A parametrized axiomatization for a large number of restricted second-order logics

This article is a rewriting of my Ph.D. Thesis, supervised by Professor G. Sabbagh, and incorporates a suggestion from Professor B. Poizat. My main result can be crudely summarized (but see below for detailed statements) by the equality: first-order theory of F[Xi]i∈I = weak second-order theory of F.§I.1. Conventions. The letter F will always denote a commutative field, and I a nonempty set. A field or a ring (A; +, ·) will often be written A for short. We shall use symbols which are definable in all our models, and in the structure of natural numbers (N; +, ·):— the constant 0, defined by the formula Z(x): ∀y (x + y = y);— the constant 1, defined by the formula U(x): ∀y (x · y = y);— the operation ∹ x − y = z ↔ x = y + z;— the relation of division: x ∣ y ↔ ∃ z(x · z = y).A domain is a commutative ring with unity and without any zero divisor.By “… → …” we mean “… is definable in …, uniformly in any model M of L”.All our constructions will be uniform, unless otherwise mentioned.§I.2. Weak second-order models and languages. First of all, we have to define the models Pf(M), Sf(M), Sf′(M) and HF(M) associated to a model M = {A; ℐ) of a first-order language L [CK, pp. 18–20]. Let L1 be the extension of L obtained by adjunction of a second list of variables (denoted by capital letters), and of a membership symbol ∈. Pf(M) is the model (A, Pf(A); ℐ, ∈) of L1, (where Pf(A) is the set of finite subsets of A. Let L2 be the extension of L obtained by adjunction of a second list of variables, a membership symbol ∈, and a concatenation symbol ◠.

It is well known that the laws of logic governing the sentence connectives—“and”, “or”, “not”, etc.—can be expressed by means of equations in the theory of Boolean algebras. The task of providing a similar algebraic setting for the full first-order predicate logic is the primary concern of algebraic logicians. The best-known efforts in this direction are the polyadic algebras of Halmos (cf. [2]) and the cylindric algebras of Tarski (cf. [3]), both of which may be described as Boolean algebras with infinitely many additional operations. In particular, there is a primitive operator, cκ, corresponding to each quantification, ∃υκ. In this paper we explore a version of algebraic logic conceived by A. H. Copeland, Sr., and described in [1], which has this advantage: All operators are generated from a finite set of primitive operations.Following the theory of cylindric algebras, we introduce, in the natural way, the classes of Copeland set algebras (SCpA), representable Copeland algebras (RCpA), and Copeland algebras of formulas. Playing a central role in the discussion is the set, Γ, of all equations holding in every set algebra. The reason for this is that the operations in a set algebra reflect the notion of satisfaction of a formula in a model, and hence an equation expresses the fact that two formulas are satisfied by the same sequences of objects in the model. Thus to say that an equation holds in every set algebra is to assert that a certain pair of formulas are logically equivalent.

Using ♢ ℵ 1 {\diamondsuit _{{\aleph _1}}} we construct a Boolean algebra B B of power ℵ 1 {\aleph _1} , with the following properties: (a) B B has just ℵ 1 {\aleph _1} subalgebras. (b) Every uncountable subset of B B contains a countable independent set, a chain of order type η \eta , and three distinct elements a , b a,b and c c , such that a ∩ b = c a \cap b = c . (a) refutes a conjecture of J. D. Monk, (b) answers a question of R. McKenzie. B B is embeddable in P ( ω ) P(\omega ) . A variant of the construction yields an almost Jónson Boolean algebra. We prove that every subalgebra of an interval algebra is retractive. This answers affirmatively a conjecture of B \text {B} . Rotman. Assuming MA \text {MA} or the existence of a Suslin tree we find a retractive BA \text {BA} not embeddable in an interval algebra. This refutes a conjecture of B. Rotman. We prove that an uncountable subalgebra of an interval algebra contains an uncountable chain or an uncountable antichain. Assuming CH \text {CH} we prove that the theory of Boolean algebras in Magidor’s and Malitz’s language is undecidable. This answers a question of M. Weese.

An Introduction to First-Order Logic

Formalizing Dijkstra's predicate transformer wp in weak second-order logic

The isolation of dimensions from a data matrix has been traditionally formulated in terms of an al gebraic or geometric model. Order analysis was de veloped as a method of multidimensional analysis and scaling based on the theory of Boolean algebra. The order analytic algorithm utilizes functions of the propositional calculus in lieu of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the general linear model. Also, the graphic presentation of latent space in coordinates of the Euclidian space is paralleled in ordering- theoretic models by dendrograms of the test space. A conceptual outline of order analysis is presented, followed by an empirical comparison of factor and order analysis solutions of a sample data problem. Resulting factor and order analytic structures are evaluated in terms of meeting criteria of simple structure and correct reflection of broad cognitive categories. In addition, the relations of proximity and dominance are discussed from the perspectives of both Cartesian and Leibnitzian theories of di mensionality as pertaining to problems of multi variate analysis and scaling.

On an unsolved problem from the theory of Boolean algebras

There has been significant research effort focussed on the study of regular languages, since they play a vital role in our understanding of computation. This existing research draws a large number of connections with other areas, such as algebra and symbolic logic. Recently, research has begun into how diagrammatic logics can define regular languages, providing another mechanism through which we can understand regular languages. However, the formalised diagrammatic logics are first-order, so they cannot define non-starfree regular languages. The primary contributions of this paper are: (a) to develop and formalise a second-order diagrammatic logic, extending spider diagrams of order, and (b) to establish a class of regular languages that this logic can define. This lays the essential foundations for providing an exact classification of the regular languages that are definable using this new second-order logic.

