Cirquent calculus is a novel proof theory permitting component-sharing between logical expressions. Using it, the predecessor article ‘Elementary-base cirquent calculus I: Parallel and choice connectives’ built the sound and complete axiomatization $\textbf{CL16}$ of a propositional fragment of computability logic. The atoms of the language of $\textbf{CL16}$ represent elementary, i.e. moveless, games and the logical vocabulary consists of negation, parallel connectives and choice connectives. The present paper constructs the first-order version $\textbf{CL17}$ of $\textbf{CL16}$, also enjoying soundness and (...) completeness. The language of $\textbf{CL17}$ augments that of $\textbf{CL16}$ by including choice quantifiers. Unlike classical predicate calculus, $\textbf{CL17}$ turns out to be decidable. (shrink)

Cirquent calculus is a proof system with inherent ability to account for sharing subcomponents in logical expressions. Within its framework, this article constructs an axiomatization $$\text{ CL18 }$$ CL18 of the basic propositional fragment of computability logic—the game-semantically conceived logic of computational resources and tasks. The nonlogical atoms of this fragment represent arbitrary so called static games, and the connectives of its logical vocabulary are negation and the parallel and choice versions of conjunction and disjunction. The main technical (...) result of the article is a proof of the soundness and completeness of $$\text{ CL18 }$$ CL18 with respect to the semantics of computability logic. (shrink)

This paper constructs a cirquent calculus system and proves its soundness and completeness with respect to the semantics of computability logic. The logical vocabulary of the system consists of negation ${\neg}$ , parallel conjunction ${\wedge}$ , parallel disjunction ${\vee}$ , branching recurrence ⫰, and branching corecurrence ⫯. The article is published in two parts, with (the present) Part I containing preliminaries and a soundness proof, and (the forthcoming) Part II containing a completeness proof.

This paper constructs a cirquent calculus system and proves its soundness and completeness with respect to the semantics of computability logic. The logical vocabulary of the system consists of negation \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\neg}}$$\end{document}, parallel conjunction \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\wedge}}$$\end{document}, parallel disjunction \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${{\vee}}$$\end{document}, branching recurrence ⫰, and branching corecurrence ⫯. The article is published in two parts, with (...) (the previous) Part I containing preliminaries and a soundness proof, and (the present) Part II containing a completeness proof. (shrink)

This paper shows that the basic logic induced by the parallel recurrence $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ of computability logic (i.e., the one in the signature $\{\neg,$\wedge$,\vee,\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}},\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {0.12cm}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\vee$}\hspace {-3.6pt}\raisebox {0.02cm}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}\}$ ) is a proper superset of the basic logic induced by the branching recurrence $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ (i.e., the one in the signature $\{\neg,$\wedge$,\vee,\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox (...) {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}},\mbox {\raisebox {0.12cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.115cm}\raisebox {0.02cm}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}\}$ ). The latter is known to be precisely captured by the cirquent calculus system CL15 , conjectured by Japaridze to remain sound—but not complete—with $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ instead of $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ . The present result is obtained by positively verifying that conjecture. A secondary result of the paper is showing that $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ is strictly weaker than $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}$ in the sense that, while $\mbox {\raisebox {-0.05cm}{$\circ$}\hspace {-0.11cm}\raisebox {3.1pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}F$ logically implies $\hspace {-2pt}\mbox {\raisebox {-0.01pt}{\@setfontsize \small {7}{8}$\wedge$}\hspace {-3.55pt}\raisebox {4.5pt}{\tiny $\mid$}\hspace {2pt}}F$ , the reverse does not hold. (shrink)

Despite its significance in neuroscience and computation, McCulloch and Pitts's celebrated 1943 paper has received little historical and philosophical attention. In 1943 there already existed a lively community of biophysicists doing mathematical work on neural networks. What was novel in McCulloch and Pitts's paper was their use of logic and computation to understand neural, and thus mental, activity. McCulloch and Pitts's contributions included (i) a formalism whose refinement and generalization led to the notion of finite automata (an important formalism in (...) computability theory), (ii) a technique that inspired the notion of logic design (a fundamental part of modern computer design), (iii) the first use of computation to address the mind–body problem, and (iv) the first modern computational theory of mind and brain. (shrink)

(new version: 10/30/07). Click here to download the companion Mathematica 6 notebook that goes along with this paper.

