On the Concept of a Notational Variant

In the study of modal and nonclassical logics, translations have frequently been employed as a way of measuring the inferential capabilities of a logic. It is sometimes claimed that two logics are “notational variants” if they are translationally equivalent. However, we will show that this cannot be quite right, since first-order logic and propositional logic are translationally equivalent. Others have claimed that for two logics to be notational variants, they must at least be compositionally intertranslatable. The definition of compositionality these accounts use, however, is too strong, as the standard translation from modal logic to first-order logic is not compositional in this sense. In light of this, we will explore a weaker version of this notion that we will call schematicity and show that there is no schematic translation either from first-order logic to propositional logic or from intuitionistic logic to classical logic

The 1900 Turn in Bertrand Russell’s Logic, the Emergence of his Paradox, and the Way Out

Russell’s initial project in philosophy (1898) was to make mathematics rigorous reducing it to logic. Before August 1900, however, Russell’s logic was nothing but mereology. First, his acquaintance with Peano’s ideas in August 1900 led him to discard the part-whole logic and accept a kind of intensional predicate logic instead. Among other things, the predicate logic helped Russell embrace a technique of treating the paradox of infinite numbers with the help of a singular concept, which he called ‘denoting phrase’. Unfortunately, a new paradox emerged soon: that of classes. The main contention of this paper is that Russell’s new conception only transferred the paradox of infinity from the realm of infinite numbers to that of class-inclusion. Russell’s long-elaborated solution to his paradox developed between 1905 and 1908 was nothing but to set aside of some of the ideas he adopted with his turn of August 1900: (i) With the Theory of Descriptions, he reintroduced the complexes we are acquainted with in logic. In this way, he partly restored the pre-August 1900 mereology of complexes and simples. (ii) The elimination of classes, with the help of the ‘substitutional theory’, and of propositions, by means of the Multiple Relation Theory of Judgment, completed this process

Hyper Natural Deduction

Paper introduces a Hyper Natural Deduction system as an extension of Gentzen's Natural Deduction system, by adding additional rules providing means for communication between derivations. It is shown that the Hyper Natural Deduction system is sound and complete for infinite-valued propositional Gödel Logic, by giving translations to and from Avron's Hyper sequent Calculus. The paper also provides conversions for normalisation and prove the existence of normal forms for the Hyper Natural Deduction system

The Development of Gödel's ontological Proof

Peer reviewe

For Cybersecurity, Computer Science Must Rely on the Opposite of Gödel’s Results

This article shows how fundamental higher-order theories of mathematical structures of computer science (e.g. natural numbers [Dedekind 1888] and Actors [Hewitt et. al. 1973]) are cetegorical meaning that they can be axiomatized up to a unique isomorphism thereby removing any ambiguity in the mathematical structures being axiomatized. Having these mathematical structures precisely defined can make systems more secure because there are fewer ambiguities and holes for cyberattackers to exploit. For example, there are no infinite elements in models for natural numbers to be exploited. On the other hand, the 1st-order theories of Gödel’s results necessarily leave the mathematical structures ill-defined, e.g., there are necessarily models with infinite integers. Cyberattackers have severely damaged national, corporate, and individual security as well causing hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage. A significant cause of the damage is that current engineering practices are not sufficiently grounded in theoretical principles. In the last two decades, little new theoretical work has been done that practically impacts large engineering projects with the result that computer systems engineering education is insufficient in providing theoretical grounding. If the current cybersecurity situation is not quickly remedied, it will soon become much worse because of the projected development of Scalable Intelligent Systems by 2025 [Hewitt 2019]. Gödel strongly advocated that the Turing Machine is the preeminent universal model of computation. A Turing machine formalizes an algorithm in which computation proceeds without external interaction. However, computing is now highly interactive, which this article proves is beyond the capability of a Turing Machine. Instead of the Turing Machine model, this article presents an axiomatization of a universal model of digital computation (including implementation of Scalable Intelligent Systems) up to a unique isomorphism

On formal aspects of the epistemic approach to paraconsistency

This paper reviews the central points and presents some recent developments of the epistemic approach to paraconsistency in terms of the preservation of evidence. Two formal systems are surveyed, the basic logic of evidence (BLE) and the logic of evidence and truth (LET J ), designed to deal, respectively, with evidence and with evidence and truth. While BLE is equivalent to Nelson’s logic N4, it has been conceived for a different purpose. Adequate valuation semantics that provide decidability are given for both BLE and LET J . The meanings of the connectives of BLE and LET J , from the point of view of preservation of evidence, is explained with the aid of an inferential semantics. A formalization of the notion of evidence for BLE as proposed by M. Fitting is also reviewed here. As a novel result, the paper shows that LET J is semantically characterized through the so-called Fidel structures. Some opportunities for further research are also discussed

For Cybersecurity, Computer Science Must Rely on the Opposite of Gödel’s Results

This article shows how fundamental higher-order theories of mathematical structures of computer science (e.g. natural numbers [Dedekind 1888] and Actors [Hewitt et. al. 1973]) are cetegorical meaning that they can be axiomatized up to a unique isomorphism thereby removing any ambiguity in the mathematical structures being axiomatized. Having these mathematical structures precisely defined can make systems more secure because there are fewer ambiguities and holes for cyberattackers to exploit. For example, there are no infinite elements in models for natural numbers to be exploited. On the other hand, the 1st-order theories of Gödel’s results necessarily leave the mathematical structures ill-defined, e.g., there are necessarily models with infinite integers. Cyberattackers have severely damaged national, corporate, and individual security as well causing hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage. A significant cause of the damage is that current engineering practices are not sufficiently grounded in theoretical principles. In the last two decades, little new theoretical work has been done that practically impacts large engineering projects with the result that computer systems engineering education is insufficient in providing theoretical grounding. If the current cybersecurity situation is not quickly remedied, it will soon become much worse because of the projected development of Scalable Intelligent Systems by 2025 [Hewitt 2019]. Gödel strongly advocated that the Turing Machine is the preeminent universal model of computation. A Turing machine formalizes an algorithm in which computation proceeds without external interaction. However, computing is now highly interactive, which this article proves is beyond the capability of a Turing Machine. Instead of the Turing Machine model, this article presents an axiomatization of a universal model of digital computation (including implementation of Scalable Intelligent Systems) up to a unique isomorphism

Collapsing Arguments for Facts and Propositions

Kurt Gödel argues in “Russell’s Mathematical Logic” that on the assumption that, contrary to Russell, definite descriptions are terms, it follows given only several “apparently obvious axioms” that “all true sentences have the same signification (as well as all false ones).” Stephen Neale has written that this argument, and others by Church, Davidson, and Quine to similar conclusions, are of considerable philosophical interest. Graham Oppy, responding to this opinion, says they are of minimal interest. Falling between these is my opinion that implications of these arguments for propositions and facts are of moderate philosophical interest, and that these arguments provide occasions for reflection of possible interest on fine lines of several theories of definite descriptions and class–abstractions