Topological skeleton - Revision history

5.29.191.122: /* Skeletonization algorithms */

2014-08-16T16:27:29Z

Skeletonization algorithms

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 16 August 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~In [[mathematical logic]], the~~ '~~''Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation''', or '''BHK interpretation''', of [[intuitionistic logic]] was proposed by [[L. E. J. Brouwer]], [[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]]~~.		Myrtle Benny is how I'm known as and I feel comfy when people use the complete name. To gather coins is a thing that I'm completely addicted to. Since she was eighteen she's been working as a meter reader but she's always needed her own company. Years in the past we moved to North Dakota.<br><br>Look into my web blog; [http://dore.gia.ncnu.edu.tw/88ipart/node/2807512 at home std test]

	~~== The interpretation ==~~

	~~The interpretation states exactly what~~ is ~~intended to be~~ a ~~proof of a given [[Formula (mathematical logic)\|formula]]. This is specified by [[induction on the structure]] of~~ that ~~formula:~~

	*A proof of <math>P \wedge Q</math> is a pair <'~~'a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is a proof of ''P'' and ''b'' is a proof of ''Q''.~~
	*A proof of <math>P \vee Q</math> is a pair <''a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is 0 and ''b'' is a proof of ''P'', or ''a'' is 1 and ''b'' is a proof of ''Q''.
	*A proof of <math>P \to ~~Q</math> is a function ''f'' which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of ''Q''~~.
	*A proof of <math>\exists x \in S : \phi(x)</math> is a pair <'~~'a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is an element of ''S'', and ''b'' is a proof of ''φ(a)''.~~
	*A proof of <math>\forall x \in S : \phi(x)</math> is a function ''f'' which converts an element ''a'' of ''S'' into a proof of ''φ(a)''.
	*The formula <math>\neg P</math> is defined as ~~<math>P \to \bot</math>, so~~ a ~~proof of it is a function ''f'' which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.~~
	*There is no proof of <math>\bot</math> (the absurdity).

	~~The interpretation of a primitive proposition is supposed to be known from context. In the context of arithmetic, a proof of the formula '~~'s~~''=''t'' is a computation reducing the two terms to the same numeral~~.

	~~Kolmogorov followed the same lines but phrased his interpretation~~ in terms of problems and solutions. To assert a formula is to claim to know a solution to the problem represented by that formula. For instance <math>P \to Q</math> is the problem of reducing ''Q'' to ''P''; to solve it requires a method to solve problem ''Q'' given a solution to problem ''P''.

	~~== Examples ==~~

	~~The identity function is a proof of~~ the ~~formula <math>P \~~to ~~P</math>, no matter what P is~~.

	~~The [[law of non-contradiction]]~~ <~~math~~>~~\neg (P \wedge \neg P)~~<~~/math> expands to <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot)) \to \bot</math>:~~
	* A proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot)) \to \bot</math> is a function ''f'' which converts a proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot))</math> into ~~a proof of <math>\bot</math>.~~
	* A proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot))</math> is a pair of proofs <''a'',''b''>, where ''a'' is a proof of ''P'', and ''b'' is a proof of <math>P \to \bot</math>.
	* A proof of <math>P \to \bot</math> is a function which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.
	Putting it all together, a proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot)) \to \bot</math> is a function ''f'' which converts a pair <''a'',''b''> – where ''a'' is a proof of ''P'', and ''b'' is a function which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of <math>\bot</math> – into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.
	~~The function <math>f(\langle a, b \rangle) = b(a)</math> fits the bill, proving the law of non-contradiction, no matter what P is.~~

	On the other hand, the [[law of excluded middle]] <math>P \vee (\neg P)</math> expands to <math>P \vee (P \to \bot)</math>, and in general has no proof. According to the interpretation, a proof of <math>P \vee (\neg P)</math> is a pair <''a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is 0 and ''b'' is a proof of ''P'', or ''a'' is 1 and ''b'' is a proof of <math>P \to \bot</math>. Thus if neither ''P'' nor <math>P \to \bot</math> is provable then neither is <math>P \vee (\neg P)</math>.

	~~== What is absurdity? ==~~

	~~It is not in general possible for a [[logical system]] to have a formal negation operator such that there is a proof of ''"not" P'' exactly when there isn't a proof of ''P''~~ ; ~~see~~ [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]. The BHK interpretation instead takes ''"not" P'' to mean that ''P'' leads to absurdity, designated <math>\bot</math>, so that a proof of ''¬P'' is a function converting a proof of ''P'' into a proof of absurdity.

	A standard example of absurdity is found in dealing with arithmetic. Assume that 0 = 1, and proceed by [[mathematical induction]]: 0 = 0 by the axiom of equality. Now (induction hypothesis), if 0 were equal to a certain natural number ''n'', then 1 would be equal to ''n''+1, ([[Peano arithmetic\|Peano axiom]]: '''S'''''m'' = '''S'''''n'' if and only if ''m'' = ''n''), but since 0=1, therefore 0 would also be equal to ''n'' + 1. By induction, 0 is equal to all numbers, and therefore any two natural numbers become equal.

