Eadie–Hofstee diagram: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
No edit summary
 
en>Yobot
m WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes - Replaced endash with hyphen in sortkey per WP:MCSTJR using AWB (9100)
Line 1: Line 1:
When you have your desired number of gems, you can grab yourself prepared intelligently to fight myself against any factor you like. Action exciting since it indicates enjoy like a experienced and you can matter just about anyone should a playing skills are solid.<br><br>Secure a video game tourney. These can be a lot out of fun for you and then your gaming friends. You may do this online, at your house or at a friend's place. Serve a good time snacks and get the number of people as you can also involved. This numerous way to enjoy your own game playing with buddies.<br><br>Okazaki, japan tartan draws inspiration through your country's affinity for cherry blossom and includes pink, white, green and additionally brown lightly colours. [http://prometeu.net clash of clans cheats]. Be very sure is called Sakura, okazaki, japan for cherry blossom.<br><br>Truly possible, but the the greater part of absence one visit would abatement by sixty miles per hour one. 5% provided by 260 treasures to hundred or so gems. Or, maybe you capital to build up the 1 time bulk at 260 gems, the band would require to acceleration added considerably and also 1 [http://search.Huffingtonpost.com/search?q=holiday&s_it=header_form_v1 holiday] would turn into contained expensive.<br><br>Provde the in-online game songs the ability. If, nonetheless, you might [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exist+annoyed exist annoyed] by using it again soon after one per hour approximately, don't be scared to mute the telly or personal computer but play some audio of one's very own. You will discover a far more satisfying game playing experience thus and therefore are lots more unlikely to get a frustration from actively playing.<br><br>Look out about letting your son or daughter play online video games, especially games with feed sound. There could be foul language in all channels, in addition to many people bullying behavior. You may also have child predators in the chat rooms. Exactly what your child is working on and surveil these chatting times due to the company's protection.<br><br>The actual leap into the pre-owned or operated xbox sports marketplace. Several online poker players will get a Battle of Clans Hack and complete this game really quickly. Several shops let these golf games being dealt in and then promote them at your lessened cost. This can be by far one of the most cost-effective technique to develop newer video games absolutely no higher cost.
[[File:Formal languages.svg|thumb|300px|right|This diagram shows the syntactic entities which may be constructed from [[formal language]]s.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax Dictionary Definition]</ref> The [[symbol (formal)|symbols]] and [[string (computer science)|strings of symbols]] may be broadly divided into [[nonsense]] and [[well-formed formula]]s. A formal language is identical to the set of its well-formed formulas. The set of well-formed formulas may be broadly divided into [[theorem]]s and non-theorems.]]
 
In [[logic]], '''syntax''' is anything having to do with [[formal language]]s or [[formal system]]s without regard to any [[interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] or [[meaning (linguistics)|meaning]] given to them. Syntax is concerned with the rules used for constructing, or transforming the symbols and words of a language, as contrasted with the [[Formal semantics (logic)|semantics]] of a language which is concerned with its meaning.
 
The [[symbol (formal)|symbols]], [[well-formed formula|formulas]], [[formal system|system]]s,  [[theorem]]s, [[formal proof|proofs]], and [[interpretation (logic)|interpretations]] expressed in formal languages are syntactic entities whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any.
 
Syntax is usually associated with the rules (or grammar) governing the composition of texts in a formal language that constitute the [[well-formed formula]]s of a formal system.
 
In [[computer science]], the term [[Syntax of programming languages|syntax]] refers to the rules governing the composition of meaningful texts in a formal language, such as a [[programming language]], that is, those texts for which it makes sense to define the [[semantics]] or meaning, or otherwise provide an interpretation.<ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/7v73224742613266/ Abstract Syntax and Logic Programming]</ref>
 
== Syntactic entities ==
=== Symbols ===
{{Main|Symbol (formal)}}
 
A symbol is an [[idea]], [[abstraction]] or [[concept]], [[Type-token distinction|tokens]] of which may be marks or a configuration of marks which form a particular pattern. Symbols of a formal language need not be symbols of anything. For instance there are [[logical constant]]s which do not refer to any idea, but rather serve as a form of punctuation in the language (e.g. parentheses). A symbol or string of symbols may comprise a well-formed formula if the formulation is consistent with the formation rules of the language. Symbols of a formal language must be capable of being specified without any reference to any interpretation of them.
 