During the cold war, Frank Fenner and Francis Ratcliffe studied mathematically the coevolution of host resistance and parasite virulence when myxomatosis was unleashed on Australia’s rabbit population. Later, Robert May called Fenner the “real hero” of disease ecology for his mathematical modeling of the epidemic. While Ratcliffe came from a tradition of animal ecology, Fenner developed an ecological orientation in World War II through his work on malaria control —that is, through studies of tropical medicine. This makes Fenner at least (...) a partial exception to other senior disease ecologists in the region, most of whom learned their ecology from examining responses to agricultural challenges and animal husbandry problems in settler colonial society. Here I consider the local ecologies of knowledge in southeastern Australia during this period, and describe the particular cold-war intellectual niche that Fenner and Ratcliffe inhabited. (shrink)

Most agents can acquire information about their environments as they operate. A good plan for such an agent is one that not only achieves the goal, but is also executable, i.e., ensures that the agent has enough information at every step to know what to do next. In this paper, we present a formal account of what it means for an agent to know how to execute a plan and to be able to achieve a goal. Such a theory is (...) a prerequisite for producing specifications of planners for agents that can acquire information at run time. It is also essential to account for cooperation among agents. Our account is more general than previous proposals, correctly handles programs containing loops, and incorporates a solution to the frame problem. It can also be used to prove programs containing sensing actions correct. (shrink)

Traces the development of the integral and the differential calculus and related theories since ancient times.

We explore the consequences, for logical system-building, of taking seriously the aim of having irredundant rules of inference, and a preference for proofs of stronger results over proofs of weaker ones. This leads one to reconsider the structural rules of REFLEXIVITY, THINNING, and CUT. REFLEXIVITY survives in the minimally necessary form $\varphi:\varphi$. Proofs have to get started. CUT is subject to a CUT-elimination theorem, to the effect that one can always make do without applications of CUT. So CUT is redundant, (...) and should not be a rule of the system. CUT-elimination, however, in the context of the usual forms of logical rules, requires the presence, in the system, of THINNING. But THINNING, it turns out, is not really necessary. Provided only that one liberalizes the statement of certain logical rules in an appropriate way, one can make do without CUT or THINNING. From the methodological point of view of this study, the logical rules ought to be framed in this newly liberalized form. These liberalized logical rules determine the system of core logic. Given any intuitionistic Gentzen proof of $\Delta:\varphi$, one can determine from it a Core proof of some subsequent of $\Delta:\varphi$. Given any classical Gentzen proof of $\Delta:\varphi$, one can determine from it a classical Core proof of some subsequent of $\Delta:\varphi$. In both cases the Core proof is of a result at least as strong as that of the Gentzen proof; and the only structural rule used is $\varphi:\varphi$. (shrink)

Although Aristotle (Metaphysics, Book IV, Chapter 2) was perhaps the first person to consider the part-whole relationship to be a proper subject matter for philosophic inquiry, the Polish logician Stanislow Lesniewski [15] is generally given credit for the first formal treatment of the subject matter in his Mereology.1 Woodger [30] and Tarski [24] made use of a specific adaptation of Lesniewski's work as a basis for a formal theory of physical things and their parts. The term 'calculus of individuals' (...) was introduced by Leonard and Goodman [14] in their presentation of a system very similar to Tarski's adaptation of Lesniewski's Mereology. Contemporaneously with Lesniewski's development of his Mereology, Whitehead [27] and [28] was developing a theory of extensive abstraction based on the two-place predicate, 'x extends over y\ which is the converse of 'x is a part of y\ This system, according to Russell [22], was to have been the fourth volume of their Pήncipia Mathematica, the never-published volume on geometry. Both Lesniewski [15] and Tarski [25] have recognized the similarities between Whitehead's early work and Lesniewski's Mereology. Between the publication of Whitehead's early work and the publication of Process and Reality [29], Theodore de Laguna [7] published a suggestive alternative basis for Whitehead's theory. This led Whitehead, in Process and Reality, to publish a revised form of his theory based on the two-place predicate, 'x is extensionally connected with y\ It is the purpose of this paper to present a calculus of individuals based on this new Whiteheadian primitive predicate. (shrink)

The calculus of Natural Calculation is introduced as an extension of Natural Deduction by proper term rules. Such term rules provide the capacity of dealing directly with terms in the calculus instead of the usual reasoning based on equations, and therefore the capacity of a natural representation of informal mathematical calculations. Basic proof theoretic results are communicated, in particular completeness and soundness of the calculus; normalisation is briefly investigated. The philosophical impact on a proof theoretic account of (...) the notion of meaning is considered. (shrink)

The derivative is a basic concept of differential calculus. However, if we calculate the derivative as change in distance over change in time, the result at any instant is 0/0, which seems meaningless. Hence, Newton and Leibniz used the limit to determine the derivative. Their method is valid in practice, but it is not easy to intuitively accept. Thus, this article describes the novel method of differential calculus based on the double contradiction, which is easier to accept intuitively. (...) Next, the geometrical meaning of the double contradiction is considered as follows. A tangent at a point on a convex curve is iterated. Then, the slope of the tangent at the point is sandwiched by two kinds of lines. The first kind of line crosses the curve at the original point and a point to the right of it. The second kind of line crosses the curve at the original point and a point to the left of it. Then, the double contradiction can be applied, and the slope of the tangent is determined as a single value. Finally, the meaning of this method for the foundation of mathematics is considered. We reflect on Dehaene’s notion that the foundation of mathematics is based on the intuitions, which evolve independently. Hence, there may be gaps between intuitions. In fact, the Ancient Greeks identified inconsistency between arithmetic and geometry. However, Eudoxus developed the theory of proportion, which is equivalent to the Dedekind Cut. This allows the iteration of an irrational number by rational numbers as precisely as desired. Simultaneously, we can define the irrational number by the double contradiction, although its existence is not guaranteed. Further, an area of a curved figure is iterated and defined by rectilinear figures using the double contradiction. (shrink)

