Languages, Algorithms, Procedures, Calculi, and Metalogic

Mark Burgin

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · math/0701121

Languages, Algorithms, Procedures, Calculi, and Metalogic

Mark Burgin

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Logicians study and apply a multiplicity of various logical systems. Consequently, there is necessity to build foundations and common grounds for all these systems. This is done in metalogic. Like metamathematics studies formalized mathematical theories, metalogic studies theories in logic, or logics. The discipline of logic has been developed with the aim to model and study human thinking and reasoning. A more realistic understanding relates logic only to reasoning. Reasoning is a mental and verbal activity. Any activity is based on actions and operations organized by procedures and algorithms. That is why procedures and algorithms are basic for the development of different logics, their study and application. In this work, we study structures used in logic with the aim to reflect goals of logic as a discipline. The main structure is a logical calculus, which pivotal for the contemporary logic. Logical calculus is considered here as a two-tier construction with a logical language on the first level and the calculus itself on the second level. A system of interdependencies that exists between properties of deductive calculi and utilized by these calculi algorithms are explicated and studied. Here only syntactic parts of logics, namely, deductive logical calculi and corresponding languages are considered. Semantic and pragmatic parts are studied elsewhere.

Explore related subjects

math.LO math.GM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Mark Burgin. 2007-01-04. Languages, Algorithms, Procedures, Calculi, and Metalogic. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0701121

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