Recent years have seen fresh impetus brought to debates about the proper role of statistical evidence in the law. Recent work largely centres on a set of puzzles known as the ‘proof paradox’. While these puzzles may initially seem academic, they have important ramifications for the law: raising key conceptual questions about legal proof, and practical questions about DNA evidence. This article introduces the proof paradox, why we should care about it, and new work attempting (...) to resolve it. (shrink)

This comprehensive monograph is a cornerstone in the area of mathematical logic and related fields. Focusing on Gentzen-type proof theory, the book presents a detailed overview of creative works by the author and other 20th-century logicians that includes applications of proof theory to logic as well as other areas of mathematics. 1975 edition.

This book argues that the meaning of negation, perhaps the most important logical constant, cannot be defined within the framework of the most comprehensive theory of proof-theoretic semantics, as formulated in the influential work of Michael Dummett and Dag Prawitz. Nils Kürbis examines three approaches that have attempted to solve the problem - defining negation in terms of metaphysical incompatibility; treating negation as an undefinable primitive; and defining negation in terms of a speech act of denial - and (...) concludes that they cannot adequately do so. He argues that whereas proof-theoretic semantics usually only appeals to a notion of truth, it also needs to appeal to a notion of falsity, and proposes a system of natural deduction in which both are incorporated. Offering new perspectives on negation, denial and falsity, his book will be important for readers working on logic, metaphysics and the philosophy of language. (shrink)

There is a long tradition of logic, from Aristotle to Gödel, of understanding a proof from the concepts of necessity and causality. Gödel's attempts to define provability in terms of necessity led him to the distinction of formal and absolute (abstract) provability. Turing's definition of mechanical procedure by means of a Turing machine (TM) and Gödel's definition of a formal system as a mechanical procedure for producing formulas prompt us to understand formal provability as a mechanical causality. We propose (...) a formalism which makes explicit the mechanical causal nature of a TM's work. We claim that Gödel's axiomatised ontotheology and his ontological proof give a clue for the understanding of the concept of absolute provability and the pattern of the corresponding absolute completeness proof, respectively. (shrink)

Several recent results bring into focus the superintuitionistic nature of most notions of proof-theoretic validity, but little work has been done evaluating the consequences of these results. Proof-theoretic validity claims to offer a formal explication of how inferences follow from the definitions of logic connectives (which are defined by their introduction rules). This paper explores whether the new results undermine this claim. It is argued that, while the formal results are worrying, superintuitionistic inferences are valid because the (...) treatments of atomic formulas are insufficiently general, and a resolution to this issue is proposed. (shrink)

In this paper, I propose that applying the methods of data science to “the problem of whether mathematical explanations occur within mathematics itself” (Mancosu 2018) might be a fruitful way to shed new light on the problem. By carefully selecting indicator words for explanation and justification, and then systematically searching for these indicators in databases of scholarly works in mathematics, we can get an idea of how mathematicians use these terms in mathematical practice and with what frequency. The results of (...) this empirical study suggest that mathematical explanations do occur in research articles published in mathematics journals, as indicated by the occurrence of explanation indicators. When compared with the use of justification indicators, however, the data suggest that justifications occur much more frequently than explanations in scholarly mathematical practice. The results also suggest that justificatory proofs occur much more frequently than explanatory proofs, thus suggesting that proof may be playing a larger justificatory role than an explanatory role in scholarly mathematical practice. (shrink)

Structural proof theory is a branch of logic that studies the general structure and properties of logical and mathematical proofs. This book is both a concise introduction to the central results and methods of structural proof theory, and a work of research that will be of interest to specialists. The book is designed to be used by students of philosophy, mathematics and computer science. The book contains a wealth of results on proof-theoretical systems, including extensions of (...) such systems from logic to mathematics, and on the connection between the two main forms of structural proof theory - natural deduction and sequent calculus. The authors emphasize the computational content of logical results. A special feature of the volume is a computerized system for developing proofs interactively, downloadable from the web and regularly updated. (shrink)

The idea of proof-theoretic validity originated in the work of Gentzen, when he suggested that the meaning of each logical expression was encapsulated in its introduction-rules. The idea was developed by Prawitz and Dummett, but came under attack by Prior under the soubriquet 'analytic validity'. Logical truths and logical consequences are deemed analytically valid by virtue of following, in a way which the present chapter clarifies, from the meaning of the logical constants. But different logics are based on (...) different rules, confer different meanings and so validate different theorems and consequences, some of which are arguably not true or valid at all. It seems to follow that some analytic statements are in fact false. The moral is that we must be careful what rules we adopt and what meanings we use our rules to determine. (shrink)