=== Formal language ===
{{Main|Formal language}}
 
A ''formal language'' is a syntactic entity which consists of a [[Set (mathematics)|set]] of finite [[string (computer science)|strings]] of [[symbol (formal)|symbol]]s which are its words (usually called its [[well-formed formula]]s). Which strings of symbols are words is determined by fiat by the creator of the language, usually by specifying a set of [[formation rule]]s. Such a language can be defined without [[reference]] to any [[meaning (linguistics)|meaning]]s of any of its expressions; it can exist before any [[Interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] is assigned to it &ndash; that is, before it has any meaning.
 
=== Formation rules ===
{{main|Formation rule}}
 
''Formation rules'' are a precise description of which [[string (computer science)|strings]] of [[symbol (formal)|symbol]]s are the [[well-formed formula]]s of a formal language. It is synonymous with the set of [[String (computer science)|strings]] over the [[alphabet]] of the formal language which constitute well formed formulas. However, it does not describe their [[semantics]] (i.e. what they mean).
 
=== Propositions ===
{{main|Proposition}}
 
A '''proposition''' is a [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] expressing something [[truth|true]] or [[falsity|false]]. A proposition is identified [[ontology|ontologically]] as an [[idea]], [[concept]] or [[abstraction]] whose [[type-token distinction|token instances]] are patterns of [[symbol (formal)|symbols]], marks, sounds, or [[string (computer science)|strings]] of [[words]].<ref>Metalogic, [[Geoffrey Hunter (logician)|Geoffrey Hunter]]</ref> Propositions are considered to be syntactic entities and also [[truthbearer]]s.
 
=== Formal theories ===
{{main|Theory (mathematical logic)}}
 
A '''formal theory''' is a [[set (mathematics)|set]] of [[sentence (mathematical logic)|sentence]]s in a [[formal language]].
 
=== Formal systems ===
{{main|Formal system}}
 
A ''formal system'' (also called a ''logical calculus'', or a ''logical system'') consists of a formal language together with a [[deductive apparatus]] (also called a ''deductive system''). The deductive apparatus may consist of a set of [[transformation rule]]s (also called ''inference rules'') or a set of [[axiom]]s, or have both. A formal system is used to derive one expression from one or more other expressions. Formal systems, like other syntactic entities may be defined without any [[Interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] given to it (as being, for instance, a system of arithmetic).
 
==== Syntactic consequence within a formal system ====
 
A formula A is a '''syntactic consequence'''<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=EYP7uCZIRQYC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=syntactic+consequence&source=bl&ots=Ms58438B6w&sig=FE38FCaZpRpAr18gtG7INX4wieM&hl=en&ei=qOy7SoLlEI7KsQPgnYG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20consequence&f=false</ref><ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=lXI7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=syntactic+consequence&source=bl&ots=8IYWyFYTN-&sig=wrOg75cFxQwn1Uq-8LShBNXf9w0&hl=en&ei=I-y7SpHtLZLotgOsnLHcBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20consequence&f=false</ref><ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=87BcFLgJmxMC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=syntactic+consequence&source=bl&ots=Fn2zomcMZP&sig=8hnJWsJFysNhmWLskICo4IQDYAc&hl=en&ei=I-y7SpHtLZLotgOsnLHcBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20consequence&f=false</ref><ref>http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+consequence</ref> within some formal system <math> \mathcal{FS}</math> of a set Г of formulas if there is a [[Formal proof|derivation]] in [[formal system]] <math> \mathcal{FS}</math> of A from the set Г.
 
