627 research outputs found

    Approximation systems for functions in topological and in metric spaces

    Full text link
    A notable feature of the TTE approach to computability is the representation of the argument values and the corresponding function values by means of infinitistic names. Two ways to eliminate the using of such names in certain cases are indicated in the paper. The first one is intended for the case of topological spaces with selected indexed denumerable bases. Suppose a partial function is given from one such space into another one whose selected base has a recursively enumerable index set, and suppose that the intersection of base open sets in the first space is computable in the sense of Weihrauch-Grubba. Then the ordinary TTE computability of the function is characterized by the existence of an appropriate recursively enumerable relation between indices of base sets containing the argument value and indices of base sets containing the corresponding function value.This result can be regarded as an improvement of a result of Korovina and Kudinov. The second way is applicable to metric spaces with selected indexed denumerable dense subsets. If a partial function is given from one such space into another one, then, under a semi-computability assumption concerning these spaces, the ordinary TTE computability of the function is characterized by the existence of an appropriate recursively enumerable set of quadruples. Any of them consists of an index of element from the selected dense subset in the first space, a natural number encoding a rational bound for the distance between this element and the argument value, an index of element from the selected dense subset in the second space and a natural number encoding a rational bound for the distance between this element and the function value. One of the examples in the paper indicates that the computability of real functions can be characterized in a simple way by using the first way of elimination of the infinitistic names.Comment: 21 pages, published in Logical Methods in Computer Scienc

    Modal Logics of Topological Relations

    Full text link
    Logical formalisms for reasoning about relations between spatial regions play a fundamental role in geographical information systems, spatial and constraint databases, and spatial reasoning in AI. In analogy with Halpern and Shoham's modal logic of time intervals based on the Allen relations, we introduce a family of modal logics equipped with eight modal operators that are interpreted by the Egenhofer-Franzosa (or RCC8) relations between regions in topological spaces such as the real plane. We investigate the expressive power and computational complexity of logics obtained in this way. It turns out that our modal logics have the same expressive power as the two-variable fragment of first-order logic, but are exponentially less succinct. The complexity ranges from (undecidable and) recursively enumerable to highly undecidable, where the recursively enumerable logics are obtained by considering substructures of structures induced by topological spaces. As our undecidability results also capture logics based on the real line, they improve upon undecidability results for interval temporal logics by Halpern and Shoham. We also analyze modal logics based on the five RCC5 relations, with similar results regarding the expressive power, but weaker results regarding the complexity

    Mass problems and intuitionistic higher-order logic

    Full text link
    In this paper we study a model of intuitionistic higher-order logic which we call \emph{the Muchnik topos}. The Muchnik topos may be defined briefly as the category of sheaves of sets over the topological space consisting of the Turing degrees, where the Turing cones form a base for the topology. We note that our Muchnik topos interpretation of intuitionistic mathematics is an extension of the well known Kolmogorov/Muchnik interpretation of intuitionistic propositional calculus via Muchnik degrees, i.e., mass problems under weak reducibility. We introduce a new sheaf representation of the intuitionistic real numbers, \emph{the Muchnik reals}, which are different from the Cauchy reals and the Dedekind reals. Within the Muchnik topos we obtain a \emph{choice principle} (xyA(x,y))wxA(x,wx)(\forall x\,\exists y\,A(x,y))\Rightarrow\exists w\,\forall x\,A(x,wx) and a \emph{bounding principle} (xyA(x,y))zxy(yT(x,z)A(x,y))(\forall x\,\exists y\,A(x,y))\Rightarrow\exists z\,\forall x\,\exists y\,(y\le_{\mathrm{T}}(x,z)\land A(x,y)) where x,y,zx,y,z range over Muchnik reals, ww ranges over functions from Muchnik reals to Muchnik reals, and A(x,y)A(x,y) is a formula not containing ww or zz. For the convenience of the reader, we explain all of the essential background material on intuitionism, sheaf theory, intuitionistic higher-order logic, Turing degrees, mass problems, Muchnik degrees, and Kolmogorov's calculus of problems. We also provide an English translation of Muchnik's 1963 paper on Muchnik degrees.Comment: 44 page

    Logical consequence in modal logic II: Some semantic systems for S4

    Get PDF
    ABSTRACT: This 1974 paper builds on our 1969 paper (Corcoran-Weaver [2]). Here we present three (modal, sentential) logics which may be thought of as partial systematizations of the semantic and deductive properties of a sentence operator which expresses certain kinds of necessity. The logical truths [sc. tautologies] of these three logics coincide with one another and with those of standard formalizations of Lewis's S5. These logics, when regarded as logistic systems (cf. Corcoran [1], p. 154), are seen to be equivalent; but, when regarded as consequence systems (ibid., p. 157), one diverges from the others in a fashion which suggests that two standard measures of semantic complexity may not be as closely linked as previously thought. This 1974 paper uses the linear notation for natural deduction presented in [2]: each two-dimensional deduction is represented by a unique one-dimensional string of characters. Thus obviating need for two-dimensional trees, tableaux, lists, and the like—thereby facilitating electronic communication of natural deductions. The 1969 paper presents a (modal, sentential) logic which may be thought of as a partial systematization of the semantic and deductive properties of a sentence operator which expresses certain kinds of necessity. The logical truths [sc. tautologies] of this logic coincides those of standard formalizations of Lewis’s S4. Among the paper's innovations is its treatment of modal logic in the setting of natural deduction systems--as opposed to axiomatic systems. The author’s apologize for the now obsolete terminology. For example, these papers speak of “a proof of a sentence from a set of premises” where today “a deduction of a sentence from a set of premises” would be preferable. 1. Corcoran, John. 1969. Three Logical Theories, Philosophy of Science 36, 153–77. J P R 2. Corcoran, John and George Weaver. 1969. Logical Consequence in Modal Logic: Natural Deduction in S5 Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 10, 370–84. MR0249278 (40 #2524). 3. Weaver, George and John Corcoran. 1974. Logical Consequence in Modal Logic: Some Semantic Systems for S4, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15, 370–78. MR0351765 (50 #4253)

    Sequential Predictions based on Algorithmic Complexity

    Get PDF
    This paper studies sequence prediction based on the monotone Kolmogorov complexity Km=-log m, i.e. based on universal deterministic/one-part MDL. m is extremely close to Solomonoff's universal prior M, the latter being an excellent predictor in deterministic as well as probabilistic environments, where performance is measured in terms of convergence of posteriors or losses. Despite this closeness to M, it is difficult to assess the prediction quality of m, since little is known about the closeness of their posteriors, which are the important quantities for prediction. We show that for deterministic computable environments, the "posterior" and losses of m converge, but rapid convergence could only be shown on-sequence; the off-sequence convergence can be slow. In probabilistic environments, neither the posterior nor the losses converge, in general.Comment: 26 pages, LaTe
    corecore