Changing a semantics: opportunism or courage?

The generalized models for higher-order logics introduced by Leon Henkin, and their multiple offspring over the years, have become a standard tool in many areas of logic. Even so, discussion has persisted about their technical status, and perhaps even their conceptual legitimacy. This paper gives a systematic view of generalized model techniques, discusses what they mean in mathematical and philosophical terms, and presents a few technical themes and results about their role in algebraic representation, calibrating provability, lowering complexity, understanding fixed-point logics, and achieving set-theoretic absoluteness. We also show how thinking about Henkin's approach to semantics of logical systems in this generality can yield new results, dispelling the impression of adhocness. This paper is dedicated to Leon Henkin, a deep logician who has changed the way we all work, while also being an always open, modest, and encouraging colleague and friend.Comment: 27 pages. To appear in: The life and work of Leon Henkin: Essays on his contributions (Studies in Universal Logic) eds: Manzano, M., Sain, I. and Alonso, E., 201

What's Right With a Syntactic Approach to Theories and Models?

Syntactic approaches in the philosophy of science, which are based on formalizations in predicate logic, are often considered in principle inferior to semantic approaches, which are based on formalizations with the help of structures. To compare the two kinds of approach, I identify some ambiguities in common semantic accounts and explicate the concept of a structure in a way that avoids hidden references to a specific vocabulary. From there, I argue that contrary to common opinion (i) unintended models do not pose a significant problem for syntactic approaches to scientific theories, (ii) syntactic approaches can be at least as language independent as semantic ones, and (iii) in syntactic approaches, scientific theories can be as well connected to the world as in semantic ones. Based on these results, I argue that syntactic and semantic approaches fare equally well when it comes to (iv) ease of application, (iv) accommodating the use of models in the sciences, and (vi) capturing the theory-observation relation

Model Theoretic Complexity of Automatic Structures

We study the complexity of automatic structures via well-established concepts from both logic and model theory, including ordinal heights (of well-founded relations), Scott ranks of structures, and Cantor-Bendixson ranks (of trees). We prove the following results: 1) The ordinal height of any automatic well- founded partial order is bounded by \omega^\omega ; 2) The ordinal heights of automatic well-founded relations are unbounded below the first non-computable ordinal; 3) For any computable ordinal there is an automatic structure of Scott rank at least that ordinal. Moreover, there are automatic structures of Scott rank the first non-computable ordinal and its successor; 4) For any computable ordinal, there is an automatic successor tree of Cantor-Bendixson rank that ordinal.Comment: 23 pages. Extended abstract appeared in Proceedings of TAMC '08, LNCS 4978 pp 514-52

Levelling the Analysis of Knowledge via Methodological Scepticism

ABSTRACT: In this essay I provide one methodology that yields the level of analysis of an alleged knowledge-claim under investigation via its relations to varying gradations of scepticism. Each proposed knowledge-claim possesses a specified relationship with: (i) a globally sceptical argument; (ii) the least sceptical but successful argument that casts it into doubt; and (iii) the most sceptical yet unsuccessful argument, which is conceivably hypothesized to repudiate it but fails to do so. Yielding this specified set of relations, by means of proceeding from global scepticism to (ii) and (iii), increases the chances of identifying the highest evaluative relevancy of the levels of analysis and observation of an alleged knowledge-claim. I argue that the failure to analyse and derive a difference between (i) and (ii) with respect to an alleged knowledge-claim signifies that the claim is grounded within the theoretical framework itself, that the claim lacks specification with regard to content that is analysable via that framework, and the claim is dubious insofar as alternative theoretic frameworks may present greater relevancy to levels of observation. KEYWORDS: knowledge, scepticism, perception, level of observation, magnification level, methodological scepticis

Differential Privacy for Relational Algebra: Improving the Sensitivity Bounds via Constraint Systems

Differential privacy is a modern approach in privacy-preserving data analysis to control the amount of information that can be inferred about an individual by querying a database. The most common techniques are based on the introduction of probabilistic noise, often defined as a Laplacian parametric on the sensitivity of the query. In order to maximize the utility of the query, it is crucial to estimate the sensitivity as precisely as possible. In this paper we consider relational algebra, the classical language for queries in relational databases, and we propose a method for computing a bound on the sensitivity of queries in an intuitive and compositional way. We use constraint-based techniques to accumulate the information on the possible values for attributes provided by the various components of the query, thus making it possible to compute tight bounds on the sensitivity.Comment: In Proceedings QAPL 2012, arXiv:1207.055