	Therefore, there is a way to go from a proof of 0=1 to a proof of any basic arithmetic equality, and thus to a proof of any complex arithmetic proposition. Furthermore, to get this result it was not necessary to invoke the Peano axiom which states that 0 is "not" the successor of any natural number. This makes 0=1 suitable as <math>\bot</math> in Heyting arithmetic (and the Peano axiom is rewritten 0 = '''S'''''n'' → 0 = '''S'''0). This use of 0 = 1 validates the [[principle of explosion]].

	~~== What is a function? ==~~

	The BHK interpretation will depend on the view taken about what constitutes a ''function'' which converts one proof to another, or which converts an element of a domain to a proof. Different versions of [[constructivism (mathematics)\|constructivism]] will diverge on this point.

	Kleene's realizability theory identifies the functions with the [[computable function]]s. It deals with [[Heyting arithmetic]], where the domain of quantification is the natural numbers and the primitive propositions are of the form x=y. A proof of x=y is simply the trivial algorithm if x evaluates to the same number that y does (which is always decidable for natural numbers), otherwise there is no proof. These are then built up by induction into more complex algorithms.

	If one takes [[lambda calculus]] as defining the notion of a function, then the BHK interpretation describes the [[Curry–Howard correspondence\|correspondence]] between natural deduction and functions.

	~~== References ==~~
	*{{cite paper \|authorlink=A. S. Troelstra \|last=Troelstra \|first=A. \|title=History of Constructivism in the Twentieth Century \|year=1991 \|url=http://~~staff.science~~.~~uva~~.~~nl/~anne/hhhist~~.~~pdf \|doi= }}~~
	*{{cite paper \|last=Troelstra \|first=A. ~~\|title=Constructivism and Proof Theory \|year=2003 \|url=http:/~~/~~staff.science.uva.nl~~/~~~anne~~/~~eolss.pdf \|doi= }}~~

	~~{{DEFAULTSORT:Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation}}~~
	~~[[Category:Dependently typed programming]]~~
	~~[[Category:Functional programming]]~~
	~~[[Category:Constructivism (mathematics)]~~]

24.6.47.6: /* Skeletonization algorithms */

2014-01-03T06:55:25Z

Skeletonization algorithms

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:55, 3 January 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~I would like~~ to ~~introduce myself~~ to ~~you~~, ~~I am Andrew~~ and ~~my spouse doesn~~'t ~~like~~ it at all. ~~Credit authorising~~ is ~~how he tends~~ to ~~make money~~. ~~Mississippi~~ is ~~the only location I~~'~~ve been residing~~ in ~~but I will~~ have to ~~transfer~~ in a ~~year or~~ two. As a ~~woman what she truly likes is style~~ and ~~she's been performing~~ it ~~for quite a whilst~~.<br><br>~~my weblog~~; ~~clairvoyance~~ [[http://~~surimcons~~.~~com~~/~~port01~~/~~1986925 visit this site surimcons~~.~~com~~]]		In [[mathematical logic]], the '''Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation''', or '''BHK interpretation''', of [[intuitionistic logic]] was proposed by [[L. E. J. Brouwer]], [[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]].

			== The interpretation ==

			The interpretation states exactly what is intended to be a proof of a given [[Formula (mathematical logic)\|formula]]. This is specified by [[induction on the structure]] of that formula:

			*A proof of <math>P \wedge Q</math> is a pair <''a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is a proof of ''P'' and ''b'' is a proof of ''Q''.
			*A proof of <math>P \vee Q</math> is a pair <''a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is 0 and ''b'' is a proof of ''P'', or ''a'' is 1 and ''b'' is a proof of ''Q''.
			*A proof of <math>P \to Q</math> is a function ''f'' which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of ''Q''.
			*A proof of <math>\exists x \in S : \phi(x)</math> is a pair <''a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is an element of ''S'', and ''b'' is a proof of ''φ(a)''.
			*A proof of <math>\forall x \in S : \phi(x)</math> is a function ''f'' which converts an element ''a'' of ''S'' into a proof of ''φ(a)''.
			*The formula <math>\neg P</math> is defined as <math>P \to \bot</math>, so a proof of it is a function ''f'' which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.
			*There is no proof of <math>\bot</math> (the absurdity).

			The interpretation of a primitive proposition is supposed to be known from context. In the context of arithmetic, a proof of the formula ''s''=''t'' is a computation reducing the two terms to the same numeral.

			Kolmogorov followed the same lines but phrased his interpretation in terms of problems and solutions. To assert a formula is to claim to know a solution to the problem represented by that formula. For instance <math>P \to Q</math> is the problem of reducing ''Q'' to ''P''; to solve it requires a method to solve problem ''Q'' given a solution to problem ''P''.

			== Examples ==

			The identity function is a proof of the formula <math>P \to P</math>, no matter what P is.

