On logic of complex algorithms

An algebraic approach to programs called recursive coroutines — due to Janicki [3] — is based on the idea to consider certain complex algorithms as algebraics models of those programs. Complex algorithms are generalizations of pushdown algorithms being algebraic models of recursive procedures (see Mazurkiewicz [4]). LCA — logic of complex algorithms — was formulated in [11]. It formalizes algorithmic properties of a class of deterministic programs called here complex recursive ones or interacting stacks-programs, for which complex algorithms constitute mathematical models. LCA is in a sense an extension of algorithmic logic as initiated by Salwicki [14] and of extended algorithmic logic EAL as formulated and examined by the present author in [8], [9], [10]. In LCA — similarly as in EAL-ω ⁺ -valued logic is applied as a tool to construct control systems (stacks) occurring in corresponding algorithms. The aim of this paper is to give a complete axiomatization. of LCA and to prove a completeness theorem. Logic of complex algorithms was presented at FCT'79 (International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, Berlin 1979)     

Corrections to first-order fuzzy logic

Mail Box

Corrections to first-order fuzzy logic     

An approach to intensional logic

A system of tensed intensional logic excluding iterations of intensions is introduced. Instead of using the type symbols (for ‘sense’), extensional and intensional functor types are distinguished. A peculiarity of the semantics is the general acceptance of value-gaps (including truth-value-gaps): the possible semantic values (extensions) of extensional functors are partial functions. Some advantages of the system (relatively to R. Montague's intensional logic) are briefly indicated. Also, applications for modelling natural languages are illustrated by examples.     

Application of modal logic to programming

The modal logician's notion of possible world and the computer scientist's notion of state of a machine provide a point of commonality which can form the foundation of a logic of action. Extending ordinary modal logic with the calculus of binary relations leads to a very natural logic for describing the behavior of computer programs.This research was supported by NSF Grant No. MSC - 7804338.     

Individualistic formal approach to deontic logic

Some people approve of certain general rules of behavior, or some concrete cases. The others disapprove of or are indifferent to them. In this paper I suggest an axiom system which formalizes the use of these utterances. It may be considered as a special (individualistic) approach to deontic logic.     

Semantic games with chance moves revisited: from IF logic to partial logic

We associate the semantic game with chance moves conceived by Blinov with Blamey’s partial logic. We give some equivalent alternatives to the semantic game, some of which are with a third player, borrowing the idea of introducing the pseudo-player called Nature in game theory. We observe that IF propositional logic proposed by Sandu and Pietarinen can be equivalently translated to partial logic, which implies that imperfect information may not be necessary for IF propositional logic. We also indicate that some independent quantifiers can be regarded as dependent quantifiers of indeterminate sequence, using the interjunction connective in partial logic. We conclude our paper by indicating some further research in a more general setting.     

From Bayesian epistemology to inductive logic

Inductive logic admits a variety of semantics (Haenni et al. (2011) [7, Part 1]). This paper develops semantics based on the norms of Bayesian epistemology (Williamson, 2010 [16, Chapter 7]). Section 1 introduces the semantics and then, in Section 2, the paper explores methods for drawing inferences in the resulting logic and compares the methods of this paper with the methods of Barnett and Paris (2008) [2]. Section 3 then evaluates this Bayesian inductive logic in the light of four traditional critiques of inductive logic, arguing (i) that it is language independent in a key sense, (ii) that it admits connections with the Principle of Indifference but these connections do not lead to paradox, (iii) that it can capture the phenomenon of learning from experience, and (iv) that while the logic advocates scepticism with regard to some universal hypotheses, such scepticism is not problematic from the point of view of scientific theorising.     

Quantum logic as a dynamic logic

We address the old question whether a logical understanding of Quantum Mechanics requires abandoning some of the principles of classical logic. Against Putnam and others (Among whom we may count or not E. W. Beth, depending on how we interpret some of his statements), our answer is a clear “no”. Philosophically, our argument is based on combining a formal semantic approach, in the spirit of E. W. Beth’s proposal of applying Tarski’s semantical methods to the analysis of physical theories, with an empirical–experimental approach to Logic, as advocated by both Beth and Putnam, but understood by us in the view of the operational- realistic tradition of Jauch and Piron, i.e. as an investigation of “the logic of yes–no experiments” (or “questions”). Technically, we use the recently-developed setting of Quantum Dynamic Logic (Baltag and Smets 2005, 2008) to make explicit the operational meaning of quantum-mechanical concepts in our formal semantics. Based on our recent results (Baltag and Smets 2005), we show that the correct interpretation of quantum-logical connectives is dynamical, rather than purely propositional. We conclude that there is no contradiction between classical logic and (our dynamic reinterpretation of) quantum logic. Moreover, we argue that the Dynamic-Logical perspective leads to a better and deeper understanding of the “non-classicality” of quantum behavior than any perspective based on static Propositional Logic.