Neutrality and Many-Valued Logics

In this book, we consider various many-valued logics: standard, linear, hyperbolic, parabolic, non-Archimedean, p-adic, interval, neutrosophic, etc. We survey also results which show the tree different proof-theoretic frameworks for many-valued logics, e.g. frameworks of the following deductive calculi: Hilbert's style, sequent, and hypersequent. We present a general way that allows to construct systematically analytic calculi for a large family of non-Archimedean many-valued logics: hyperrational-valued, hyperreal-valued, and p-adic valued logics characterized by a special format of semantics with an appropriate rejection of Archimedes' axiom. These logics are built as different extensions of standard many-valued logics (namely, Lukasiewicz's, Goedel's, Product, and Post's logics). The informal sense of Archimedes' axiom is that anything can be measured by a ruler. Also logical multiple-validity without Archimedes' axiom consists in that the set of truth values is infinite and it is not well-founded and well-ordered. On the base of non-Archimedean valued logics, we construct non-Archimedean valued interval neutrosophic logic INL by which we can describe neutrality phenomena.Comment: 119 page

Decoding Choice Encodings

We study two encodings of the asynchronous pi-calculus with input-guarded choice into its choice-free fragment. One encoding is divergence-free, but refines the atomic commitment of choice into gradual commitment. The other preserves atomicity, but introduces divergence. The divergent encoding is fully abstract with respect to weak bisimulation, but the more natural divergence-free encoding is not. Instead, we show that it is fully abstract with respect to coupled simulation, a slightly coarser - but still coinductively defined - equivalence that does not enforce bisimilarity of internal branching decisions. The correctness proofs for the two choice encodings introduce a novel proof technique exploiting the properties of explicit decodings from translations to source terms

Advances and Applications of Dezert-Smarandache Theory (DSmT) for Information Fusion (Collected works), Vol. 2

This second volume dedicated to Dezert-Smarandache Theory (DSmT) in Information Fusion brings in new fusion quantitative rules (such as the PCR1-6, where PCR5 for two sources does the most mathematically exact redistribution of conflicting masses to the non-empty sets in the fusion literature), qualitative fusion rules, and the Belief Conditioning Rule (BCR) which is different from the classical conditioning rule used by the fusion community working with the Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Other fusion rules are constructed based on T-norm and T-conorm (hence using fuzzy logic and fuzzy set in information fusion), or more general fusion rules based on N-norm and N-conorm (hence using neutrosophic logic and neutrosophic set in information fusion), and an attempt to unify the fusion rules and fusion theories. The known fusion rules are extended from the power set to the hyper-power set and comparison between rules are made on many examples. One defines the degree of intersection of two sets, degree of union of two sets, and degree of inclusion of two sets which all help in improving the all existing fusion rules as well as the credibility, plausibility, and communality functions. The book chapters are written by Frederic Dambreville, Milan Daniel, Jean Dezert, Pascal Djiknavorian, Dominic Grenier, Xinhan Huang, Pavlina Dimitrova Konstantinova, Xinde Li, Arnaud Martin, Christophe Osswald, Andrew Schumann, Tzvetan Atanasov Semerdjiev, Florentin Smarandache, Albena Tchamova, and Min Wang

Hadron models and related New Energy issues

The present book covers a wide-range of issues from alternative hadron models to their likely implications in New Energy research, including alternative interpretation of lowenergy reaction (coldfusion) phenomena. The authors explored some new approaches to describe novel phenomena in particle physics. M Pitkanen introduces his nuclear string hypothesis derived from his Topological Geometrodynamics theory, while E. Goldfain discusses a number of nonlinear dynamics methods, including bifurcation, pattern formation (complex GinzburgLandau equation) to describe elementary particle masses. Fu Yuhua discusses a plausible method for prediction of phenomena related to New Energy development. F. Smarandache discusses his unmatter hypothesis, and A. Yefremov et al. discuss Yang-Mills field from Quaternion Space Geometry. Diego Rapoport discusses theoretical link between Torsion fields and Hadronic Mechanic. A.H. Phillips discusses semiconductor nanodevices, while V. and A. Boju discuss Digital Discrete and Combinatorial methods and their likely implications in New Energy research. Pavel Pintr et al. describe planetary orbit distance from modified Schrödinger equation, and M. Pereira discusses his new Hypergeometrical description of Standard Model of elementary particles. The present volume will be suitable for researchers interested in New Energy issues, in particular their link with alternative hadron models and interpretation

On logical relativity

One logic or many? I say—many. Or rather, I say there is one logic for each way of specifying the class of all possible circumstances, or models, i.e., all ways of interpreting a given language. But because there is no unique way of doing this, I say there is no unique logic except in a relative sense. Indeed, given any two competing logical theories T1 and T2 (in the same language) one could always consider their common core, T, and settle on that theory. So, given any language L, one could settle on the minimal logic T0 corresponding to the common core shared by all competitors. That would be a way of resisting relativism, as long as one is willing to redraw the bounds of logic accordingly. However, such a minimal theory T0 may be empty if the syntax of L contains no special ingredients the interpretation of which is independent of the specification of the relevant L-models. And generally—I argue—this is indeed the case

Mechanised Uniform Interpolation for Modal Logics K, GL, and iSL

The uniform interpolation property in a given logic can be understood as the definability of propositional quantifiers. We mechanise the computation of these quantifiers and prove correctness in the Coq proof assistant for three modal logics, namely: (1) the modal logic K, for which a pen-and-paper proof exists; (2) Gödel-Löb logic GL, for which our formalisation clarifies an important point in an existing, but incomplete, sequent-style proof; and (3) intuitionistic strong Löb logic iSL, for which this is the first proof-theoretic construction of uniform interpolants. Our work also yields verified programs that allow one to compute the propositional quantifiers on any formula in this logic

Mechanised Uniform Interpolation for Modal Logics K, GL, and iSL

The uniform interpolation property in a given logic can be understood as the definability of propositional quantifiers. We mechanise the computation of these quantifiers and prove correctness in the Coq proof assistant for three modal logics, namely: (1) the modal logic K, for which a pen-and-paper proof exists; (2) Gödel-Löb logic GL, for which our formalisation clarifies an important point in an existing, but incomplete, sequent-style proof; and (3) intuitionistic strong Löb logic iSL, for which this is the first proof-theoretic construction of uniform interpolants. Our work also yields verified programs that allow one to compute the propositional quantifiers on any formula in this logic

Looking backward: From Euler to Riemann

We survey the main ideas in the early history of the subjects on which Riemann worked and that led to some of his most important discoveries. The subjects discussed include the theory of functions of a complex variable, elliptic and Abelian integrals, the hypergeometric series, the zeta function, topology, differential geometry, integration, and the notion of space. We shall see that among Riemann's predecessors in all these fields, one name occupies a prominent place, this is Leonhard Euler. The final version of this paper will appear in the book \emph{From Riemann to differential geometry and relativity} (L. Ji, A. Papadopoulos and S. Yamada, ed.) Berlin: Springer, 2017