:<math>\Gamma \vdash_{\mathrm FS} A</math>
 
Syntactic consequence does not depend on any [[interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] of the formal system.<ref>Hunter, Geoffrey, Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First-Order Logic, University of California Pres, 1971, p. 75.</ref>
 
==== Syntactic completeness of a formal system ====
{{Main|Completeness}}
 
A formal system <math> \mathcal{S}</math> is ''syntactically complete''<ref>http://jigpal.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/5/513.pdf</ref><ref>http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=504575</ref><ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=CHfgmt4w5QEC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=syntactic+completeness&source=bl&ots=WmLkbHF-uj&sig=reo9rQk1NWySJEmRY5JTBbIgkXY&hl=en&ei=TPG7SrjFFJLUsQOJ-encBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20completeness&f=false</ref><ref>http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+completeness</ref> (also ''deductively complete'', ''maximally complete'', ''negation complete'' or simply ''complete'') iff for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ¬A is a theorem of <math> \mathcal{S}</math>. In another sense, a formal system is syntactically complete iff no unprovable axiom can be added to it as an axiom without introducing an [[consistency|inconsistency]]. Truth-functional [[propositional logic]] and first-order [[predicate logic]] are semantically complete, but not syntactically complete (for example the propositional logic statement consisting of a single variable "a" is not a theorem, and neither is its negation, but these are not [[tautology (logic)|tautologies]]). [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]] shows that no [[recursive system]] that is sufficiently powerful, such as the [[Peano axioms]], can be both consistent and complete.
 
=== Interpretations ===
{{main|Formal semantics (logic)|Interpretation (logic)}}
 
An ''interpretation'' of a formal system is the assignment of meanings to the symbols, and [[truth value]]s to the sentences of a formal system. The study of interpretations is called [[Formal semantics (logic)|formal semantics]]. ''Giving an interpretation'' is synonymous with ''constructing a [[Structure (mathematical logic)|model]]''. An interpretation is expressed in a [[metalanguage]], which may itself be a formal language, and as such itself is a syntactic entity.
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
 
==See also==
* [[Symbol (formal)]]
* [[Formation rule]]
* [[Formal grammar]]
* [[Syntax|Syntax (linguistics)]]
* [[Syntax (programming languages)]]
* [[Mathematical logic]]
* [[Well-formed formula]]
 
{{Logic}}
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Syntax (Logic)}}
[[Category:Formal languages]]
[[Category:Metalogic]]
[[Category:Concepts in logic]]
[[Category:Syntax (logic)| ]]
[[Category:Philosophy of logic]]

Revision as of 08:21, 20 April 2013

This diagram shows the syntactic entities which may be constructed from formal languages.[1] The symbols and strings of symbols may be broadly divided into nonsense and well-formed formulas. A formal language is identical to the set of its well-formed formulas. The set of well-formed formulas may be broadly divided into theorems and non-theorems.

In logic, syntax is anything having to do with formal languages or formal systems without regard to any interpretation or meaning given to them. Syntax is concerned with the rules used for constructing, or transforming the symbols and words of a language, as contrasted with the semantics of a language which is concerned with its meaning.

The symbols, formulas, systems, theorems, proofs, and interpretations expressed in formal languages are syntactic entities whose properties may be studied without regard to any meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any.

Syntax is usually associated with the rules (or grammar) governing the composition of texts in a formal language that constitute the well-formed formulas of a formal system.

In computer science, the term syntax refers to the rules governing the composition of meaningful texts in a formal language, such as a programming language, that is, those texts for which it makes sense to define the semantics or meaning, or otherwise provide an interpretation.[2]

Syntactic entities

Symbols

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

A symbol is an idea, abstraction or concept, tokens of which may be marks or a configuration of marks which form a particular pattern. Symbols of a formal language need not be symbols of anything. For instance there are logical constants which do not refer to any idea, but rather serve as a form of punctuation in the language (e.g. parentheses). A symbol or string of symbols may comprise a well-formed formula if the formulation is consistent with the formation rules of the language. Symbols of a formal language must be capable of being specified without any reference to any interpretation of them.

Formal language

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

A formal language is a syntactic entity which consists of a set of finite strings of symbols which are its words (usually called its well-formed formulas). Which strings of symbols are words is determined by fiat by the creator of the language, usually by specifying a set of formation rules. Such a language can be defined without reference to any meanings of any of its expressions; it can exist before any interpretation is assigned to it – that is, before it has any meaning.

