Difference between revisions of "Directory talk:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Differential Logic : Introduction"
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday November 14, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchJon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (copy material to work on) |
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Work Area== | ==Work Area== | ||
| − | + | ===Logical Cacti=== | |
| − | |||
| − | + | ; Theme One Program — Logical Cacti | |
| − | + | : http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/thread.html#2348 | |
| − | + | : http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002360.html | |
| − | + | : http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002361.html | |
| − | |||
| + | <pre> | ||
Up till now we've been working to hammer out a two-edged sword of syntax, | Up till now we've been working to hammer out a two-edged sword of syntax, | ||
honing the syntax of "painted and rooted cacti and expressions" (PARCAE), | honing the syntax of "painted and rooted cacti and expressions" (PARCAE), | ||
| Line 239: | Line 238: | ||
| | | | | | | | | | | | ||
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
For the time being, the main things to take away from Tables 13 and 14 are | For the time being, the main things to take away from Tables 13 and 14 are | ||
Revision as of 21:22, 29 June 2009
Place for Discussion
…
Work Area
Logical Cacti
- Theme One Program — Logical Cacti
- http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/thread.html#2348
- http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002360.html
- http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-February/002361.html
Up till now we've been working to hammer out a two-edged sword of syntax,
honing the syntax of "painted and rooted cacti and expressions" (PARCAE),
and turning it to use in taming the syntax of two-level formal languages.
But the purpose of a logical syntax is to support a logical semantics,
which means, for starters, to bear interpretation as sentential signs
that can denote objective propositions about some universe of objects.
One of the difficulties that we face in this discussion is that the
words "interpretation", "meaning", "semantics", and so on will have
so many different meanings from one moment to the next of their use.
A dedicated neologician might be able to think up distinctive names
for all of the aspects of meaning and all of the approaches to them
that will concern us here, but I will just have to do the best that
I can with the common lot of ambiguous terms, leaving it to context
and the intelligent interpreter to sort it out as much as possible.
As it happens, the language of cacti is so abstract that it can bear
at least two different interpretations as logical sentences denoting
logical propositions. The two interpretations that I know about are
descended from the ones that C.S. Peirce called the "entitative" and
the "existential" interpretations of his systems of graphical logics.
For our present aims, I shall briefly introduce the alternatives and
then quickly move to the existential interpretation of logical cacti.
Table 13 illustrates the "existential interpretation"
of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing
English translations for a few of the most basic and
commonly occurring forms.
Table 13. The Existential Interpretation
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| Ex | Cactus Graph | Cactus Expression | Existential |
| | | | Interpretation |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| 1 | @ | " " | true. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | |
| 2 | @ | ( ) | untrue. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a | | |
| 3 | @ | a | a. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | |
| 4 | @ | (a) | not a. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| 5 | @ | a b c | a and b and c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| | o o o | | |
| | \|/ | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | |
| 6 | @ | ((a)(b)(c)) | a or b or c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | | | a implies b. |
| | a b | | |
| | o---o | | if a then b. |
| | | | | |
| 7 | @ | ( a (b)) | no a sans b. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b | | |
| | o---o | | a exclusive-or b. |
| | \ / | | |
| 8 | @ | ( a , b ) | a not equal to b. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b | | |
| | o---o | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | o | | a if & only if b. |
| | | | | |
| 9 | @ | (( a , b )) | a equates with b. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| | o--o--o | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | \ / | | just one false |
| 10 | @ | ( a , b , c ) | out of a, b, c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| | o o o | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | o--o--o | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | \ / | | just one true |
| 11 | @ | ((a),(b),(c)) | among a, b, c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | | | genus a over |
| | b c | | species b, c. |
| | o o | | |
| | a | | | | partition a |
| | o--o--o | | among b & c. |
| | \ / | | |
| | \ / | | whole pie a: |
| 12 | @ | ( a ,(b),(c)) | slices b, c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
Table 14 illustrates the "entitative interpretation"
of cactus graphs and cactus expressions by providing
English translations for a few of the most basic and
commonly occurring forms.
