Ptarithmetic

The present article introduces ptarithmetic (short for "polynomial time arithmetic") -- a formal number theory similar to the well known Peano arithmetic, but based on the recently born computability logic (see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html) instead of classical logic. The formulas of ptarithmetic represent interactive computational problems rather than just true/false statements, and their "truth" is understood as existence of a polynomial time solution. The system of ptarithmetic elaborated in this article is shown to be sound and complete. Sound in the sense that every theorem T of the system represents an interactive number-theoretic computational problem with a polynomial time solution and, furthermore, such a solution can be effectively extracted from a proof of T. And complete in the sense that every interactive number-theoretic problem with a polynomial time solution is represented by some theorem T of the system. The paper is self-contained, and can be read without any previous familiarity with computability logic.Comment: Substantially better versions are on their way. Hence the present article probably will not be publishe

Introduction to clarithmetic I

"Clarithmetic" is a generic name for formal number theories similar to Peano arithmetic, but based on computability logic (see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html) instead of the more traditional classical or intuitionistic logics. Formulas of clarithmetical theories represent interactive computational problems, and their "truth" is understood as existence of an algorithmic solution. Imposing various complexity constraints on such solutions yields various versions of clarithmetic. The present paper introduces a system of clarithmetic for polynomial time computability, which is shown to be sound and complete. Sound in the sense that every theorem T of the system represents an interactive number-theoretic computational problem with a polynomial time solution and, furthermore, such a solution can be efficiently extracted from a proof of T. And complete in the sense that every interactive number-theoretic problem with a polynomial time solution is represented by some theorem T of the system. The paper is written in a semitutorial style and targets readers with no prior familiarity with computability logic

A logical basis for constructive systems

The work is devoted to Computability Logic (CoL) -- the philosophical/mathematical platform and long-term project for redeveloping classical logic after replacing truth} by computability in its underlying semantics (see http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html). This article elaborates some basic complexity theory for the CoL framework. Then it proves soundness and completeness for the deductive system CL12 with respect to the semantics of CoL, including the version of the latter based on polynomial time computability instead of computability-in-principle. CL12 is a sequent calculus system, where the meaning of a sequent intuitively can be characterized as "the succedent is algorithmically reducible to the antecedent", and where formulas are built from predicate letters, function letters, variables, constants, identity, negation, parallel and choice connectives, and blind and choice quantifiers. A case is made that CL12 is an adequate logical basis for constructive applied theories, including complexity-oriented ones

From truth to computability I

The recently initiated approach called computability logic is a formal theory of interactive computation. See a comprehensive online source on the subject at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html . The present paper contains a soundness and completeness proof for the deductive system CL3 which axiomatizes the most basic first-order fragment of computability logic called the finite-depth, elementary-base fragment. Among the potential application areas for this result are the theory of interactive computation, constructive applied theories, knowledgebase systems, systems for resource-bound planning and action. This paper is self-contained as it reintroduces all relevant definitions as well as main motivations.Comment: To appear in Theoretical Computer Scienc

Build your own clarithmetic I: Setup and completeness

Clarithmetics are number theories based on computability logic (see http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~japaridz/CL/ ). Formulas of these theories represent interactive computational problems, and their "truth" is understood as existence of an algorithmic solution. Various complexity constraints on such solutions induce various versions of clarithmetic. The present paper introduces a parameterized/schematic version CLA11(P1,P2,P3,P4). By tuning the three parameters P1,P2,P3 in an essentially mechanical manner, one automatically obtains sound and complete theories with respect to a wide range of target tricomplexity classes, i.e. combinations of time (set by P3), space (set by P2) and so called amplitude (set by P1) complexities. Sound in the sense that every theorem T of the system represents an interactive number-theoretic computational problem with a solution from the given tricomplexity class and, furthermore, such a solution can be automatically extracted from a proof of T. And complete in the sense that every interactive number-theoretic problem with a solution from the given tricomplexity class is represented by some theorem of the system. Furthermore, through tuning the 4th parameter P4, at the cost of sacrificing recursive axiomatizability but not simplicity or elegance, the above extensional completeness can be strengthened to intensional completeness, according to which every formula representing a problem with a solution from the given tricomplexity class is a theorem of the system. This article is published in two parts. The present Part I introduces the system and proves its completeness, while Part II is devoted to proving soundness

Propositional computability logic I

In the same sense as classical logic is a formal theory of truth, the recently initiated approach called computability logic is a formal theory of computability. It understands (interactive) computational problems as games played by a machine against the environment, their computability as existence of a machine that always wins the game, logical operators as operations on computational problems, and validity of a logical formula as being a scheme of "always computable" problems. The present contribution gives a detailed exposition of a soundness and completeness proof for an axiomatization of one of the most basic fragments of computability logic. The logical vocabulary of this fragment contains operators for the so called parallel and choice operations, and its atoms represent elementary problems, i.e. predicates in the standard sense. This article is self-contained as it explains all relevant concepts. While not technically necessary, however, familiarity with the foundational paper "Introduction to computability logic" [Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 123 (2003), pp.1-99] would greatly help the reader in understanding the philosophy, underlying motivations, potential and utility of computability logic, -- the context that determines the value of the present results. Online introduction to the subject is available at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html and http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~japaridz/CL/gsoll.html .Comment: To appear in ACM Transactions on Computational Logi

Intuitionistic computability logic

Computability logic (CL) is a systematic formal theory of computational tasks and resources, which, in a sense, can be seen as a semantics-based alternative to (the syntactically introduced) linear logic. With its expressive and flexible language, where formulas represent computational problems and "truth" is understood as algorithmic solvability, CL potentially offers a comprehensive logical basis for constructive applied theories and computing systems inherently requiring constructive and computationally meaningful underlying logics. Among the best known constructivistic logics is Heyting's intuitionistic calculus INT, whose language can be seen as a special fragment of that of CL. The constructivistic philosophy of INT, however, has never really found an intuitively convincing and mathematically strict semantical justification. CL has good claims to provide such a justification and hence a materialization of Kolmogorov's known thesis "INT = logic of problems". The present paper contains a soundness proof for INT with respect to the CL semantics. A comprehensive online source on CL is available at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.htm