The traditional view of evidence in mathematics is that evidence is just proof and proof is just derivation. There are good reasons for thinking that this view should be rejected: it misrepresents both historical and current mathematical practice. Nonetheless, evidence, proof, and derivation are closely intertwined. This paper seeks to tease these concepts apart. It emphasizes the role of argumentation as a context shared by evidence, proofs, and derivations. The utility of argumentation theory, in general, and argumentation (...) schemes, in particular, as a methodology for the study of mathematical practice is thereby demonstrated. Argumentation schemes represent an almost untapped resource for mathematics education. Notably, they provide a consistent treatment of rigorous and non-rigorous argumentation, thereby working to exhibit the continuity of reasoning in mathematics with reasoning in other areas. Moreover, since argumentation schemes are a comparatively mature methodology, there is a substantial body of existing work to draw upon, including some increasingly sophisticated software tools. Such tools have significant potential for the analysis and evaluation of mathematical argumentation. The first four sections of the paper address the relationships of evidence to proof, proof to derivation, argument to proof, and argument to evidence, respectively. The final section directly addresses some of the educational implications of an argumentation scheme account of mathematical reasoning. (shrink)

The mathematical proof is the most important form of justification in mathematics. It is not, however, the only kind of justification for mathematical propositions. The existence of other forms, some of very significant strength, places a question mark over the prominence given to proof within mathematics. This collection of essays, by leading figures working within the philosophy of mathematics, is a response to the challenge of understanding the nature and role of the proof.

Tetravalent modal logic (TML) was introduced by Font and Rius in 2000. It is an expansion of the Belnap-Dunn four-valued logic FOUR, a logical system that is well-known for the many applications found in several fields. Besides, TML is the logic that preserves degrees of truth with respect to Monteiro’s tetravalent modal algebras. Among other things, Font and Rius showed that TML has a strongly adequate sequent system, but unfortunately this system does not enjoy the cut-elimination property. However, in a (...) previous work we presented a sequent system for TML with the cut-elimination property. Besides, in this same work, it was also presented a sound and complete natural deduction system for this logic. In the present article we continue with the study of TML under a proof-theoretic perspective. In the first place, we show that the natural deduction system that we introduced before admits a normalization theorem. In the second place, taking advantage of the contrapositive implication for the tetravalent modal algebras introduced by A. V. Figallo and P. Landini, we define a decidable tableau system adequate to check validity in the logic TML. Finally, we provide a sound and complete tableau system for TML in the original language. These two tableau systems constitute new (proof-theoretic) decision procedures for checking validity in the variety of tetravalent modal algebras. (shrink)

Reviewed Works:Dick de Jongh, Franco Montagna, Provable Fixed Points.Dick de Jongh, Franco Montagna, Much Shorter Proofs.Alessandra Carbone, Franco Montagna, Rosser Orderings in Bimodal Logics.Alessandra Carbone, Franco Montagna, Much Shorter Proofs: A Bimodal Investigation.

Rather than being random deviation, student errors can be a source of insight into the nature of student difficulties. This paper reports on (and offers pedagogical advice concerning) many common student errors in the construction of proofs, in the application of inference and replacement rules, and in the choice of proof strategies. In addition, a detailed description of the bottom-up strategy for “working backwards” is supplied, along with a discussion of the main difficulties students face when trying to solve (...) proofs in this fashion. Ultimately, it is argued that students can employ both top-down and bottom-up proofs strategies by making use of a graphic proof representation. (shrink)

Planning with incomplete knowledge becomes a very active research area since late 1990s. Many logical formalisms introduce sensing actions and conditional plans to address the problem. The action language $\mathcal{A}_{K}$ invented by Son and Baral is a well-known framework for this purpose. In this paper, we propose so-called cautious and weakly cautious semantics for $\mathcal{A}_{K}$ , in order to allow an agent to generate and execute reliable plans in safety-critical environments. Intuitively speaking, cautious and weakly cautious semantics enable the agent (...) to know exactly what happens after the execution of an action. Computational complexity analysis shows that cautious semantics reduces the reasoning complexity of $\mathcal{A}_{K}$ , it is also worth to point out that many useful domains could still be expressed with this setting. Another important contribution of our work is the development of Hoare style proof systems. These proof systems are served as inference mechanisms for the verification of conditional plans, and proved to be sound and complete. In addition, they could also be used for plan generation, in the sense that constructing a derivation is indeed a procedure to finding a plan. We point out that the proof systems posses a nice property for off-line planning, that is, the agent could generate and store short proofs in her spare time, and perform quick plan query by easily constructing a long proof from the stored shorter ones (under the assumption that sufficient proofs are stored). (shrink)

In the present paper, the Fregean conception of proof-theoretic semantics that I developed elsewhere will be revised so as to better reflect the different roles played by open and closed derivations. I will argue that such a conception can deliver a semantic analysis of languages containing paradoxical expressions provided some of its basic tenets are liberalized. In particular, the notion of function underlying the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov explanation of implication should be understood as admitting functions to be partial. As argued in (...) previous work, the correctness of an inference rule should not be defined in terms of transmission of provability, but rather should be grounded on weaker principles, which I show that are motivated by consideration about the content of the inversion principle. In the conclusion, I briefly address the issue of compositionality, arguing that the violation of compositionality induced by paradoxes are no worse than others that are regarded, at least by Dummett, as wholly unproblematic. (shrink)