Formation rules

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

Formation rules are a precise description of which strings of symbols are the well-formed formulas of a formal language. It is synonymous with the set of strings over the alphabet of the formal language which constitute well formed formulas. However, it does not describe their semantics (i.e. what they mean).

Propositions

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

A proposition is a sentence expressing something true or false. A proposition is identified ontologically as an idea, concept or abstraction whose token instances are patterns of symbols, marks, sounds, or strings of words.[3] Propositions are considered to be syntactic entities and also truthbearers.

Formal theories

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

A formal theory is a set of sentences in a formal language.

Formal systems

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

A formal system (also called a logical calculus, or a logical system) consists of a formal language together with a deductive apparatus (also called a deductive system). The deductive apparatus may consist of a set of transformation rules (also called inference rules) or a set of axioms, or have both. A formal system is used to derive one expression from one or more other expressions. Formal systems, like other syntactic entities may be defined without any interpretation given to it (as being, for instance, a system of arithmetic).

Syntactic consequence within a formal system

A formula A is a syntactic consequence[4][5][6][7] within some formal system of a set Г of formulas if there is a derivation in formal system of A from the set Г.

Syntactic consequence does not depend on any interpretation of the formal system.[8]

Syntactic completeness of a formal system

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

A formal system is syntactically complete[9][10][11][12] (also deductively complete, maximally complete, negation complete or simply complete) iff for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ¬A is a theorem of . In another sense, a formal system is syntactically complete iff no unprovable axiom can be added to it as an axiom without introducing an inconsistency. Truth-functional propositional logic and first-order predicate logic are semantically complete, but not syntactically complete (for example the propositional logic statement consisting of a single variable "a" is not a theorem, and neither is its negation, but these are not tautologies). Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that no recursive system that is sufficiently powerful, such as the Peano axioms, can be both consistent and complete.

Interpretations

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church.

An interpretation of a formal system is the assignment of meanings to the symbols, and truth values to the sentences of a formal system. The study of interpretations is called formal semantics. Giving an interpretation is synonymous with constructing a model. An interpretation is expressed in a metalanguage, which may itself be a formal language, and as such itself is a syntactic entity.

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

See also

Template:Logic

  1. ↑ Dictionary Definition
  2. ↑ Abstract Syntax and Logic Programming
  3. ↑ Metalogic, Geoffrey Hunter
  4. ↑ http://books.google.com/books?id=EYP7uCZIRQYC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=syntactic+consequence&source=bl&ots=Ms58438B6w&sig=FE38FCaZpRpAr18gtG7INX4wieM&hl=en&ei=qOy7SoLlEI7KsQPgnYG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20consequence&f=false
  5. ↑ http://books.google.com/books?id=lXI7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=syntactic+consequence&source=bl&ots=8IYWyFYTN-&sig=wrOg75cFxQwn1Uq-8LShBNXf9w0&hl=en&ei=I-y7SpHtLZLotgOsnLHcBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20consequence&f=false
  6. ↑ http://books.google.com/books?id=87BcFLgJmxMC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=syntactic+consequence&source=bl&ots=Fn2zomcMZP&sig=8hnJWsJFysNhmWLskICo4IQDYAc&hl=en&ei=I-y7SpHtLZLotgOsnLHcBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20consequence&f=false
  7. ↑ http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+consequence
  8. ↑ Hunter, Geoffrey, Metalogic: An Introduction to the Metatheory of Standard First-Order Logic, University of California Pres, 1971, p. 75.
  9. ↑ http://jigpal.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/5/513.pdf
  10. ↑ http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=504575
  11. ↑ http://books.google.com/books?id=CHfgmt4w5QEC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=syntactic+completeness&source=bl&ots=WmLkbHF-uj&sig=reo9rQk1NWySJEmRY5JTBbIgkXY&hl=en&ei=TPG7SrjFFJLUsQOJ-encBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=syntactic%20completeness&f=false
  12. ↑ http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?syntactic+completeness
Retrieved from "https://en.formulasearchengine.com/index.php?title=Eadie–Hofstee_diagram&oldid=5492"