A Tableau Calculus for Integrating First-Order and Elementary Set Theory Reasoning

2000 ◽  
pp. 143-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Cantone ◽  
Calogero G. Zarba
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theory Reasoning

Categoricity and the sets

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Button ◽  
Sean Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
The Status ◽  
Second Order Logic ◽  
Philosophy Of Set Theory ◽  
Order Set

In this chapter, the focus shifts from numbers to sets. Again, no first-order set theory can hope to get anywhere near categoricity, but Zermelo famously proved the quasi-categoricity of second-order set theory. As in the previous chapter, we must ask who is entitled to invoke full second-order logic. That question is as subtle as before, and raises the same problem for moderate modelists. However, the quasi-categorical nature of Zermelo's Theorem gives rise to some specific questions concerning the aims of axiomatic set theories. Given the status of Zermelo's Theorem in the philosophy of set theory, we include a stand-alone proof of this theorem. We also prove a similar quasi-categoricity for Scott-Potter set theory, a theory which axiomatises the idea of an arbitrary stage of the iterative hierarchy.

scholarly journals Finite Arithmetic Axiomatization for the Basis of Hyperrational Non-Standard Analysis

Axioms ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 263
Author(s):  
Yuri N. Lovyagin ◽  
Nikita Yu. Lovyagin
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Mathematical Analysis ◽  
Axiomatic System ◽  
Elementary Number Theory ◽  
Mathematical Application ◽  
First Order ◽  
Logic Approach ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Finite Arithmetic ◽  
Non Standard Analysis

The standard elementary number theory is not a finite axiomatic system due to the presence of the induction axiom scheme. Absence of a finite axiomatic system is not an obstacle for most tasks, but may be considered as imperfect since the induction is strongly associated with the presence of set theory external to the axiomatic system. Also in the case of logic approach to the artificial intelligence problems presence of a finite number of basic axioms and states is important. Axiomatic hyperrational analysis is the axiomatic system of hyperrational number field. The properties of hyperrational numbers and functions allow them to be used to model real numbers and functions of classical elementary mathematical analysis. However hyperrational analysis is based on well-known non-finite hyperarithmetic axiomatics. In the article we present a new finite first-order arithmetic theory designed to be the basis of the axiomatic hyperrational analysis and, as a consequence, mathematical analysis in general as a basis for all mathematical application including AI problems. It is shown that this axiomatics meet the requirements, i.e., it could be used as the basis of an axiomatic hyperrational analysis. The article in effect completes the foundation of axiomatic hyperrational analysis without calling in an arithmetic extension, since in the framework of the presented theory infinite numbers arise without invoking any new constants. The proposed system describes a class of numbers in which infinite numbers exist as natural objects of the theory itself. We also do not appeal to any “enveloping” set theory.

scholarly journals Deep Network Guided Proof Search

10.29007/8mwc ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Loos ◽  
Geoffrey Irving ◽  
Christian Szegedy ◽  
Cezary Kaliszyk
Keyword(s):  
Deep Learning ◽  
Program Analysis ◽  
Network Models ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
Neural Network Models ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
First Order ◽  
Proof Search ◽  
System Verification ◽  
Theory Reasoning

Deep learning techniques lie at the heart of several significant AI advances in recent years including object recognition and detection, image captioning, machine translation, speech recognition and synthesis, and playing the game of Go.Automated first-order theorem provers can aid in the formalization and verification of mathematical theorems and play a crucial role in program analysis, theory reasoning, security, interpolation, and system verification.Here we suggest deep learning based guidance in the proof search of the theorem prover E. We train and compare several deep neural network models on the traces of existing ATP proofs of Mizar statements and use them to select processed clauses during proof search. We give experimental evidence that with a hybrid, two-phase approach, deep learning based guidance can significantly reduce the average number of proof search steps while increasing the number of theorems proved.Using a few proof guidance strategies that leverage deep neural networks, we have found first-order proofs of 7.36% of the first-order logic translations of the Mizar Mathematical Library theorems that did not previously have ATP generated proofs. This increases the ratio of statements in the corpus with ATP generated proofs from 56% to 59%.

scholarly journals Direct solution of uncertain bratu initial value problem

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 5075
Author(s):  
N. R. Anakira ◽  
A. H. Shather ◽  
A. F. Jameel ◽  
A. K. Alomari ◽  
A. Saaban
Keyword(s):  
Approximate Solution ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Set Theory ◽  
Approximate Analytical Solution ◽  
Order System ◽  
Direct Solution ◽  
Initial Value ◽  
First Order ◽  
Bratu Equation ◽  
Variation Iteration Method

<span>In this paper, an approximate analytical solution for solving the fuzzy Bratu equation based on variation iteration method (VIM) is analyzed and modified without needed of any discretization by taking the benefits of fuzzy set theory. VIM is applied directly, without being reduced to a first order system, to obtain an approximate solution of the uncertain Bratu equation. An example in this regard have been solved to show the capacity and convenience of VIM.</span>

Resolution in type theory

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter B. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Axiomatic Set Theory ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

In [8] J. A. Robinson introduced a complete refutation procedure called resolution for first order predicate calculus. Resolution is based on ideas in Herbrand's Theorem, and provides a very convenient framework in which to search for a proof of a wff believed to be a theorem. Moreover, it has proved possible to formulate many refinements of resolution which are still complete but are more efficient, at least in many contexts. However, when efficiency is a prime consideration, the restriction to first order logic is unfortunate, since many statements of mathematics (and other disciplines) can be expressed more simply and naturally in higher order logic than in first order logic. Also, the fact that in higher order logic (as in many-sorted first order logic) there is an explicit syntactic distinction between expressions which denote different types of intuitive objects is of great value where matching is involved, since one is automatically prevented from trying to make certain inappropriate matches. (One may contrast this with the situation in which mathematical statements are expressed in the symbolism of axiomatic set theory.).

