|
Idempotency Of Entailment
Idempotency of entailment is a property of logical systems that states that one may derive the same consequences from many instances of a hypothesis as from just one. This property can be captured by a structural rule called contraction, and in such systems one may say that entailment is idempotent if and only if contraction is an admissible rule. Rule of contraction: from :''A'',''C'',''C'' → ''B'' is derived :''A'',''C'' → ''B''. Or in sequent calculus notation, :\frac In linear and affine logic, entailment is not idempotent. See also * No-deleting theorem In physics, the no-deleting theorem of quantum information theory is a no-go theorem which states that, in general, given two copies of some arbitrary quantum state, it is impossible to delete one of the copies. It is a time-reversed dual to the no ... Logical consequence Theorems in propositional logic {{logic-stub ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical System
A formal system is an abstract structure used for inferring theorems from axioms according to a set of rules. These rules, which are used for carrying out the inference of theorems from axioms, are the logical calculus of the formal system. A formal system is essentially an "axiomatic system". In 1921, David Hilbert proposed to use such a system as the foundation for the knowledge in mathematics. A formal system may represent a well-defined system of abstract thought. The term ''formalism'' is sometimes a rough synonym for ''formal system'', but it also refers to a given style of notation, for example, Paul Dirac's bra–ket notation. Background Each formal system is described by primitive symbols (which collectively form an alphabet) to finitely construct a formal language from a set of axioms through inferential rules of formation. The system thus consists of valid formulas built up through finite combinations of the primitive symbols—combinations that are formed from th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Structural Rule
In proof theory, a structural rule is an inference rule that does not refer to any logical connective, but instead operates on the judgment or sequents directly. Structural rules often mimic intended meta-theoretic properties of the logic. Logics that deny one or more of the structural rules are classified as substructural logics. Common structural rules Three common structural rules are: * Weakening, where the hypotheses or conclusion of a sequent may be extended with additional members. In symbolic form weakening rules can be written as \frac on the left of the turnstile, and \frac on the right. * Contraction, where two equal (or unifiable) members on the same side of a sequent may be replaced by a single member (or common instance). Symbolically: \frac and \frac. Also known as factoring in automated theorem proving systems using resolution. Known as idempotency of entailment in classical logic. * Exchange, where two members on the same side of a sequent may be swapped. Symbol ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Structural Rule
In proof theory, a structural rule is an inference rule that does not refer to any logical connective, but instead operates on the judgment or sequents directly. Structural rules often mimic intended meta-theoretic properties of the logic. Logics that deny one or more of the structural rules are classified as substructural logics. Common structural rules Three common structural rules are: * Weakening, where the hypotheses or conclusion of a sequent may be extended with additional members. In symbolic form weakening rules can be written as \frac on the left of the turnstile, and \frac on the right. * Contraction, where two equal (or unifiable) members on the same side of a sequent may be replaced by a single member (or common instance). Symbolically: \frac and \frac. Also known as factoring in automated theorem proving systems using resolution. Known as idempotency of entailment in classical logic. * Exchange, where two members on the same side of a sequent may be swapped. Symbol ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Consequence
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically ''follows from'' one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?Beall, JC and Restall, Greg, Logical Consequence' The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth. Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. A sentence is said to be a logical conse ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Idempotent
Idempotence (, ) is the property of certain operation (mathematics), operations in mathematics and computer science whereby they can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond the initial application. The concept of idempotence arises in a number of places in abstract algebra (in particular, in the theory of projector (linear algebra), projectors and closure operators) and functional programming (in which it is connected to the property of referential transparency). The term was introduced by American mathematician Benjamin Peirce in 1870 in the context of elements of algebras that remain invariant when raised to a positive integer power, and literally means "(the quality of having) the same power", from + ''wikt:potence, potence'' (same + power). Definition An element x of a set S equipped with a binary operator \cdot is said to be ''idempotent'' under \cdot if : . The ''binary operation'' \cdot is said to be ''idempotent'' if : . Examples * In the monoid ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Admissible Rule
In logic, a rule of inference is admissible in a formal system if the set of theorems of the system does not change when that rule is added to the existing rules of the system. In other words, every formula that can be derived using that rule is already derivable without that rule, so, in a sense, it is redundant. The concept of an admissible rule was introduced by Paul Lorenzen (1955). Definitions Admissibility has been systematically studied only in the case of structural (i.e. substitution-closed) rules in propositional non-classical logics, which we will describe next. Let a set of basic propositional connectives be fixed (for instance, \ in the case of superintuitionistic logics, or \ in the case of monomodal logics). Well-formed formulas are built freely using these connectives from a countably infinite set of propositional variables ''p''0, ''p''1, .... A substitution ''σ'' is a function from formulas to formulas that commutes with applications of the connective ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sequent Calculus
In mathematical logic, sequent calculus is a style of formal logical argumentation in which every line of a proof is a conditional tautology (called a sequent by Gerhard Gentzen) instead of an unconditional tautology. Each conditional tautology is inferred from other conditional tautologies on earlier lines in a formal argument according to rules and procedures of inference, giving a better approximation to the natural style of deduction used by mathematicians than to David Hilbert's earlier style of formal logic, in which every line was an unconditional tautology. More subtle distinctions may exist; for example, propositions may implicitly depend upon non-logical axioms. In that case, sequents signify conditional theorems in a first-order language rather than conditional tautologies. Sequent calculus is one of several extant styles of proof calculus for expressing line-by-line logical arguments. * Hilbert style. Every line is an unconditional tautology (or theorem). * Gentzen s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Linear Logic
Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter. Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics (because linear logic can be seen as the logic of quantum information theory), as well as linguistics, particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction. Linear logic lends itself to many different presentations, explanations, and intuitions. Proof-theoretically, it derives from an analysis of classical sequent calculus in which uses of (the structural rules) contraction and weakening are carefully controlled. Operationally, this means that logical deduction is no longer merely about an ever-expanding collection of persistent "truths", ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affine Logic
Affine logic is a substructural logic whose proof theory rejects the structural rule of contraction. It can also be characterized as linear logic with weakening. The name "affine logic" is associated with linear logic, to which it differs by allowing the weakening rule. Jean-Yves Girard introduced the name as part of the geometry of interaction semantics of linear logic, which characterizes linear logic in terms of linear algebra; here he alludes to affine transformations on vector spaces. Affine logic predated linear logic. V. N. Grishin used this logic in 1974, after observing that Russell's paradox cannot be derived in a set theory without contraction, even with an unbounded comprehension axiom.Cf. Frederic Fitch's demonstrably consistent set theory Likewise, the logic formed the basis of a decidable sub-theory of predicate logic, called 'Direct logic' (Ketonen & Wehrauch, 1984; Ketonen & Bellin, 1989). Affine logic can be embedded into linear logic by rewriting th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
No-deleting Theorem
In physics, the no-deleting theorem of quantum information theory is a no-go theorem which states that, in general, given two copies of some arbitrary quantum state, it is impossible to delete one of the copies. It is a time-reversed dual to the no-cloning theorem, which states that arbitrary states cannot be copied. This theorem seems remarkable, because, in many senses, quantum states are fragile; the theorem asserts that, in a particular case, they are also robust. Physicist Arun K. Pati along with Samuel L. Braunstein proved this theorem. The no-deleting theorem, together with the no-cloning theorem, underpin the interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of category theory, and, in particular, as a dagger symmetric monoidal category. This formulation, known as categorical quantum mechanics, in turn allows a connection to be made from quantum mechanics to linear logic as the logic of quantum information theory (in exact analogy to classical logic being founded on Cartesian ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> Idempotent")
