677 research outputs found
Almost structural completeness; an algebraic approach
A deductive system is structurally complete if its admissible inference rules
are derivable. For several important systems, like modal logic S5, failure of
structural completeness is caused only by the underivability of passive rules,
i.e. rules that can not be applied to theorems of the system. Neglecting
passive rules leads to the notion of almost structural completeness, that
means, derivablity of admissible non-passive rules. Almost structural
completeness for quasivarieties and varieties of general algebras is
investigated here by purely algebraic means. The results apply to all
algebraizable deductive systems.
Firstly, various characterizations of almost structurally complete
quasivarieties are presented. Two of them are general: expressed with finitely
presented algebras, and with subdirectly irreducible algebras. One is
restricted to quasivarieties with finite model property and equationally
definable principal relative congruences, where the condition is verifiable on
finite subdirectly irreducible algebras.
Secondly, examples of almost structurally complete varieties are provided
Particular emphasis is put on varieties of closure algebras, that are known to
constitute adequate semantics for normal extensions of S4 modal logic. A
certain infinite family of such almost structurally complete, but not
structurally complete, varieties is constructed. Every variety from this family
has a finitely presented unifiable algebra which does not embed into any free
algebra for this variety. Hence unification in it is not unitary. This shows
that almost structural completeness is strictly weaker than projective
unification for varieties of closure algebras
Comparing and evaluating extended Lambek calculi
Lambeks Syntactic Calculus, commonly referred to as the Lambek calculus, was
innovative in many ways, notably as a precursor of linear logic. But it also
showed that we could treat our grammatical framework as a logic (as opposed to
a logical theory). However, though it was successful in giving at least a basic
treatment of many linguistic phenomena, it was also clear that a slightly more
expressive logical calculus was needed for many other cases. Therefore, many
extensions and variants of the Lambek calculus have been proposed, since the
eighties and up until the present day. As a result, there is now a large class
of calculi, each with its own empirical successes and theoretical results, but
also each with its own logical primitives. This raises the question: how do we
compare and evaluate these different logical formalisms? To answer this
question, I present two unifying frameworks for these extended Lambek calculi.
Both are proof net calculi with graph contraction criteria. The first calculus
is a very general system: you specify the structure of your sequents and it
gives you the connectives and contractions which correspond to it. The calculus
can be extended with structural rules, which translate directly into graph
rewrite rules. The second calculus is first-order (multiplicative
intuitionistic) linear logic, which turns out to have several other,
independently proposed extensions of the Lambek calculus as fragments. I will
illustrate the use of each calculus in building bridges between analyses
proposed in different frameworks, in highlighting differences and in helping to
identify problems.Comment: Empirical advances in categorial grammars, Aug 2015, Barcelona,
Spain. 201
Anaphora and the Logic of Change
This paper shows how the dynamic interpretation of natural language introduced in work by Hans Kamp and Irene Heim can be modeled in classical type logic. This provides a synthesis between Richard Montague's theory of natural language semantics and the work by Kamp and Heim
- …