Fuzzy logics are many-valued logics that are well suited to reasoning in the context of vagueness. They provide the basis for the wider field of Fuzzy Logic, encompassing diverse areas such as fuzzy control, fuzzy databases, and fuzzy mathematics. This book provides an accessible and up-to-date introduction to this fast-growing and increasingly popular area. It focuses in particular on the development and applications of "proof-theoretic" presentations of fuzzy logics; the result of more than ten years of intensive work (...) by researchers in the area, including the authors. In addition to providing alternative elegant presentations of fuzzy logics, proof-theoretic methods are useful for addressing theoretical problems and developing efficient deduction and decision algorithms. Proof-theoretic presentations also place fuzzy logics in the broader landscape of non-classical logics, revealing deep relations with other logics studied in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy. The book builds methodically from the semantic origins of fuzzy logics to proof-theoretic presentations such as Hilbert and Gentzen systems, introducing both theoretical and practical applications of these presentations. (shrink)

RRecently, much work has been done on G.E. Moore’s proof of an external world with the aim of diagnosing just where the Proof ‘goes wrong’. In the mainstream literature, the most widely discussed debate on this score stands between those who defend competing accounts of perceptual warrant known as dogmatism and conservativism. Each account implies a different verdict on Moore’s Proof, though both share a commitment to supposing that an examination of premise-conclusion dependence relations will sufficiently (...) reveal what’s wrong with the Proof. Parallel to this debate on Moore stands perhaps an equally interesting debate within which the Proof is critiqued as it stands in the context of the skeptical debate. On this score, Michael Fara and Ernest Sosa have weighed in with a markedly different take on Moore’s anti-skeptical ambitions and on the nature of skeptical challenges more generally. The aim of this paper will be to critically evaluate these two very distinct strands of recent work on Moore’s Proof. Part I of the paper will focus on the mainstream debate, and in Part II of the paper, I’ll focus on the parallel debate about skepticism. My critical discussion will be aimed throughout at showing how the various proposals I’ve taken as representative of these two parallel debates surrounding Moore’s Proof ultimately fall short—each for different reasons—of what a satisfactory diagnosis of the Proof would require. (shrink)

This Element is an introduction to recent work proofs and models in philosophical logic, with a focus on the semantic paradoxes the sorites paradox. It introduces and motivates different proof systems and different kinds of models for a range of logics, including classical logic, intuitionistic logic, a range of three-valued and four-valued logics, and substructural logics. It also compares and contrasts the different approaches to substructural treatments of the paradox, showing how the structural rules of contraction, cut and (...) identity feature in paradoxical derivations. It then introduces model theoretic treatments of the paradoxes, including a simple fixed-point model construction which generates three-valued models for theories of truth, which can provide models for a range of different non-classical logics. The Element closes with a discussion of the relationship between proofs and models, arguing that both have their place in the philosophers' and logicians' toolkits. (shrink)

In this chapter, Talbott explains how the Proof paradigm, a model of top-down reasoning, has led to a serious misunderstanding of how moral judgments are epistemically justified. Talbott develops an alternative equilibrium model of moral reasoning based on the work of Mill, Rawls, and Habermas and uses it to show how bottom-up reasoning could have led to the discovery of human rights. Talbott uses the U.S. Constitution to illustrate the idea that guarantees of basic human rights are components (...) of a self-improving self-regulating system for promoting justice. The system does not have to begin with self-evident or even true principles of justice. Bottom-up reasoning can lead to changes that make it more just over time. (shrink)

Gaisi Takeuti extended Gentzen's work to higher-order case in 1950's–1960's and proved the consistency of impredicative subsystems of analysis. He has been chiefly known as a successor of Hilbert's school, but we pointed out in the previous paper that Takeuti's aimed to investigate the relationships between "minds" by carrying out his proof-theoretic project rather than proving the "reliability" of such impredicative subsystems of analysis. Moreover, as briefly explained there, his philosophical ideas can be traced back to Nishida's philosophy (...) in Kyoto's school. For the proving the consistency of such systems, it is crucial to prove the well-foundedness of ordinals called "ordinal diagrams" developed for it. Takeuti presented such arguments several times in order to show that they are admitted in his stand point. As a starting point of investigating his finitist stand point, we formulate the system of ordinal notations up to ε0 and reconstruct the well-foundedness arguments of them. (shrink)