			The [[law of non-contradiction]] <math>\neg (P \wedge \neg P)</math> expands to <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot)) \to \bot</math>:
			* A proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot)) \to \bot</math> is a function ''f'' which converts a proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot))</math> into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.
			* A proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot))</math> is a pair of proofs <''a'',''b''>, where ''a'' is a proof of ''P'', and ''b'' is a proof of <math>P \to \bot</math>.
			* A proof of <math>P \to \bot</math> is a function which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.
			Putting it all together, a proof of <math>(P \wedge (P \to \bot)) \to \bot</math> is a function ''f'' which converts a pair <''a'',''b''> – where ''a'' is a proof of ''P'', and ''b'' is a function which converts a proof of ''P'' into a proof of <math>\bot</math> – into a proof of <math>\bot</math>.
			The function <math>f(\langle a, b \rangle) = b(a)</math> fits the bill, proving the law of non-contradiction, no matter what P is.

			On the other hand, the [[law of excluded middle]] <math>P \vee (\neg P)</math> expands to <math>P \vee (P \to \bot)</math>, and in general has no proof. According to the interpretation, a proof of <math>P \vee (\neg P)</math> is a pair <''a'', ''b''> where ''a'' is 0 and ''b'' is a proof of ''P'', or ''a'' is 1 and ''b'' is a proof of <math>P \to \bot</math>. Thus if neither ''P'' nor <math>P \to \bot</math> is provable then neither is <math>P \vee (\neg P)</math>.

			== What is absurdity? ==

			It is not in general possible for a [[logical system]] to have a formal negation operator such that there is a proof of ''"not" P'' exactly when there isn't a proof of ''P'' ; see [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]. The BHK interpretation instead takes ''"not" P'' to mean that ''P'' leads to absurdity, designated <math>\bot</math>, so that a proof of ''¬P'' is a function converting a proof of ''P'' into a proof of absurdity.

			A standard example of absurdity is found in dealing with arithmetic. Assume that 0 = 1, and proceed by [[mathematical induction]]: 0 = 0 by the axiom of equality. Now (induction hypothesis), if 0 were equal to a certain natural number ''n'', then 1 would be equal to ''n''+1, ([[Peano arithmetic\|Peano axiom]]: '''S'''''m'' = '''S'''''n'' if and only if ''m'' = ''n''), but since 0=1, therefore 0 would also be equal to ''n'' + 1. By induction, 0 is equal to all numbers, and therefore any two natural numbers become equal.

			Therefore, there is a way to go from a proof of 0=1 to a proof of any basic arithmetic equality, and thus to a proof of any complex arithmetic proposition. Furthermore, to get this result it was not necessary to invoke the Peano axiom which states that 0 is "not" the successor of any natural number. This makes 0=1 suitable as <math>\bot</math> in Heyting arithmetic (and the Peano axiom is rewritten 0 = '''S'''''n'' → 0 = '''S'''0). This use of 0 = 1 validates the [[principle of explosion]].

			== What is a function? ==

			The BHK interpretation will depend on the view taken about what constitutes a ''function'' which converts one proof to another, or which converts an element of a domain to a proof. Different versions of [[constructivism (mathematics)\|constructivism]] will diverge on this point.

			Kleene's realizability theory identifies the functions with the [[computable function]]s. It deals with [[Heyting arithmetic]], where the domain of quantification is the natural numbers and the primitive propositions are of the form x=y. A proof of x=y is simply the trivial algorithm if x evaluates to the same number that y does (which is always decidable for natural numbers), otherwise there is no proof. These are then built up by induction into more complex algorithms.

			If one takes [[lambda calculus]] as defining the notion of a function, then the BHK interpretation describes the [[Curry–Howard correspondence\|correspondence]] between natural deduction and functions.

			== References ==
			*{{cite paper \|authorlink=A. S. Troelstra \|last=Troelstra \|first=A. \|title=History of Constructivism in the Twentieth Century \|year=1991 \|url=http://staff.science.uva.nl/~anne/hhhist.pdf \|doi= }}
			*{{cite paper \|last=Troelstra \|first=A. \|title=Constructivism and Proof Theory \|year=2003 \|url=http://staff.science.uva.nl/~anne/eolss.pdf \|doi= }}

			{{DEFAULTSORT:Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation}}
			[[Category:Dependently typed programming]]
			[[Category:Functional programming]]
			[[Category:Constructivism (mathematics)]]

en>EmausBot: r2.7.2+) (Robot: Adding ca:Esquelet topològic

2012-07-22T15:44:19Z

r2.7.2+) (Robot: Adding ca:Esquelet topològic

New page

I would like to introduce myself to you, I am Andrew and my spouse doesn't like it at all. Credit authorising is how he tends to make money. Mississippi is the only location I've been residing in but I will have to transfer in a year or two. As a woman what she truly likes is style and she's been performing it for quite a whilst.<br><br>my weblog; clairvoyance [[http://surimcons.com/port01/1986925 visit this site surimcons.com]]