Separation logic is used as an assertion language for Hoare-style proof systems about programs with pointers, and there is an ongoing quest for understanding its complexity and expressive power. Herein, we show that first-order separation logic with one record field restricted to two variables and the separating implication (no separating conjunction) is as expressive as weak second-order logic, substantially sharpening a previous result. Capturing weak second-order logic with such a restricted form of separation logic requires substantial updates to known proof techniques. We develop these and, as a by-product, identify the smallest fragment of separation logic known to be undecidable: first-order separation logic with one record field, two variables, and no separating conjunction. Because we forbid ourselves the use of many syntactic resources, this underscores even further the power of separating implication on concrete heaps.

Often, we assume that an action is permitted simply because it is not explicitly forbidden; or, similarly, that an action is forbidden simply because it is not explicitly permitted. This kind of assumptions appear, e.g., in autonomous computing systems where decisions must be taken in the presence of an incomplete set of norms regulating a particular scenario. Combining default and deontic reasoning over actions allows us to formally reason about such assumptions. With this in mind, we propose a logical formalism for default reasoning over a deontic action logic. The novelty of our approach is twofold. First, our formalism for default reasoning deals with actions and action operators, and it is based on the deontic action logic originally proposed by Segerberg. Second, inspired by Segerberg's approach, we use tools coming from the theory of Boolean Algebra. These tools allow us to extend Segerberg's algebraic completeness result to the setting of Default Logics.

By using the universality of the theory of irreflexive symmetric graphs the universality of the theory of Boolean algebras with the Hartig quantifier is shown. Let b be any Boolean algebra with infinitely many atoms. Then the theory of b with the Hartig quantifier is undecidable.

The research aims to analyze geodetic methods for determining the location of natural reserve areas and standardizing the obtained data. The object of the research is the standardization of geodetic data for determining the boundaries of natural reserve areas. Normative and legal documents related to the classification and determination of territories of natural reserve areas and the main geodetic methods used to determine the boundaries of such areas were analyzed in the article. The structure and description of the main geodetic methods for the practical implementation of work to determine the location of natural reserve areas, including geodetic measurements, global navigation, and remote sensing methods, were also discussed. In addition, a number of discrepancies were identified in the process of obtaining, storing, and reproducing geodetic data. Overall, the article contains important information about methods for determining the boundaries of natural reserve areas and how mathematical methods can be used to standardize geodetic data by formalizing it. The research showed that formalization of geodetic data can be done using mathematical methods such as mathematical logic, Boolean algebra, and category theory. The article proposes the use of mathematical methods of data formalization, such as mathematical logic, Boolean algebra, and category theory, to structure and standardize geodetic data. Analytical and graphical models for standardizing geodetic data for determining the boundaries of natural reserve areas were developed using mathematical methods of formalization such as mathematical logic, Boolean algebra, and category theory.

The algebra of stream processing functions

A monadic (Boolean) algebra is a Boolean algebra A together with an operator 3 on A (called an existential quantifier, or, simply, a quantifier) such that 30=0, pfk 3p, and 3(^A 3q) = 3p* 3g whenever p and q are in A. Most of this note uses nothing more profound about monadic algebras than the definition. The reader interested in the motivation for and the basic facts in the theory of monadic algebras may, however, wish to consult [2]. Every Boolean algebra can be converted into a monadic algebra, usually in several ways. (One way is to write 3p = p for all p; another is to write Bp =0 or 1 according p =0 or py^O. These special operators are known the discrete and the simple quantifier, respectively.) It follows, a fortiori, that every Boolean algebra can be embedded into a monadic algebra, and it is clear, on grounds of universal algebra, that among the monadic extensions of a Boolean algebra there is one that is as free possible. To be more precise, let us say that a monadic algebra A is a free monadic extension of a Boolean algebra B if (i) B is a Boolean subalgebra of A, (ii) A is (monadically) generated by B, (iii) every Boolean homomorphism g that maps B into an arbitrary monadic algebra C has a (necessarily unique) extension to a monadic homomorphism f that maps A into C. The statement that a monadic extension as free possible always exists means that every Boolean algebra B has a free monadic extension A; the algebra A is uniquely determined to within a monadic isomorphism that is equal to the identity on B. The purpose of what follows is to give a constructive proof of this fact, i.e., a proof that exhibits A by means of certain set-theoretic constructions based on B (instead of a structurally not very informative proof via equivalence classes of strings of symbols). A by-product of the proof is a rather satisfying insight into the structure of the (Stone) dual space of the free monadic extension. The theorem can (and will) be formulated in such a way to subsume the results of Hyman Bass [l ] on the cardinal number of finitely generated free monadic algebras. The idea of the construction is this. Step 1: form a free Boolean algebra generated by a copy of B. Step 2: adjoin the elements of that

It is a commonplace remark that the identity relation, even though not expressible in a first-order language without identity with classical set-theoretic semantics, can be defined in a language without identity, as soon as we admit second-order, set-theoretically interpreted quantifiers binding predicate variables that range over all subsets of the domain. However, there are fairly simple and intuitive higher-order languages with set-theoretic semantics (where the variables range over all subsets of the domain) in which the identity relation is not definable. The point is that the definability of identity in higher-order languages not only depends on what variables range over, but also is sensitive to how predication is construed. This paper is a follow-up to (Urbaniak 2006), where it has been proven that no actual axiomatization of Leśniewski’s Ontology determines the standard semantics for the epsilon connective.