Equational reasoning arises in many areas of mathematics and computer science. It is a cornerstone of algebraic reasoning and results essential in tasks of specification and verification in functional programming, where a program is mainly a set of equations. The usual manipulation of identities while conducting informal proofs obviates many intermediate steps that are neccesary while developing them using a formal system, such as the equationally complete Birkhoff calculus ${\mathcal{B}}$. This deductive system does not fit in the common manner of (...) doing mathematical proofs, and it is not compatible with the mechanisms of proof assistants. The aim of this work is to provide a deductive system ${\mathcal{B}}^{\textrm{GOAL}}$ for equality, equivalent to ${\mathcal{B}}$ but suitable for constructing equational proofs in a backward fashion. This feature makes it adequate for interactive proof-search in the approach of proof assistants. This will be achieved by turning ${\mathcal{B}}^{\textrm{GOAL}}$ into a transition system of formal tactics in the style of Edinburgh LCF, such transformation allows us to give a direct formal definition of backward proof in equational logic. (shrink)

The initial motivating question for this thesis is what the standard of rigour in modern mathematics amounts to: what makes a proof rigorous, or fail to be rigorous? How is this judged? A new account of rigour is put forward, aiming to go some way to answering these questions. Some benefits of the norm of rigour on this account are discussed. The account is contrasted with other remarks that have been made about mathematical proof and its workings, and (...) is tested and illustrated by considering a case study discussed in the literature. On the view put forward here one can obtain a manner of informal, rigorous mathematics founded on any of a variety of proof systems. The latter part of the thesis is concerned with the question of how we should decide which of these competing proof systems we should base our mathematics on: i.e., the question of which proof system we should take as a foundation for our mathematics. A novel answer to this question is proposed, in which the key property we should require of a proof system is that for as many different kinds of structures as possible, when the proof system allows a generalization about that kind of structure to be proved, the generalization actually holds of all real examples of that kind of structure which exist. This is the requirement of soundness of the proof system. It is argued that the best way to establish the soundness of a proof system may be by giving an interpretation of its axioms on which they are established as true. As preparation for this discussion, the thesis first investigates the logical and conceptual basis of various arithmetic concepts, with the results obtained used in the final discussion of soundness. (shrink)

An Introduction to Proof Theory provides an accessible introduction to the theory of proofs, with details of proofs worked out and examples and exercises to aid the reader's understanding. It also serves as a companion to reading the original pathbreaking articles by Gerhard Gentzen. The first half covers topics in structural proof theory, including the Gödel-Gentzen translation of classical into intuitionistic logic, natural deduction and the normalization theorems, the sequent calculus, including cut-elimination and mid-sequent theorems, and various applications (...) of these results. The second half examines ordinal proof theory, specifically Gentzen's consistency proof for first-order Peano Arithmetic. The theory of ordinal notations and other elements of ordinal theory are developed from scratch, and no knowledge of set theory is presumed. The proof methods needed to establish proof-theoretic results, especially proof by induction, are introduced in stages throughout the text. Mancosu, Galvan, and Zach's introduction will provide a solid foundation for those looking to understand this central area of mathematical logic and the philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

Although separated by the centuries, Anselm and Hegel represent two different developments of the ontological proof. This book guides the reader through an exploration of the perplexing ontological argument from a well-balanced analysis of the works of two significant, yet polar opposite thinkers, Anselm and Hegel.

Transition to Real Analysis with Proof provides undergraduate students with an introduction to analysis including an introduction to proof. The text combines the topics covered in a transition course to lead into a first course on analysis. This combined approach allows instructors to teach a single course where two were offered. The text opens with an introduction to basic logic and set theory, setting students up to succeed in the study of analysis. Each section is followed by graduated (...) exercises that both guide and challenge students. The author includes examples and illustrations that appeal to the visual side of analysis. The accessible structure of the book makes it an ideal refence for later years of study or professional work. (shrink)

This fundamental and straightforward text addresses a weakness observed among present-day students, namely a lack of familiarity with formal proof. Beginning with the idea of mathematical proof and the need for it, associated technical and logical skills are developed with care and then brought to bear on the core material of analysis in such a lucid presentation that the development reads naturally and in a straightforward progression. Retaining the core text, the second edition has additional worked examples which (...) users have indicated a need for, in addition to more emphasis on how analysis can be used to tell the accuracy of the approximations to the quantities of interest which arise in analytical limits. (shrink)

This text is an outgrowth of notes prepared by J. Y. Girard for a course at the University of Paris VII. It deals with the mathematical background of the application to computer science of aspects of logic (namely the correspondence between proposition & types). Combined with the conceptual perspectives of Girard's ideas, this sheds light on both the traditional logic material & its prospective applications to computer science. The book covers a very active & exciting research area, & it will (...) be essential reading for all those working in logic & computer science. (shrink)

