Intuitionistic logic in the context of Proof-theoretic


Intuitionistic logic in the context of Proof-theoretic

Intuitionistic logic Study page number 1 of 2

Play TriviaQuestions Online!

or

Skip to study material about Intuitionistic logic in the context of "Proof-theoretic"


⭐ Core Definition: Intuitionistic logic

Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not assume the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.

Formalized intuitionistic logic was originally developed by Arend Heyting to provide a formal basis for L. E. J. Brouwer's programme of intuitionism. From a proof-theoretic perspective, Heyting’s calculus is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination have been removed. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic. The standard explanation of intuitionistic logic is the BHK interpretation.

↓ Menu
HINT:

In this Dossier

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Anti-realist

In analytic philosophy, anti-realism is the position that the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality. In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed.

There are many varieties of anti-realism, such as metaphysical, mathematical, semantic, scientific, moral and epistemic. The term was first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett in an argument against a form of realism Dummett saw as 'colorless reductionism'.

View the full Wikipedia page for Anti-realist
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Negation

In logic, negation, also called the logical not or logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , , or . It is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true. For example, if is "The dog runs", then "not " is "The dog does not run". An operand of a negation is called a negand or negatum.

Negation is a unary logical connective. It may furthermore be applied not only to propositions, but also to notions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity (and vice versa). In intuitionistic logic, according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, the negation of a proposition is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of .

View the full Wikipedia page for Negation
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Kripke semantics

Kripke semantics (also known as relational semantics or frame semantics, and often confused with possible world semantics) is a formal semantics for non-classical logic systems created in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Saul Kripke and André Joyal. It was first conceived for modal logics, and later adapted to intuitionistic logic and other non-classical systems. The development of Kripke semantics was a breakthrough in the theory of non-classical logics, because the model theory of such logics was almost non-existent before Kripke (algebraic semantics existed, but were considered 'syntax in disguise').

View the full Wikipedia page for Kripke semantics
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Heyting algebra

In mathematics, a Heyting algebra (also known as pseudo-Boolean algebra) is a bounded lattice (with join and meet operations written ∨ and ∧ and with least element 0 and greatest element 1) equipped with a binary operation ab called implication such that (ca) ≤ b is equivalent to c ≤ (ab). In a Heyting algebra a ≤ b can be found to be equivalent to 1 ≤ a → b; i.e. if a ≤ b then a proves b. From a logical standpoint, AB is by this definition the weakest proposition for which modus ponens, the inference rule AB, AB, is sound. Like Boolean algebras, Heyting algebras form a variety axiomatizable with finitely many equations. Heyting algebras were introduced in 1930 by Arend Heyting to formalize intuitionistic logic.

Heyting algebras are distributive lattices. Every Boolean algebra is a Heyting algebra when ab is defined as ¬ab, as is every complete distributive lattice satisfying a one-sided infinite distributive law when ab is taken to be the supremum of the set of all c for which cab. In the finite case, every nonempty distributive lattice, in particular every nonempty finite chain, is automatically complete and completely distributive, and hence a Heyting algebra.

View the full Wikipedia page for Heyting algebra
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Double negation elimination

In propositional logic, the double negation of a statement states that "it is not the case that the statement is not true". In classical logic, every statement is logically equivalent to its double negation, but this is not true in intuitionistic logic; this can be expressed by the formula A ≡ ~(~A) where the sign ≡ expresses logical equivalence and the sign ~ expresses negation.

Like the law of the excluded middle, this principle is considered to be a law of thought in classical logic, but it is disallowed by intuitionistic logic. The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica as:

View the full Wikipedia page for Double negation elimination
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Principle of explosion

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion.

The proof of this principle was first given by 12th-century French philosopher William of Soissons. Due to the principle of explosion, the existence of a contradiction (inconsistency) in a formal axiomatic system is disastrous; since any statement—true or not—can be proven, it trivializes the concepts of truth and falsity. Around the turn of the 20th century, the discovery of contradictions such as Russell's paradox at the foundations of mathematics thus threatened the entire structure of mathematics. Mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege, Ernst Zermelo, Abraham Fraenkel, and Thoralf Skolem put much effort into revising set theory to eliminate these contradictions, resulting in the modern Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.

View the full Wikipedia page for Principle of explosion
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Michael Dummett

Sir Michael Anthony Eardley Dummett FBA (/ˈdʌmɪt/; 27 June 1925 – 27 December 2011) was an English academic described as "among the most significant British philosophers of the last century and a leading campaigner for racial tolerance and equality." He was, until 1992, Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford. He wrote on the history of analytic philosophy, notably as an interpreter of Frege, and made original contributions particularly in the philosophies of mathematics, logic, language and metaphysics.

