Bipolarity, Choice, and Entro-Field

Until now, formal models of bipolar choice have been phenomenological and were not related to the deep principles of processing information by live organisms, which limited the applications of these models and made it difficult to generalize them to the case of multi-alternative choice. We demonstrate here how to deduce a model theoretically based on a general definition of the self-reflexive system and one assumption which we called the Axiom of the Second Choice. We show further that such a deduction of the model reveals its unexpected connection to the relations between an internal variable of the self-reflexive system, a partial derivative of the entropy of the environmental influence, and a partial derivative of the entropy of choice made by the system. This connection allows us to expand the two-alternative model of bipolar choice to the case of an arbitrary number of alternatives

Elements of mathematics and logic for computer program analysis

1 Introduction 2 Induction and sequences 2.1 Induction on natural numbers 2.2 Words and sequences 2.3 A digression on set theory 2.4 Induction on words 2.5 Grammar rules and string rewriting 3 Terms 3.1 Definition of terms 3.2 Knaster-Tarski's fixpoint theorem (1927) 3.3 Kleene's fixpoint theorem (1952?) 3.4 Pattern matching and term rewriting 3.5 Models of a term algebra 4 Lambda-calculus 4.1 Definition of λ-calculus 4.2 Church-computable functions 4.3 Kleene-computable functions 4.4 Turing-computable functions 5 Simply-typed lambda-calculus 5.1 Curry-style simply-typed λ-calculus . 5.2 Unification 5.3 Type inference 5.4 Church-style simply-typed λ-calculus 6 First-order logic 6.1 Formulas and truth 6.2 Provability and deduction systems 6.3 Proof terms and Curry-Howard correspondence 7 To go further 8 Solutions to exercises 8.1 Section 2: Induction and sequences 8.2 Section 3: Terms 8.3 Section 4: Lambda-calculus 8.4 Section 5: Simply-typed lambda-calculus 8.5 Section 6: First-order logicMasterIn order to be able to rigorously prove the correctness of a program, one must have a formal definition of: what is a program, syntactically; how it is evaluated, that is, what is its semantics; how to formulate the properties we are interested in; and how to prove them. All this requires to understand some basic mathematical notions like induction, terms, formulas, deduction, etc. These notes are intended to give an introduction to some of these notions

Proof Certificates for Equality Reasoning

International audienceThe kinds of inference rules and decision procedures that one writes for proofs involving equality and rewriting are rather different from proofs that one might write in first-order logic using, say, sequent calculus or natural deduction. For example, equational logic proofs are often chains of replacements or applications of oriented rewriting and normal forms. In contrast, proofs involving logical connectives are trees of introduction and elimination rules. We shall illustrate here how it is possible to check various equality-based proof systems with a programmable proof checker (the kernel checker) for first-order logic. Our proof checker's design is based on the implementation of focused proof search and on making calls to (user-supplied) clerks and experts predicates that are tied to the two phases found in focused proofs. It is the specification of these clerks and experts that provide a formal definition of the structure of proof evidence. As we shall show, such formal definitions work just as well in the equational setting as in the logic setting where this scheme for proof checking was originally developed. Additionally, executing such a formal definition on top of a kernel provides an actual proof checker that can also do a degree of proof reconstruction. We shall illustrate the flexibility of this approach by showing how to formally define (and check) rewriting proofs of a variety of designs

P is not equal to NP

SAT is not in P, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B' of a first order theory B of computing, with a single finite axiom characterizing a universal Turing machine. Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B.Comment: In the 2nd printing the proof, in the 1st printing, of theorem 1 is divided into three parts a new lemma 4, a new corollary 8, and the remaining part of the original proof. The 2nd printing contains some simplifications, more explanations, but no error has been correcte

Finitary Deduction Systems

Cryptographic protocols are the cornerstone of security in distributed systems. The formal analysis of their properties is accordingly one of the focus points of the security community, and is usually split among two groups. In the first group, one focuses on trace-based security properties such as confidentiality and authentication, and provides decision procedures for the existence of attacks for an on-line attackers. In the second group, one focuses on equivalence properties such as privacy and guessing attacks, and provides decision procedures for the existence of attacks for an offline attacker. In all cases the attacker is modeled by a deduction system in which his possible actions are expressed. We present in this paper a notion of finitary deduction systems that aims at relating both approaches. We prove that for such deduction systems, deciding equivalence properties for on-line attackers can be reduced to deciding reachability properties in the same setting.Comment: 30 pages. Work begun while in the CASSIS Project, INRIA Nancy Grand Es

A System for Deduction-based Formal Verification of Workflow-oriented Software Models

The work concerns formal verification of workflow-oriented software models using deductive approach. The formal correctness of a model's behaviour is considered. Manually building logical specifications, which are considered as a set of temporal logic formulas, seems to be the significant obstacle for an inexperienced user when applying the deductive approach. A system, and its architecture, for the deduction-based verification of workflow-oriented models is proposed. The process of inference is based on the semantic tableaux method which has some advantages when compared to traditional deduction strategies. The algorithm for an automatic generation of logical specifications is proposed. The generation procedure is based on the predefined workflow patterns for BPMN, which is a standard and dominant notation for the modeling of business processes. The main idea for the approach is to consider patterns, defined in terms of temporal logic,as a kind of (logical) primitives which enable the transformation of models to temporal logic formulas constituting a logical specification. Automation of the generation process is crucial for bridging the gap between intuitiveness of the deductive reasoning and the difficulty of its practical application in the case when logical specifications are built manually. This approach has gone some way towards supporting, hopefully enhancing our understanding of, the deduction-based formal verification of workflow-oriented models.Comment: International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Scienc

Tableaux Modulo Theories Using Superdeduction

We propose a method that allows us to develop tableaux modulo theories using the principles of superdeduction, among which the theory is used to enrich the deduction system with new deduction rules. This method is presented in the framework of the Zenon automated theorem prover, and is applied to the set theory of the B method. This allows us to provide another prover to Atelier B, which can be used to verify B proof rules in particular. We also propose some benchmarks, in which this prover is able to automatically verify a part of the rules coming from the database maintained by Siemens IC-MOL. Finally, we describe another extension of Zenon with superdeduction, which is able to deal with any first order theory, and provide a benchmark coming from the TPTP library, which contains a large set of first order problems.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1501.0117