Table 14. The Entitative Interpretation
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| En | Cactus Graph | Cactus Expression | Entitative |
| | | | Interpretation |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| 1 | @ | " " | untrue. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | |
| 2 | @ | ( ) | true. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a | | |
| 3 | @ | a | a. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | |
| 4 | @ | (a) | not a. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| 5 | @ | a b c | a or b or c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| | o o o | | |
| | \|/ | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | |
| 6 | @ | ((a)(b)(c)) | a and b and c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | | | a implies b. |
| | | | |
| | o a | | if a then b. |
| | | | | |
| 7 | @ b | (a) b | not a, or b. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b | | |
| | o---o | | a if & only if b. |
| | \ / | | |
| 8 | @ | ( a , b ) | a equates with b. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b | | |
| | o---o | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | o | | a exclusive-or b. |
| | | | | |
| 9 | @ | (( a , b )) | a not equal to b. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| | o--o--o | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | \ / | | not just one true |
| 10 | @ | ( a , b , c ) | out of a, b, c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a b c | | |
| | o--o--o | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | \ / | | |
| | o | | |
| | | | | just one true |
| 11 | @ | (( a , b , c )) | among a, b, c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
| | | | |
| | a | | |
| | o | | genus a over |
| | | b c | | species b, c. |
| | o--o--o | | |
| | \ / | | partition a |
| | \ / | | among b & c. |
| | o | | |
| | | | | whole pie a: |
| 12 | @ | (((a), b , c )) | slices b, c. |
| | | | |
o----o-------------------o-------------------o-------------------o
For the time being, the main things to take away from Tables 13 and 14 are
the ideas that the compositional structure of cactus graphs and expressions
can be articulated in terms of two different kinds of connective operations,
and that there are two distinct ways of mapping this compositional structure
into the compositional structure of propositional sentences, say, in English:
1. The "node connective" joins a number of
component cacti C_1, ..., C_k at a node:
C_1 ... C_k
@
2. The "lobe connective" joins a number of
component cacti C_1, ..., C_k to a lobe:
C_1 C_2 C_k
o---o-...-o
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
@
Table 15 summarizes the existential and entitative
interpretations of the primitive cactus structures,
in effect, the graphical constants and connectives.
Table 15. Existential & Entitative Interpretations of Cactus Structures
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
| Cactus Graph | Cactus String | Existential | Entitative |
| | | Interpretation | Interpretation |
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
| | | | |
| @ | " " | true | false |
| | | | |
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
| | | | |
| o | | | |
| | | | | |
| @ | ( ) | false | true |
| | | | |
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
| | | | |
| C_1 ... C_k | | | |
| @ | C_1 ... C_k | C_1 & ... & C_k | C_1 v ... v C_k |
| | | | |
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
| | | | |
| C_1 C_2 C_k | | Just one | Not just one |
| o---o-...-o | | | |
| \ / | | of the C_j, | of the C_j, |
| \ / | | | |
| \ / | | j = 1 to k, | j = 1 to k, |
| \ / | | | |
| @ | (C_1, ..., C_k) | is not true. | is true. |
| | | | |
o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o-----------------o
It is possible to specify "abstract rules of equivalence" (AROE's)
between cacti, rules for transforming one cactus into another that
are "formal" in the sense of being indifferent to the above choices
for logical or semantic interpretations, and that partition the set
of cacti into formal equivalence classes.
A "reduction" is an equivalence transformation
that is applied in the direction of decreasing
graphical complexity.
A "basic reduction" is a reduction that applies
to one of the two families of basic connectives.
Table 16 schematizes the two types of basic reductions
in a purely formal, interpretation-independent fashion.
Table 16. Basic Reductions
o---------------------------------------o
| |
| C_1 ... C_k |
| @ = @ |
| |
| if and only if |
| |
| C_j = @ for all j = 1 to k |
| |
o---------------------------------------o
| |
| C_1 C_2 C_k |
| o---o-...-o |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| @ = @ |
| |
| if and only if |
| |
| o |
| | |
| C_j = @ for exactly one j in [1, k] |
| |
o---------------------------------------o
The careful reader will have noticed that we have begun to use
graphical paints like "a", "b", "c" and schematic proxies like
"C_1", "C_j", "C_k" in a variety of novel and unjustified ways.
The careful writer would have already introduced a whole bevy of
technical concepts and proved a whole crew of formal theorems to
justify their use before contemplating this stage of development,
but I have been hurrying to proceed with the informal exposition,
and this expedition must leave steps to the reader's imagination.
Of course I mean the "active imagination".
So let me assist the prospective exercise
with a few hints of what it would take to
guarantee that these practices make sense.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