A weak absolute consistency proof for some systems of illative combinatory logic

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.W. Bunder
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Combinatory Logic ◽  
Weak Consistency ◽  
Consistency Proof ◽  
First Order ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Elementary Methods ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Strongly Consistent ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

A large number of formal systems based on combinatory logic or λ-calculus have been extended to include first order predicate calculus. Several of these however have been shown to be inconsistent, all, as far as the author knows, in the strong sense that all well formed formulas (which here include all strings of symbols) are provable. We will call the corresponding consistency notion—an arbitrary wff ⊥ is provable—weak consistency. We will say that a system is strongly consistent if no formula and its negation are provable.Now for some systems, such as that of Kuzichev [11], the strong and weak consistency notions are equivalent, but in the systems of [5] and [6], which we will be considering, they are not. Each of these systems is strong enough to have all of ZF set theory, except Grounding and Choice, interpretable in it, and the system of [5] can also encompass first order arithmetic (see [7]). It therefore seems unlikely that a strong consistency result could be proved for these systems using elementary methods. In this paper however, we prove the weak consistency of both these systems by means that could be formulated, at least within the theory of [5]. The method also applies to the typed systems of Curry, Hindley and Seldin [10] and to Seldin's generalised types [12].

scholarly journals AN EXTENSION OF A THEOREM OF ZERMELO

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOUKO VÄÄNÄNEN
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
First Order ◽  
Membership Relation ◽  
Image Position

AbstractWe show that if $(M,{ \in _1},{ \in _2})$ satisfies the first-order Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms of set theory when the membership relation is ${ \in _1}$ and also when the membership relation is ${ \in _2}$, and in both cases the formulas are allowed to contain both ${ \in _1}$ and ${ \in _2}$, then $\left( {M, \in _1 } \right) \cong \left( {M, \in _2 } \right)$, and the isomorphism is definable in $(M,{ \in _1},{ \in _2})$. This extends Zermelo’s 1930 theorem in [6].

Some properties of epistemic set theory with collection

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 748-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Scedrov
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Intuitionistic Logic ◽  
Existential Quantifier ◽  
Modal Interpretation ◽  
Conservative Extension ◽  
Disjunction Property ◽  
First Order ◽  
Slight Extension ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Epistemic Systems

Myhill [12] extended the ideas of Shapiro [15], and proposed a system of epistemic set theory IST (based on modal S4 logic) in which the meaning of the necessity operator is taken to be the intuitive provability, as formalized in the system itself. In this setting one works in classical logic, and yet it is possible to make distinctions usually associated with intuitionism, e.g. a constructive existential quantifier can be expressed as (∃x) □ …. This was first confirmed when Goodman [7] proved that Shapiro's epistemic first order arithmetic is conservative over intuitionistic first order arithmetic via an extension of Gödel's modal interpretation [6] of intuitionistic logic.Myhill showed that whenever a sentence □A ∨ □B is provable in IST, then A is provable in IST or B is provable in IST (the disjunction property), and that whenever a sentence ∃x.□A(x) is provable in IST, then so is A(t) for some closed term t (the existence property). He adapted the Friedman slash [4] to epistemic systems.Goodman [8] used Epistemic Replacement to formulate a ZF-like strengthening of IST, and proved that it was a conservative extension of ZF and that it had the disjunction and existence properties. It was then shown in [13] that a slight extension of Goodman's system with the Epistemic Foundation (ZFER, cf. §1) suffices to interpret intuitionistic ZF set theory with Replacement (ZFIR, [10]). This is obtained by extending Gödel's modal interpretation [6] of intuitionistic logic. ZFER still had the properties of Goodman's system mentioned above.

Truth In V for ∃*∀∀-Sentences is Decidable

2006 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 1200-1222 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Bellé ◽  
F. Parlamento
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
First Order ◽  
Free Variables ◽  
Order Language

AbstractLet V be the cumulative set theoretic hierarchy, generated from the empty set by taking powers at successor stages and unions at limit stages and. following [2], let the primitive language of set theory be the first order language which contains binary symbols for equality and membership only. Despite the existence of ∀∀-formulae in the primitive language, with two free variables, which are satisfiable in ∀ but not by finite sets ([5]). and therefore of ∃∃∀∀ sentences of the same language, which are undecidable in ZFC without the Axiom of Infinity, truth in V for ∃*∀∀-sentences of the primitive language, is decidable ([1]). Completeness of ZF with respect to such sentences follows.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document