Apologies. The purpose of the following talk is to give an overview of the present state of aims, methods and results in Pure Proof Theory. Shortage of time forces me to concentrate on my very personal views. This entails that I will emphasize the work which I know best, i.e., work that has been done in the triangle Stanford, Munich and Münster. I am of course well aware that there are as important results coming from outside this (...) triangle and I apologize for not displaying these results as well.Moreover the audience should be aware that in some points I have to oversimplify matters. Those who complain about that are invited to consult the original papers.1.1. General. Proof theory startedwithHilbert's Programme which aimed at a finitistic consistency proof for mathematics.By Gödel's Theorems, however, we know that we can neither formalize all mathematics nor even prove the consistency of formalized fragments by finitistic means. Inspite of this fact I want to give some reasons why I consider proof theory in the style of Gentzen's work still as an important and exciting field of Mathematical Logic. I will not go into applications of Gentzen's cut-elimination technique to computer science problems—this may be considered as applied proof theory—but want to concentrate on metamathematical problems and results. In this sense I am talking about Pure Proof Theory.Mathematicians are interested in structures. There is only one way to find the theorems of a structure. Start with an axiom system for the structure and deduce the theorems logically. These axiom systems are the objects of proof-theoretical research. Studying axiom systems there is a series of more or less obvious questions. (shrink)

Imre Lakatos’ Proofs and Refutations is a book well known to those who work in the philosophy of mathematics, though it is perhaps not widely referred to. Its general thrust is out of tenor with the foundationalist perspective that has dominated work in the philosophy of mathematics since the early years of the 20th century. It seems to us, though, that the book contains striking insights into the nature of proof, and the purpose of this paper is (...) to explore and apply some of these. (shrink)

We present a survey of proof theory in the USSR beginning with the paper by Kolmogorov [1925] and ending (mostly) in 1969; the last two sections deal with work done by A. A. Markov and N. A. Shanin in the early seventies, providing a kind of effective interpretation of negative arithmetic formulas. The material is arranged in chronological order and subdivided according to topics of investigation. The exposition is more detailed when the work is little known in (...) the West or the original presentation can be improved using notions or results which appeared later. This includes such topics as Novikov's cut-elimination method (regular formulas) and Maslov's inverse method for the predicate logic. (shrink)

The vision of machines autonomously carrying out substantive conjecture generation, theorem discovery, proof discovery, and proof verification in mathematics and the natural sciences has a long history that reaches back before the development of automatic systems designed for such processes. While there has been considerable progress in proof verification in the formal sciences, for instance the Mizar project’ and the four-color theorem, now machine verified, there has been scant such work carried out in the realm of (...) the natural sciences—until recently. The delay in the case of the natural sciences can be attributed to both a lack of formal analysis of the so-called “theories” in such sciences, and the lack of sufficient progress in automated theorem proving. While the lack of analysis is probably due to an inclination toward informality and empiricism on the part of nearly all of the relevant scientists, the lack of progress is to be expected, given the computational hardness of automated theorem proving; after all, theoremhood in even first-order logic is Turing-undecidable. We give in the present short paper a compressed report on our building upon these formal theories using logic-based AI in order to achieve, in relativity, both machine proof discovery and proof verification, for theorems previously established by humans. Our report is intended to serve as a springboard to machine-produced results in the future that have not been obtained by humans. (shrink)

In this work we develop goal-directed deduction methods for the implicational fragment of several modal logics. We give sound and complete procedures for strict implication of K, T, K4, S4, K5, K45, KB, KTB, S5, G and for some intuitionistic variants. In order to achieve a uniform and concise presentation, we first develop our methods in the framework of Labelled Deductive Systems [Gabbay 96]. The proof systems we present are strongly analytical and satisfy a basic property of cut (...) admissibility. We then show that for most of the systems under consideration the labelling mechanism can be avoided by choosing an appropriate way of structuring theories. One peculiar feature of our proof systems is the use of restart rules which allow to re-ask the original goal of a deduction. In case of K, K4, S4 and G, we can eliminate such a rule, without loosing completeness. In all the other cases, by dropping such a rule, we get an intuitionistic variant of each system. The present results are part of a larger project of a goal directed proof theory for non-classical logics; the purpose of this project is to show that most implicational logics stem from slight variations of a unique deduction method, and from different ways of structuring theories. Moreover, the proof systems we present follow the logic programming style of deduction and seem promising for proof search [Gabbay and Reyle 84, Miller et al. 91]. (shrink)

At the turn of the nineteenth century, mathematics exhibited a style of argumentation that was more explicitly computational than is common today. Over the course of the century, the introduction of abstract algebraic methods helped unify developments in analysis, number theory, geometry, and the theory of equations; and work by mathematicians like Dedekind, Cantor, and Hilbert towards the end of the century introduced set-theoretic language and infinitary methods that served to downplay or suppress computational content. This shift in emphasis (...) away from calculation gave rise to concerns as to whether such methods were meaningful, or appropriate to mathematics. The discovery of paradoxes stemming from overly naive use of set-theoretic language and methods led to even more pressing concerns as to whether the modern methods were even consistent. This led to heated debates in the early twentieth century and what is sometimes called the “crisis of foundations.” In lectures presented in 1922, David Hilbert launched his Beweistheorie, or Proof Theory, which aimed to justify the use of modern methods and settle the problem of foundations once and for all. This, Hilbert argued, could be achieved as follows. (shrink)

