Relational semantics of linear logic and higher-order model-checking

In this article, we develop a new and somewhat unexpected connection between higher-order model-checking and linear logic. Our starting point is the observation that once embedded in the relational semantics of linear logic, the Church encoding of any higher-order recursion scheme (HORS) comes together with a dual Church encoding of an alternating tree automata (ATA) of the same signature. Moreover, the interaction between the relational interpretations of the HORS and of the ATA identifies the set of accepting states of the tree automaton against the infinite tree generated by the recursion scheme. We show how to extend this result to alternating parity automata (APT) by introducing a parametric version of the exponential modality of linear logic, capturing the formal properties of colors (or priorities) in higher-order model-checking. We show in particular how to reunderstand in this way the type-theoretic approach to higher-order model-checking developed by Kobayashi and Ong. We briefly explain in the end of the paper how his analysis driven by linear logic results in a new and purely semantic proof of decidability of the formulas of the monadic second-order logic for higher-order recursion schemes.Comment: 24 pages. Submitte

Not lost in translation: writing auditorily presented words at study increases correct recognition “at no cost”

© 2016 Taylor & Francis. Previous studies have reported a translation effect in memory, whereby encoding tasks that involve translating between processing domains produce a memory advantage relative to tasks that involve a single domain. We investigated the effects of translation on true and false memories using the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) procedure [Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22; Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 803–814]. Translation between modalities enhanced correct recognition but had no effect on false recognition. Results are consistent with previous research showing that correct memory can be enhanced “at no cost” in terms of accuracy. Findings are discussed in terms of understanding the relationship between true and false memories produced by the DRM procedure

Relational maintenance in mixed-modality romantic relationships

2019 Spring.Includes bibliographical references.Social information processing theory (SIP) provides clear predictions for how online and offline relationships should differ, but does not cover mixed-modality relationships (MMRs). Individuals in MMRs employ both face-to-face (FtF) and technology mediated communication (TMC) for relational maintenance. Stafford and Canary (1991) and Stafford et al. (2000) suggest that self-disclosure and discussion of one's relationship (relational maintenance strategies originally referred to collectively as "openness") depend on the use of another strategy, assurance-giving, to determine one's association with relationship satisfaction. I sought to determine whether relationship-talk and self-disclosure, independent of assurance-giving, are negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, and whether the use of face-to-face (FtF) or technology mediated communication (TMC) have any bearing on the interaction between assurance-giving and openness strategies. It was expected that assurance-giving would moderate the relationship between openness strategies and satisfaction when the strategies were enacted by the same communication channel but not when communicated by different channels. Mechanical Turk users (n = 289) in romantic relationships completed the openness and assurance-giving subscales of the Stafford et al. (2000) revision of the Relational Maintenance Strategy Measure (RMSM), reporting their engagement in maintenance behaviors using FtF and via TMC. Regression analyses were used to determine whether three maintenance strategies (assurance-giving, self-disclosure, and relationship-talk), communicated using either of two general channels (FtF and TMC), predicted satisfaction in romantic relationships, and whether assurance-giving interacted with either relationship-talk or self-disclosure, using TMC or FtF channels. The direct negative relationship between openness and satisfaction found in past research was not replicated in this study, but both TMC self-disclosure and TMC relationship-talk interacted significantly with TMC assurance-giving. For individuals with average or below average engagement in assurance-giving via TMC, greater engagement in self-disclosure or relationship-talk predicted lower satisfaction. These results suggest that openness strategies are not inherently harmful when communicated using FtF, but when communicated via TMC they may be detrimental to satisfaction if relationship partners do not complement openness strategies with heavy engagement in assurance-giving

Diamonds are Forever

We defend the thesis that every necessarily true proposition is always true. Since not every proposition that is always true is necessarily true, our thesis is at odds with theories of modality and time, such as those of Kit Fine and David Kaplan, which posit a fundamental symmetry between modal and tense operators. According to such theories, just as it is a contingent matter what is true at a given time, it is likewise a temporary matter what is true at a given possible world; so a proposition that is now true at all worlds, and thus necessarily true, may yet at some past or future time be false in the actual world, and thus not always true. We reconstruct and criticize several lines of argument in favor of this picture, and then argue against the picture on the grounds that it is inconsistent with certain sorts of contingency in the structure of time

Modality and expressibility

When embedding data are used to argue against semantic theory A and in favor of semantic theory B, it is important to ask whether A could make sense of those data. It is possible to ask that question on a case-by-case basis. But suppose we could show that A can make sense of all the embedding data which B can possibly make sense of. This would, on the one hand, undermine arguments in favor of B over A on the basis of embedding data. And, provided that the converse does not hold—that is, that A can make sense of strictly more embedding data than B can—it would also show that there is a precise sense in which B is more constrained than A, yielding a pro tanto simplicity-based consideration in favor of B. In this paper I develop tools which allow us to make comparisons of this kind, which I call comparisons of potential expressive power. I motivate the development of these tools by way of exploration of the recent debate about epistemic modals. Prominent theories which have been developed in response to embedding data turn out to be strictly less expressive than the standard relational theory, a fact which necessitates a reorientation in how to think about the choice between these theories

Branching Bisimilarity with Explicit Divergence

We consider the relational characterisation of branching bisimilarity with explicit divergence. We prove that it is an equivalence and that it coincides with the original definition of branching bisimilarity with explicit divergence in terms of coloured traces. We also establish a correspondence with several variants of an action-based modal logic with until- and divergence modalities

Remarks on logic for process descriptions in ontological reasoning: A Drug Interaction Ontology case study

We present some ideas on logical process descriptions, using relations from the DIO (Drug Interaction Ontology) as examples and explaining how these relations can be naturally decomposed in terms of more basic structured logical process descriptions using terms from linear logic. In our view, the process descriptions are able to clarify the usual relational descriptions of DIO. In particular, we discuss the use of logical process descriptions in proving linear logical theorems. Among the types of reasoning supported by DIO one can distinguish both (1) basic reasoning about general structures in reality and (2) the domain-specific reasoning of experts. We here propose a clarification of this important distinction between (realist) reasoning on the basis of an ontology and rule-based inferences on the basis of an expert’s view