetry. We c ...
... not a view on relations shared by everyone. According to a nominalistic view on relations, there exist no universal things as ‘relations’, but only facts and complexes. It would be better if the logic was unbiased in this matter. A third weakness of standard logic to be noted concerns symmetry. We c ...
āgārjuna’s Logic N 8 8.1 N
... Letting ν(A) = t, ν(B) = b and ν(C) = f yields a counterexample. Since ν(¬A) = f, the least upper bound of f and b is b. Hence, ν(¬A B) = b; and thus ν(A ⊃ B) = b. So the first premise is designated. Since ν(B) = b, ν(¬B) = b as well. Since the least upper bound of b and f is b, ν(¬B C) = b. He ...
... Letting ν(A) = t, ν(B) = b and ν(C) = f yields a counterexample. Since ν(¬A) = f, the least upper bound of f and b is b. Hence, ν(¬A B) = b; and thus ν(A ⊃ B) = b. So the first premise is designated. Since ν(B) = b, ν(¬B) = b as well. Since the least upper bound of b and f is b, ν(¬B C) = b. He ...
PDF
... section. In this view, a receiver may expect to receive a term {t}k according to the protocol, but unless she also has k −1 , she cannot get t (using only this encrypted term). is is a form of database knowledge: an agent A has only that information explicitly stored in the agent’s database. However ...
... section. In this view, a receiver may expect to receive a term {t}k according to the protocol, but unless she also has k −1 , she cannot get t (using only this encrypted term). is is a form of database knowledge: an agent A has only that information explicitly stored in the agent’s database. However ...
The Logic of Provability
... no trouble arises from pretending it is. Indeed, it’s common to make this interpretation concrete and write f (x̄) to represent the unique y such that F (x̄, y) holds in PA. Thus, while PA lacks an actual term for functions like 2x , it can construct p-terms for them that agree on all values and beh ...
... no trouble arises from pretending it is. Indeed, it’s common to make this interpretation concrete and write f (x̄) to represent the unique y such that F (x̄, y) holds in PA. Thus, while PA lacks an actual term for functions like 2x , it can construct p-terms for them that agree on all values and beh ...
In order to define the notion of proof rigorously, we would have to
... When we write informal proofs, we rarely (if ever) explicitly discharge premises when we apply the rule ⇒-intro but if we want to be rigorous we really should. Also observe that if n is even, then the proposition odd(n) ⇒ odd(n+2) is still provable (true), but it yields no information since the prem ...
... When we write informal proofs, we rarely (if ever) explicitly discharge premises when we apply the rule ⇒-intro but if we want to be rigorous we really should. Also observe that if n is even, then the proposition odd(n) ⇒ odd(n+2) is still provable (true), but it yields no information since the prem ...
Taming method in modal logic and mosaic method in temporal logic
... We want to apply the mosaic method for proving decidability and Hilbertstyle completeness of temporal logics over linear flows of time. The mosaic approach serves as a general method to prove decidability of certain frames of logic. The main key is to show that the existence of a model is equivalent ...
... We want to apply the mosaic method for proving decidability and Hilbertstyle completeness of temporal logics over linear flows of time. The mosaic approach serves as a general method to prove decidability of certain frames of logic. The main key is to show that the existence of a model is equivalent ...
First-Order Logic with Dependent Types
... λ is used to bind the free variables in a formula, and quantifiers are operators taking a λ expression as an argument.2 Quantifiers and the equality symbol take the sort they operate on as their first argument; we will omit this argument if no ambiguities arise. When we refer to sorts, terms or form ...
... λ is used to bind the free variables in a formula, and quantifiers are operators taking a λ expression as an argument.2 Quantifiers and the equality symbol take the sort they operate on as their first argument; we will omit this argument if no ambiguities arise. When we refer to sorts, terms or form ...
Proof Theory: From Arithmetic to Set Theory
... know that there is a complete calculus for first order logic as this already entails the compactness theorem. There are, however, proof calculi without this arbitrariness of axioms and rules. The natural deduction calculus and the sequent calculus were both invented by Gentzen in 1934. Both calculi ...
... know that there is a complete calculus for first order logic as this already entails the compactness theorem. There are, however, proof calculi without this arbitrariness of axioms and rules. The natural deduction calculus and the sequent calculus were both invented by Gentzen in 1934. Both calculi ...
Fredrik Dahlqvist and Alexander Kurz. Positive coalgebraic logic
... where S0 is the functor sending a distributive lattice to the poset of its prime filters, and P0 is the functor sending a poset to the distributive lattice of its upsets. The following observation will be of fundamental importance in what follows: the adjunction S0 a P0 : Posop → DL which is the bac ...
... where S0 is the functor sending a distributive lattice to the poset of its prime filters, and P0 is the functor sending a poset to the distributive lattice of its upsets. The following observation will be of fundamental importance in what follows: the adjunction S0 a P0 : Posop → DL which is the bac ...