The epsilon calculus is a logical formalism developed by David Hilbert in the service of his program in the foundations of mathematics. The epsilon operator is a term-forming operator which replaces quantifiers in ordinary predicate logic. Specifically, in the calculus, a term εx A denotes some x satisfying A(x), if there is one. In Hilbert's Program, the epsilon terms play the role of ideal elements; the aim of Hilbert's finitistic consistency proofs is to give a procedure which removes (...) such terms from a formal proof. The procedures by which this is to be carried out are based on Hilbert's epsilon substitution method. The epsilon calculus, however, has applications in other contexts as well. The first general application of the epsilon calculus was in Hilbert's epsilon theorems, which in turn provide the basis for the first correct proof of Herbrand's theorem. More recently, variants of the epsilon operator have been applied in linguistics and linguistic philosophy to deal with anaphoric pronouns. (shrink)

We present our calculus of higher-level rules, extended with propositional quantification within rules. This makes it possible to present general schemas for introduction and elimination rules for arbitrary propositional operators and to define what it means that introductions and eliminations are in harmony with each other. This definition does not presuppose any logical system, but is formulated in terms of rules themselves. We therefore speak of a foundational account of proof-theoretic harmony. With every set of introduction rules a canonical (...) elimination rule, and with every set of elimination rules a canonical introduction rule is associated in such a way that the canonical rule is in harmony with the set of rules it is associated with. An example given by Hazen and Pelletier is used to demonstrate that there are significant connectives, which are characterized by their elimination rules, and whose introduction rule is the canonical introduction rule associated with these elimination rules. Due to the availabiliy of higher-level rules and propositional quantification, the means of expression of the framework developed are sufficient to ensure that the construction of canonical elimination or introduction rules is always possible and does not lead out of this framework. (shrink)

This textbook presents a concise, accessible and engaging first introduction to deep learning, offering a wide range of connectionist models which represent the current state-of-the-art. The text explores the most popular algorithms and architectures in a simple and intuitive style, explaining the mathematical derivations in a step-by-step manner. The content coverage includes convolutional networks, LSTMs, Word2vec, RBMs, DBNs, neural Turing machines, memory networks and autoencoders. Numerous examples in working Python code are provided throughout the book, and the code is also (...) supplied separately at an accompanying website. Topics and features: introduces the fundamentals of machine learning, and the mathematical and computational prerequisites for deep learning; discusses feed-forward neural networks, and explores the modifications to these which can be applied to any neural network; examines convolutional neural networks, and the recurrent connections to a feed-forward neural network; describes the notion of distributed representations, the concept of the autoencoder, and the ideas behind language processing with deep learning; presents a brief history of artificial intelligence and neural networks, and reviews interesting open research problems in deep learning and connectionism. This clearly written and lively primer on deep learning is essential reading for graduate and advanced undergraduate students of computer science, cognitive science and mathematics, as well as fields such as linguistics, logic, philosophy, and psychology. (shrink)

internal events that happen spontaneously from external events (actions). It also treats processes, e.g. a buzzer, that do not settle down. The non-monotonic reasoning is circumscription done situation by situation.

Provides computer science students and researchers with a firm background in lambda-calculus and combinators.

We study an expansion of the Distributive Non-associative Lambek Calculus with conjugates of the Lambek product operator and residuals of those conjugates. The resulting logic is well-motivated, under-investigated and difficult to tackle. We prove completeness for some of its fragments and establish that it is decidable. Completeness of the logic is an open problem; some difficulties with applying the usual proof method are discussed.

In this paper I illustrate the evolution of series theory from Leibniz and Newton to the first decades of the eighteenth century. Although mathematicians used convergent series to solve geometric problems, they manipulated series by a mere extension of the rules valid for finite series, without considering convergence as a preliminary condition. Further, they conceived of a power series as a result of a process of the expansion of a finite analytical expression and thought that the link between series and (...) analytical expression was not restricted to the interval of convergence. This gave rise to formal aspects that became progressively more evident while the complexity of the theory increased. Asymptotic and recurrence series emerged as the result of the natural evolution of theory, without the difference between these infinite processes with respect to ordinary series being highlighted. The various aspects of dealing with series can be viewed today as derived from different definitions of the sum. However, mathematicians of that time always considered them as different approaches to a single theory that was based on a unique notion of the sum (even though, later in the eighteenth century, they disagree about what this notion was). (shrink)