Packed rules for automatic transfer-rule induction

We present a method of encoding transfer rules in a highly efficient packed structure using contextualized constraints (Maxwell and Kaplan, 1991), an existing method of encoding adopted from LFG parsing (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982; Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001). The packed representation allows us to encode O(2n) transfer rules in a single packed representation only requiring O(n) storage space. Besides reducing space requirements, the representation also has a high impact on the amount of time taken to load large numbers of transfer rules to memory with very little trade-off in time needed to unpack the rules. We include an experimental evaluation which shows a considerable reduction in space and time requirements for a large set of automatically induced transfer rules by storing the rules in the packed representation

Kripke Models for Classical Logic

We introduce a notion of Kripke model for classical logic for which we constructively prove soundness and cut-free completeness. We discuss the novelty of the notion and its potential applications

Computational reverse mathematics and foundational analysis

Reverse mathematics studies which subsystems of second order arithmetic are equivalent to key theorems of ordinary, non-set-theoretic mathematics. The main philosophical application of reverse mathematics proposed thus far is foundational analysis, which explores the limits of different foundations for mathematics in a formally precise manner. This paper gives a detailed account of the motivations and methodology of foundational analysis, which have heretofore been largely left implicit in the practice. It then shows how this account can be fruitfully applied in the evaluation of major foundational approaches by a careful examination of two case studies: a partial realization of Hilbert's program due to Simpson [1988], and predicativism in the extended form due to Feferman and Sch\"{u}tte. Shore [2010, 2013] proposes that equivalences in reverse mathematics be proved in the same way as inequivalences, namely by considering only $\omega$-models of the systems in question. Shore refers to this approach as computational reverse mathematics. This paper shows that despite some attractive features, computational reverse mathematics is inappropriate for foundational analysis, for two major reasons. Firstly, the computable entailment relation employed in computational reverse mathematics does not preserve justification for the foundational programs above. Secondly, computable entailment is a $\Pi^1_1$ complete relation, and hence employing it commits one to theoretical resources which outstrip those available within any foundational approach that is proof-theoretically weaker than $\Pi^1_1\text{-}\mathsf{CA}_0$.Comment: Submitted. 41 page

A new problem of descriptive power

No abstract available

Some observations on the logical foundations of inductive theorem proving

In this paper we study the logical foundations of automated inductive theorem proving. To that aim we first develop a theoretical model that is centered around the difficulty of finding induction axioms which are sufficient for proving a goal. Based on this model, we then analyze the following aspects: the choice of a proof shape, the choice of an induction rule and the language of the induction formula. In particular, using model-theoretic techniques, we clarify the relationship between notions of inductiveness that have been considered in the literature on automated inductive theorem proving. This is a corrected version of the paper arXiv:1704.01930v5 published originally on Nov.~16, 2017

Local Induction and Provably Total Computable Functions: A Case Study

Let IΠ−2 denote the fragment of Peano Arithmetic obtained by restricting the induction scheme to parameter free Π2 formulas. Answering a question of R. Kaye, L. Beklemishev showed that the provably total computable functions (p.t.c.f.) of IΠ−2 are, precisely, the primitive recursive ones. In this work we give a new proof of this fact through an analysis of the p.t.c.f. of certain local versions of induction principles closely related to IΠ−2 . This analysis is essentially based on the equivalence between local induction rules and restricted forms of iteration. In this way, we obtain a more direct answer to Kaye’s question, avoiding the metamathematical machinery (reflection principles, provability logic,...) needed for Beklemishev’s original proof.Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación MTM2008–0643