Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Partial Functions in an Impredicative Simple Theory of Types

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1617))

  • 232 Accesses

Abstract

A functional notation is not a necessity for a predicate logic since a function of n arguments can be represented as a predicate of n + 1 arguments. But a functional notation in a predicate logic with identity can greatly simplify some assertions, and for this reason a functional notation is frequently assumed for predicate logics, both first order and higher. But a functional notation that is admitted as primitive in a predicate logic must of necessity be interpreted as a notation for total functions, not partial functions, over the domain of the functions. The traditional way of introducing a notation for partial functions into a predicate logic with an assumed or defined identity is using the notation (lx) F of Russell’s definite descriptions that is read “the x such that F”. But the traditional manner of introduction requires the treatment of what Quine has called “the waste cases”; that is when there is no x or more than one x such that F. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the tableaux method of formalizing logics permits the introduction of definite descriptions without the need to provide a denotation for waste case definite descriptions. As a result the distortions of meaning that result from Quine’s treatment of the waste cases is avoided. The technique is illustrated by introducing a notation for partial functions into an impredicative version ITT of the simple theory of types. The resulting logic ITTf is shown to be a conservative extension of ITT. The tableaux proof theory of ITT is of independent interest both for its motivation and for the strength of its proof theory. The logic has a nominalist motivation appropriate for a logic intended for applications in computer science. Its extension of the membership of the type of the individuals of the simple theory of types avoids the abuses of use and mention that can result when higher order predication is given a nominalist interpretation. The proof theory does not require an axiom of infinity. As a result, the definition of both well-founded and non-well-founded recursive predicates is much simpler than in the simple theory of types with an axiom of infinity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peter B. Andrews. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: to Truth Through Proof, Academic Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Peter B. Andrews, Sunil Issar, Daniel Nesmith, & Frank Pfenning. The TPS Theorem Proving System, 9’th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), volume 310, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, E. Lusk & R. Overbeek (Eds), 760–761, Springer-Verlag 1988.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. H.P. Barendregt. The Lambda Calculus, Its Syntax and Semantics, Revised Edition. North-Holland. 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alonzo Church. Schröder’s Anticipation of the Simple Theory of Types. The Journal of Unified Science (Erkenntnis) Vol IX, 149–152, 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alonzo Church. A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types, J. Sym. Logic, 5, 56–68, 1940.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. William M. Farmer, A Partial Functions Version of Church’s Simple Theory of Types, J. Sym. Logic, 55, 1269–1290, 1990.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Paul C. Gilmore. Natural Deduction Based Set Theories: A New Resolution of the Old Paradoxes, J.Sym. Logic, 51, 393–411, 1986.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Paul C. Gilmore. An Impredicative Simple Theory of Types, presented at the Fourteenth Workshop on Mathematical Foundations for Programming Systems, Queen Mary College, London, May 1998. The paper is available at: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/gilmore

  9. Paul C. Gilmore. Cut-Elimination for an Impredicative Simple Theory of Types, July 1998. The paper is to appear in the Journal of Symbolic Logic and is available at: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/gilmore

  10. Paul C. Gilmore. A Foundation for the Entity Relationship Approach: How and Why, Proceedings of the 6th Entity Relationship Conference, S.T. March (Ed.), North-Holland 95–113, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. An Impredicative Higher Order Logic and Some Applications, a monograph on ITT in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Michael J.C. Gordon. A Proof Generating System for Higher-order Logic, VLSI Specification, Verification and Synthesis, G. Birtwistle, P. Subrahmanyam, Eds., Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 73–128, 1987. Also, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Technical Report No. 103

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mike Gordon. Set Theory, Higher Order Logic or Both? The 1996 International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher order Logics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science No. 1125, pp191–202, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Owre, N. Shankar, and J. M. Rushby. The PVS Specification Language (Beta Release), Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park CA 94025, June 14, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Willard Van Orman Quine, Mathematical Logic, Revised Edition, Harvard University Press, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. Schütte. Syntactical and Semantical Properties of Simple Type Theory, J. Sym. Logic, 25, 305–326, 1960.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilfred Sellars. Abstract Entities, Rev. of Metaphysics, vol. 16, 625–671, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wilfred Sellars. Classes as Abstract Entities and the Russell Paradox, Rev. of Metaphysics, vol. 17, 67–90, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Joseph R. Shoenfield, Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ernst Zermelo, Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory, From Frege to Gödel, Ed. Jean van Heijenoort, Harvard University Press, 199–215, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gilmore, P.C. (1999). Partial Functions in an Impredicative Simple Theory of Types. In: Murray, N.V. (eds) Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. TABLEAUX 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1617. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48754-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48754-9_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66086-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48754-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics