No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The lazy logic of partial terms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 March 2014
Abstract
The Logic of Partial Terms LPT is a strict negative free logic that provides an economical framework for developing many traditional mathematical theories having partial functions. In these traditional theories, all functions and predicates are strict. For example, if a unary function (predicate) is applied to an undefined argument, the result is undefined (respectively, false). On the other hand, every practical programming language incorporates at least one nonstrict or lazy construct, such as the if-then-else, but nonstrict functions cannot be either primitive or introduced in definitional extensions in LPT. Consequently, lazy programming language constructs do not fit the traditional mathematical mold inherent in LPT. A nonstrict (positive free) logic is required to handle nonstrict functions and predicates.
Previously developed nonstrict logics are not fully satisfactory because they are verbose in describing strict functions (which predominate in many programming languages), and some logicians find their semantics philosophically unpalatable. The newly developed Lazy Logic of Partial Terms LL is as concise as LPT in describing strict functions and predicates, and strict and nonstrict functions and predicates can be introduced in definitional extensions of traditional mathematical theories. LL is “built on top of” LPT. and, like LPT, admits only one domain in the semantics. In the semantics, for the case of a nonstrict unary function h in an LL theory T, we have ⊨Th(⊥) = y ↔ ∀x(h(x) = y), where ⊥ is a canonical undefined term. Correspondingly, in the axiomatization, the “indifference” (to the value of the argument) axiom h(⊥) = y ↔ ∀x(h(x) = y) guarantees a proper fit with the semantics. The price paid for LL's naturalness is that it is tailored for describing a specific area of computer science, program specification and verification, possibly limiting its role in explicating classical mathematical and philosophical subjects.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2002
References
REFERENCES
[1]Beeson, Michael, Foundations of constructive mathematics, Springer, Berlin, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Beeson, Michael, Program proving and programming proofs, Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science vii (Marcus, R. B., Dorn, G. J. W., and Weingartner, P., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 51–81.Google Scholar
[3]Bencivenga, Ermanno, Free logics, Handbook of philosophical logic (Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors), vol. 3, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986, pp. 373–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Burge, Tyler, Truth and some referential devices, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1971.Google Scholar
[6]Enderton, Herbert B., A mathematical introduction to logic, second ed., Harcourt/Academic Press, San Diego, 2001.Google Scholar
[7]Farmer, William M., Reasoning about partial functions with the aid of a computer, Erkenntnis, vol. 43 (1995), pp. 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Feferman, Solomon, What does logic have to tell us about mathematical proofs?, The Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 2 (1979), pp. 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Fitting, Melvin, First-order logic and automated theorem proving, second ed., Springer, New York, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]ESPRIT CoFI Working Group, Cofi: The Common Framework Initiative for algebraic specification and development (various documents), Available at http://www.briks.dk/Projects/CoFI.Google Scholar
[12]Gumb, Raymond D., An extended joint consistency theorem for free logic with equality, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 20 (1979), pp. 321–335, Abstract in Journal of Symbolic Logic, 42:146, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Gumb, Raymond D., Programming logics: An introduction to verification and semantics, Wiley, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
[14]Gumb, Raymond D., Free arithmetic (abstract), this Journal, vol. 59 (1994), pp. 717–718.Google Scholar
[15]Gumb, Raymond D., Model sets in a nonconstructive logic of partial terms with definite descriptions, Automated reasoning with analytic tableaux and related methods, international conference, TABLEAUX 2000, St Andrews, Scotland, UK, July 2000 proceedings (Dyckhoff, Roy, editor), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1847, Springer, Berlin, 2000, pp. 268–278, Corrected version available at http://www.cs.uml.edu/~gumb.Google Scholar
[16]Gumb, Raymond D., An extended joint consistency theorem for a nonconstructive logic of partial terms with definite descriptions, Studio Logica, vol. 69 (2001), pp. 279–292, Corrected version available at http://www.cs.uml.edu/~gumb.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Gumb, Raymond D. and Lambert, Karel, Definitions in nonstrict positive free logic, Modern Logic, vol. 7 (1997), pp. 25–55, 435–440, Corrected version available at http://www.cs.uml.edu/~gumb.Google Scholar
[18]Lambert, K. (editor), Philosophical applications of free logic, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991.Google Scholar
[19]Lambert, Karel, Free logics: Their foundations, character, and some applications thereof, Academia, Sankt Augustin, 1997.Google Scholar
[21]Parnas, David L., Predicate logic for software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 19 (1993), pp. 856–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Scales, Ronald, Attribution and existence, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine, 1969.Google Scholar
[23]Schock, Rolf, On definitions, Archiv für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, vol. 8 (1965), pp. 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Schock, Rolf, Logics without existence assumptions, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1968.Google Scholar
[27]Troelstra, A. S. and van Dalen, D., Constructivity in mathematics, vol. I and II, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.Google Scholar