At the turn of the nineteenth century, mathematics exhibited a style of argumentation that was more explicitly computational than is common today. Over the course of the century, the introduction of abstract algebraic methods helped unify developments in analysis, number theory, geometry, and the theory of equations; and work by mathematicians like Dedekind, Cantor, and Hilbert towards the end of the century introduced set-theoretic language and infinitary methods that served to downplay or suppress computational content. This shift in emphasis (...) away from calculation gave rise to concerns as to whether such methods were meaningful, or appropriate to mathematics. The discovery of paradoxes stemming from overly naive use of set-theoretic language and methods led to even more pressing concerns as to whether the modern methods were even consistent. This led to heated debates in the early twentieth century and what is sometimes called the “crisis of foundations.” In lectures presented in 1922, David Hilbert launched his Beweistheorie, or Proof Theory, which aimed to justify the use of modern methods and settle the problem of foundations once and for all. This, Hilbert argued, could be achieved as follows. (shrink)

This chapter provides broad coverage of the notion of logical consequence, exploring its modal, semantic, and epistemic aspects. It develops the contrast between proof-theoretic notion of consequence, in terms of deduction, and a model-theoretic approach, in terms of truth-conditions. The main purpose is to relate the formal, technical work in logic to the philosophical concepts that underlie reasoning.

Is truth in the law just plain truth - or something sui generis? Is a trial a search for truth? Do adversarial procedures and exclusionary rules of evidence enable, or impede, the accurate determination of factual issues? Can degrees of proof be identified with mathematical probabilities? What role can statistical evidence properly play? How can courts best handle the scientific testimony on which cases sometimes turn? How are they to distinguish reliable scientific testimony from unreliable hokum? These interdisciplinary essays (...) explore such questions about science, proof, and truth in the law. With her characteristic clarity and verve, Haack brings her original and distinctive work in theory of knowledge and philosophy of science to bear on real-life legal issues. She includes detailed analyses of a wide variety of cases and lucid summaries of relevant scientific work, of the many roles of the scientific peer-review system, and of relevant legal developments. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to reconsider several proposals that have been put forward in order to develop a Proof-Theoretical Semantics, from the by now classical neo-verificationist approach provided by D. Prawitz and M. Dummett in the Seventies, to an alternative, more recent approach mainly due to the work of P. Schroeder-Heister and L. Hallnäs, based on clausal definitions. Some other intermediate proposals are very briefly sketched. Particular attention will be given to the role played by the (...) so-called Fundamental Assumption. We claim that whereas, in the neo-verificationist proposal, the condition expressed by that Assumption is necessary to ensure the completeness of the justification procedure ( from the outside , so to speak), within the definitional framework it is a built-in feature of the proposal. The latter approach, therefore, appears as an alternative solution to the problem which prompted the neo-verificationists to introduce the Fundamental Assumption. (shrink)

A Transition to Proof: An Introduction to Advanced Mathematics describes writing proofs as a creative process. There is a lot that goes into creating a mathematical proof before writing it. Ample discussion of how to figure out the "nuts and bolts'" of the proof takes place: thought processes, scratch work and ways to attack problems. Readers will learn not just how to write mathematics but also how to do mathematics. They will then learn to communicate mathematics (...) effectively. The text emphasizes the creativity, intuition, and correct mathematical exposition as it prepares students for courses beyond the calculus sequence. The author urges readers to work to define their mathematical voices. This is done with style tips and strict "mathematical do’s and don’ts", which are presented in eye-catching "text-boxes" throughout the text. The end result enables readers to fully understand the fundamentals of proof. Features: The text is aimed at transition courses preparing students to take analysis Promotes creativity, intuition, and accuracy in exposition The language of proof is established in the first two chapters, which cover logic and set theory Includes chapters on cardinality and introductory topology. (shrink)

This open access book is a superb collection of some fifteen chapters inspired by Schroeder-Heister's groundbreaking work, written by leading experts in the field, plus an extensive autobiography and comments on the various contributions by Schroeder-Heister himself. For several decades, Peter Schroeder-Heister has been a central figure in proof-theoretic semantics, a field of study situated at the interface of logic, theoretical computer science, natural-language semantics, and the philosophy of language. -/- The chapters of which this book is composed (...) discuss the subject from a rich variety of angles, including the history of logic, the proper interpretation of logical validity, natural deduction rules, the notions of harmony and of synonymy, the structure of proofs, the logical status of equality, intentional phenomena, and the proof theory of second-order arithmetic. All chapters relate directly to questions that have driven Schroeder-Heister's own research agenda and to which he has made seminal contributions. The extensive autobiographical chapter not only provides a fascinating overview of Schroeder-Heister's career and the evolution of his academic interests but also constitutes a contribution to the recent history of logic in its own right, painting an intriguing picture of the philosophical, logical, and mathematical institutional landscape in Germany and elsewhere since the early 1970s. The papers collected in this book are illuminatingly put into a unified perspective by Schroeder-Heister's comments at the end of the book. Both graduate students and established researchers in the field will find this book an excellent resource for future work in proof-theoretic semantics and related areas. (shrink)

