Learning, realizability and games in classical arithmetic

PhDAbstract. In this dissertation we provide mathematical evidence that the concept of learning can be used to give a new and intuitive computational semantics of classical proofs in various fragments of Predicative Arithmetic. First, we extend Kreisel modi ed realizability to a classical fragment of rst order Arithmetic, Heyting Arithmetic plus EM1 (Excluded middle axiom restricted to 0 1 formulas). We introduce a new realizability semantics we call \Interactive Learning-Based Realizability". Our realizers are self-correcting programs, which learn from their errors and evolve through time, thanks to their ability of perpetually questioning, testing and extending their knowledge. Remarkably, that capability is entirely due to classical principles when they are applied on top of intuitionistic logic. Secondly, we extend the class of learning based realizers to a classical version PCFClass of PCF and, then, compare the resulting notion of realizability with Coquand game semantics and prove a full soundness and completeness result. In particular, we show there is a one-to-one correspondence between realizers and recursive winning strategies in the 1-Backtracking version of Tarski games. Third, we provide a complete and fully detailed constructive analysis of learning as it arises in learning based realizability for HA+EM1, Avigad's update procedures and epsilon substitution method for Peano Arithmetic PA. We present new constructive techniques to bound the length of learning processes and we apply them to reprove - by means of our theory - the classic result of G odel that provably total functions of PA can be represented in G odel's system T. Last, we give an axiomatization of the kind of learning that is needed to computationally interpret Predicative classical second order Arithmetic. Our work is an extension of Avigad's and generalizes the concept of update procedure to the trans nite case. Trans- nite update procedures have to learn values of trans nite sequences of non computable functions in order to extract witnesses from classical proofs

Virtual Evidence: A Constructive Semantics for Classical Logics

This article presents a computational semantics for classical logic using constructive type theory. Such semantics seems impossible because classical logic allows the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM), not accepted in constructive logic since it does not have computational meaning. However, the apparently oracular powers expressed in the LEM, that for any proposition P either it or its negation, not P, is true can also be explained in terms of constructive evidence that does not refer to "oracles for truth." Types with virtual evidence and the constructive impossibility of negative evidence provide sufficient semantic grounds for classical truth and have a simple computational meaning. This idea is formalized using refinement types, a concept of constructive type theory used since 1984 and explained here. A new axiom creating virtual evidence fully retains the constructive meaning of the logical operators in classical contexts. Key Words: classical logic, constructive logic, intuitionistic logic, propositions-as-types, constructive type theory, refinement types, double negation translation, computational content, virtual evidenc

Interactive Learning-Based Realizability for Heyting Arithmetic with EM1

We apply to the semantics of Arithmetic the idea of ``finite approximation'' used to provide computational interpretations of Herbrand's Theorem, and we interpret classical proofs as constructive proofs (with constructive rules for $\vee, \exists$) over a suitable structure \StructureN for the language of natural numbers and maps of G\"odel's system \SystemT. We introduce a new Realizability semantics we call ``Interactive learning-based Realizability'', for Heyting Arithmetic plus \EM_1 (Excluded middle axiom restricted to $\Sigma^0_1$ formulas). Individuals of \StructureN evolve with time, and realizers may ``interact'' with them, by influencing their evolution. We build our semantics over Avigad's fixed point result, but the same semantics may be defined over different constructive interpretations of classical arithmetic (Berardi and de' Liguoro use continuations). Our notion of realizability extends intuitionistic realizability and differs from it only in the atomic case: we interpret atomic realizers as ``learning agents''

Rumfitt on truth-grounds, negation, and vagueness

In The Boundary Stones of Thought, Rumfitt defends classical logic against challenges from intuitionistic mathematics and vagueness, using a semantics of pre-topologies on possibilities, and a topological semantics on predicates, respectively. These semantics are suggestive but the characterizations of negation face difficulties that may undermine their usefulness in Rumfitt’s project

Logic of Negation-Complete Interactive Proofs (Formal Theory of Epistemic Deciders)

We produce a decidable classical normal modal logic of internalised negation-complete and thus disjunctive non-monotonic interactive proofs (LDiiP) from an existing logical counterpart of non-monotonic or instant interactive proofs (LiiP). LDiiP internalises agent-centric proof theories that are negation-complete (maximal) and consistent (and hence strictly weaker than, for example, Peano Arithmetic) and enjoy the disjunction property (like Intuitionistic Logic). In other words, internalised proof theories are ultrafilters and all internalised proof goals are definite in the sense of being either provable or disprovable to an agent by means of disjunctive internalised proofs (thus also called epistemic deciders). Still, LDiiP itself is classical (monotonic, non-constructive), negation-incomplete, and does not have the disjunction property. The price to pay for the negation completeness of our interactive proofs is their non-monotonicity and non-communality (for singleton agent communities only). As a normal modal logic, LDiiP enjoys a standard Kripke-semantics, which we justify by invoking the Axiom of Choice on LiiP's and then construct in terms of a concrete oracle-computable function. LDiiP's agent-centric internalised notion of proof can also be viewed as a negation-complete disjunctive explicit refinement of standard KD45-belief, and yields a disjunctive but negation-incomplete explicit refinement of S4-provability.Comment: Expanded Introduction. Added Footnote 4. Corrected Corollary 3 and 4. Continuation of arXiv:1208.184

On an Intuitionistic Logic for Pragmatics

We reconsider the pragmatic interpretation of intuitionistic logic [21] regarded as a logic of assertions and their justications and its relations with classical logic. We recall an extension of this approach to a logic dealing with assertions and obligations, related by a notion of causal implication [14, 45]. We focus on the extension to co-intuitionistic logic, seen as a logic of hypotheses [8, 9, 13] and on polarized bi-intuitionistic logic as a logic of assertions and conjectures: looking at the S4 modal translation, we give a denition of a system AHL of bi-intuitionistic logic that correctly represents the duality between intuitionistic and co-intuitionistic logic, correcting a mistake in previous work [7, 10]. A computational interpretation of cointuitionism as a distributed calculus of coroutines is then used to give an operational interpretation of subtraction.Work on linear co-intuitionism is then recalled, a linear calculus of co-intuitionistic coroutines is dened and a probabilistic interpretation of linear co-intuitionism is given as in [9]. Also we remark that by extending the language of intuitionistic logic we can express the notion of expectation, an assertion that in all situations the truth of p is possible and that in a logic of expectations the law of double negation holds. Similarly, extending co-intuitionistic logic, we can express the notion of conjecture that p, dened as a hypothesis that in some situation the truth of p is epistemically necessary