He was known for his work on truth and meaning and their implications to debates between realism and anti-realism, a term he helped to popularize. In mathematical logic, he developed an intermediate logic, a logical system intermediate between classical logic and intuitionistic logic that had already been studied by Kurt Gödel: the Gödel–Dummett logic. In voting theory, he devised the Quota Borda system of proportional voting, based on the Borda count, and conjectured the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem together with Robin Farquharson; he also devised the condition of proportionality for solid coalitions. Besides his main work in analytic philosophy, he also wrote extensively on the history of card games, particularly on tarot card games.

View the full Wikipedia page for Michael Dummett
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation

In mathematical logic, the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, or BHK interpretation, is an explanation of the meaning of proof in intuitionistic logic, proposed by L. E. J. Brouwer and Arend Heyting, and independently by Andrey Kolmogorov. It is also sometimes called the realizability interpretation, because of the connection with the realizability theory of Stephen Kleene. It is the standard explanation of intuitionistic logic.

View the full Wikipedia page for Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Dialetheism

Dialetheism (/dəˈlɛθiɪzəm/; from Greek δι- di- 'twice' and ἀλήθεια alḗtheia 'truth') is the view that there are statements that are both true and false. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms.

Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. A common mistake resulting from this is to reject dialetheism on the basis that, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes a theorem if a contradiction is true, trivialising such systems when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems, however, do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Dialetheists who do not want to allow that every statement is true are free to favour these over traditional, explosive logics.

View the full Wikipedia page for Dialetheism
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Algebraic semantics (mathematical logic)

In mathematical logic, algebraic semantics is a formal semantics based on algebras studied as part of algebraic logic. For example, the modal logic S4 is characterized by the class of topological boolean algebras—that is, boolean algebras with an interior operator. Other modal logics are characterized by various other algebras with operators. The class of boolean algebras characterizes classical propositional logic, and the class of Heyting algebras propositional intuitionistic logic. MV-algebras are the algebraic semantics of Łukasiewicz logic.

View the full Wikipedia page for Algebraic semantics (mathematical logic)
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Game semantics

Game semantics is an approach to formal semantics that grounds the concepts of truth or validity on game-theoretic concepts, such as the existence of a winning strategy for a player. In this framework, logical formulas are interpreted as defining games between two players. The term encompasses several related but distinct traditions, including dialogical logic (developed by Paul Lorenzen and Kuno Lorenz in Germany starting in the 1950s) and game-theoretical semantics (developed by Jaakko Hintikka in Finland).

Game semantics represents a significant departure from traditional model-theoretic approaches by emphasizing the dynamic, interactive nature of logical reasoning rather than static truth assignments. It provides intuitive interpretations for various logical systems, including classical logic, intuitionistic logic, linear logic, and modal logic. The approach bears conceptual resemblances to ancient Socratic dialogues, medieval theory of Obligationes, and constructive mathematics. Since the 1990s, game semantics has found important applications in theoretical computer science, particularly in the semantics of programming languages, concurrency theory, and the study of computational complexity.

View the full Wikipedia page for Game semantics
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Linear logic

Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by French logician Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter. Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics (because linear logic can be seen as the logic of quantum information theory), as well as linguistics, particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction.

Linear logic lends itself to many different presentations, explanations, and intuitions.Proof-theoretically, it derives from an analysis of classical sequent calculus in which uses of (the structural rules) contraction and weakening are carefully controlled. Operationally, this means that logical deduction is no longer merely about an ever-expanding collection of persistent "truths", but also a way of manipulating resources that cannot always be duplicated or thrown away at will. In terms of simple denotational models, linear logic may be seen as refining the interpretation of intuitionistic logic by replacing cartesian (closed) categories by symmetric monoidal (closed) categories, or the interpretation of classical logic by replacing Boolean algebras by C*-algebras.

View the full Wikipedia page for Linear logic
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Andrey Kolmogorov

Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (Russian: Андре́й Никола́евич Колмого́ров, IPA: [ɐnˈdrʲej nʲɪkɐˈlajɪvʲɪtɕ kəlmɐˈɡorəf] , 25 April 1903 – 20 October 1987) was a Soviet mathematician who played a central role in the creation of modern probability theory. He also contributed to the mathematics of topology, intuitionistic logic, turbulence, classical mechanics, algorithmic information theory and computational complexity.

View the full Wikipedia page for Andrey Kolmogorov
↑ Return to Menu

Intuitionistic logic in the context of Curry–Howard correspondence

In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs. It is also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation.

It is a generalization of a syntactic analogy between systems of formal logic and computational calculi that was first discovered by the American mathematician Haskell Curry and the logician William Alvin Howard. It is the link between logic and computation that is usually attributed to Curry and Howard, although the idea is related to the operational interpretation of intuitionistic logic given in various formulations by L. E. J. Brouwer, Arend Heyting and Andrey Kolmogorov (see Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation) and Stephen Kleene (see Realizability). The relationship has been extended to include category theory as the three-way Curry–Howard–Lambek correspondence.

View the full Wikipedia page for Curry–Howard correspondence
↑ Return to Menu