We suggest an algebraic approach to proof-theoretic analysis based on the notion of graded provability algebra, that is, Lindenbaum boolean algebra of a theory enriched by additional operators which allow for the structure to capture proof-theoretic information. We use this method to analyze Peano arithmetic and show how an ordinal notation system up to 0 can be recovered from the corresponding algebra in a canonical way. This method also establishes links between proof-theoretic ordinal analysis and the (...) class='Hi'>work which has been done in the last two decades on provability logic and reflection principles. Because of its abstract algebraic nature, we hope that it will also be of interest for non-prooftheorists. (shrink)

In this paper, I attempt a reconstruction of the theory of intersections in the geometry of Euclid. It has been well known, at least since the time of Pasch onward, that in the Elements there are no explicit principles governing the existence of the points of intersections between lines, so that in several propositions of Euclid the simple crossing of two lines (two circles, for instance) is regarded as the actual meeting of such lines, it being simply assumed that the (...) point of their intersection exists. Such assumptions are labelled, today, as implicit claims about the continuity of the lines, or about the continuity of the underlying space. Euclid’s proofs, therefore, would seem to have some demonstrative gaps that need to be filled by a set of continuity axioms (as we do, in fact, find in modern axiomatizations).I show that Euclid’s theory of intersections was not in fact based on any notion of continuity at all. This is not only because Greek concepts of continuity (such as the Aristotelian ones) were largely insufficient to ground a geometrical theory of intersections, but also, at a deeper level, because continuity was simply not regarded as a notion that had any role to play in the latter theory. Had Euclid been asked to explain why the points of intersections of lines and circles should exist, it would have never occurred to him to mention continuity in this connection. Ancient geometry was very different from ours, and it is only our modern views on continuity that tend to give rise to the expectation that this latter must be included in the foundations of elementary mathematics.We may hope to reconstruct Euclid’s views on intersections if we undertake a critical examination both of the extension and of the limits of ancient diagrammatic practices. This is tantamount to attempting to understand to what extent the existence of an intersection point may be inferred just from the inspection of a diagram, and in which cases we need rather to supplement such inference by propositional rules. This leads us to discuss Euclid’s definition of a point, and to work out the details of the complex interaction between diagrams and text in ancient geometry. We will see, then, that Euclid may have possessed a theory of intersections that was sufficiently rigorous to dispel the main objections that could be advanced in antiquity. (shrink)

This paper presents a tree method for testing the validity of inferences, including syllogisms, in a simple term logic. The method is given in the form of an algorithm and is shown to be sound and complete with respect to the obvious denotational semantics. The primitive logical constants of the system, which is indebted to the logical works of Jevons, Brentano and Lewis Carroll, are term negation, polyadic term conjunction, and functors affirming and denying existence, and use is also made (...) of a metalinguistic concept of formal synonymy. It is indicated briefly how the method may be extended to other systems. (shrink)

MATHEMATICS is a wonderful, mad subject, full of imagination, fantasy and creativity that is not limited by the petty details of the physical world, but only by the strength of our inner light. Does this sound familiar? Probably not from the mathematics classes you may have attended. But consider the work of three famous earlier mathematicians: Leonhard Euler, Georg Cantor and Srinivasa Ramanujan.

Beer’s (2003) paper is a tour de force of detailed comments on the more general notion of “situated- dynamical modeling, and provides a concrete sample ness”, Beer suggests that “on this view, situated action of the kinds of understanding dynamicists may realis- is the fundamental concern and cognition is … one tically hope to achieve. The analysis is thus, as Beer resource among many that can be brought to bear as an states, a “tool for building intuition”, and in this (...) it suc- agent encounters its world”. In the worked example of ceeds brilliantly. But it is also an attempt to show that an agent that approaches circles and avoids diamonds, dynamical approaches can get a foothold in the expla- we see direct evidence of this in the claim that a certain nation of “minimally cognitive behaviors”; that is to three-dimensional projection provides a potent analytic say, behaviors that seem, on the surface at least, good tool. For this projection happens to be one that involves contenders for more traditional forms of problem de- one environmental state variable (vertical object posi- composition and analysis. In these brief comments, I tion), one body state variable (horizontal position rela- want to focus on one important question that I think tive to the object) and one neuronal state variable remains unanswered, and that bears rather directly on (output of interneuron 9). By dispensing with talk of this enterprise of “scaling up”. representations and their contents, and restricting the The question concerns the notion of an integrated depiction of the inner realm to a depiction of inner state dynamical explanation itself. The point about such alone (section 9.3), the dynamicist makes it easy to.. (shrink)

A loose analogy relates the work of Laplace and Hilbert. These thinkers had roughly similar objectives. At a time when so much of our analytic effort goes to distinguishing mathematics and logic from physical theory, such an analogy can still be instructive, even though differences will always divide endeavors such as those of Laplace and Hilbert.

This volume is dedicated to Prof. Dag Prawitz and his outstanding contributions to philosophical and mathematical logic. Prawitz's eminent contributions to structural proof theory, or general proof theory, as he calls it, and inference-based meaning theories have been extremely influential in the development of modern proof theory and anti-realistic semantics. In particular, Prawitz is the main author on natural deduction in addition to Gerhard Gentzen, who defined natural deduction in his PhD thesis published in 1934. The book (...) opens with an introductory paper that surveys Prawitz's numerous contributions to proof theory and proof-theoretic semantics and puts his work into a somewhat broader perspective, both historically and systematically. Chapters include either in-depth studies of certain aspects of Dag Prawitz's work or address open research problems that are concerned with core issues in structural proof theory and range from philosophical essays to papers of a mathematical nature. Investigations into the necessity of thought and the theory of grounds and computational justifications as well as an examination of Prawitz's conception of the validity of inferences in the light of three “dogmas of proof-theoretic semantics” are included. More formal papers deal with the constructive behaviour of fragments of classical logic and fragments of the modal logic S4 among other topics. In addition, there are chapters about inversion principles, normalization of proofs, and the notion of proof-theoretic harmony and other areas of a more mathematical persuasion. Dag Prawitz also writes a chapter in which he explains his current views on the epistemic dimension of proofs and addresses the question why some inferences succeed in conferring evidence on their conclusions when applied to premises for which one already possesses evidence. (shrink)

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the approach to meaning in logic based on _proof_ (as opposed to truth). There are two major approaches to P-tS: proof-theoretic validity (P-tV) and base-extension semantics (B-eS). The former is a semantics of arguments, and the latter is a semantics of logical constants. This paper demonstrates that the B-eS for _intuitionistic propositional logic_ (IPL) encapsulates the declarative content of a version of P-tV based on the elimination rules. This explicates how the B-eS for IPL (...) works, and shows the completeness of this version of P-tV. (shrink)

In this paper we argue that hybrid logic is the deductive setting most natural for Kripke semantics. We do so by investigating hybrid axiomatics for a variety of systems, ranging from the basic hybrid language (a decidable system with the same complexity as orthodox propositional modal logic) to the strong Priorean language (which offers full first-order expressivity).We show that hybrid logic offers a genuinely first-order perspective on Kripke semantics: it is possible to define base logics which extend automatically to a (...) wide variety of frame classes and to prove completeness using the Henkin method. In the weaker languages, this requires the use of non-orthodox rules. We discuss these rules in detail and prove non-eliminability and eliminability results. We also show how another type of rule, which reflects the structure of the strong Priorean language, can be employed to give an even wider coverage of frame classes. We show that this deductive apparatus gets progressively simpler as we work our way up the expressivity hierarchy, and conclude the paper by showing that the approach transfers to first-order hybrid logic. (shrink)

Proof and Disproof in Formal Logic is a lively and entertaining introduction to formal logic providing an excellent insight into how a simple logic works. Formal logic allows you to check a logical claim without considering what the claim means. This highly abstracted idea is an essential and practical part of computer science. The idea of a formal system-a collection of rules and axioms, which define a universe of logical proofs-is what gives us programming languages and modern-day programming. This (...) book concentrates on using logic as a tool: making and using formal proofs and disproofs of particular logical claims. The logic it uses-natural deduction-is very small and very simple; working with it helps you see how large mathematical universes can be built on small foundations. The book is divided into four parts: Part I "Basics" gives an introduction to formal logic with a short history of logic and explanations of some technical words. Part II "Formal Syntactic Proof" show you how to do calculations in a formal system where you are guided by shapes and never need to think about meaning. Your experiments are aided by Jape, which can operate as both inquisitor and oracle. Part III "Formal Semantic Disproof" shows you how to construct mathematical counterexamples to shoe that proof is impossible. Jape can check the counterexamples you build. Part IV " Program Specification and Proof" describes how to apply your logical understanding to a real computer science problem, the accurate description and verification of programs. Jape helps, as far as arithmetic allows. Aimed at undergraduates and graduates in computer science, logic, mathematics and philosophy, the text includes reference to and exercises based on the computer software package Jape, an interactive teaching and research tool designed and hosted by the author that is freely available on the web. (shrink)