Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics
De : janburse (at) *nospam* fastmail.fm (Mild Shock)
Groupes : sci.logic
Date : 01. Dec 2024, 16:34:03
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <vihvl9$9568$1@solani.org>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
And what are the results? Your gist shows
this one here:
% Peirce's law:
solve_case(neg, pierce, [(p->q)->p]=>p).
And you reported:
solve_test::neg:
- pierce: []=>((p->q)->p)->p --> true
solve_test::neg: tot.=1, FAIL=0 --> true.
What do you get with gliv/1?
Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
On 01/12/2024 15:32, Mild Shock wrote:
  > So although it was very temping to download
 > you software, and then replace these line:
 > <https://gist.github.com/jp-diegidio/b6a7a071f9f81a469c493c4afcc5cb11>
 > By these line:
 > notation(gliv(X), (~(~X)))
 > solve_t__sel(neg, C=>X) :-
 >     solve(C=>gliv(X)).
 Or just change the definition of `dnt`, or create another one.  The code is functional and pretty flexible actually, `notation/5` is `multifile`.
  > I am afraid I have no time for that. You
 > could do it by yourself. Or what
 I have already done it, and I have already told you the results!  You have no time for anything apparently, except for posting random shit and fucking with thread titles: I have messages all over the place, and it's just me, you, and Ross once a month...
 ---
 Here is an interesting new case, which I had thought should be *unsolvable*:
 ```
?- solve_w([]=>dnt((~(~p)->p)<->p\/(~p))), !.  % DNE<->LEM
```
 Unsolvable not just because my logic is *affine*, but because the actual statement, provable intuitionistically, is intrinsically higher-order:
 ```
Theorem DNE_is_LEM : (forall p, ~ ~ p -> p) <-> (forall p, p \/ ~ p).
```
 while the statement I am proving above is this one, and it is not intuitionistically provable (AFAICT):
 ```
Theorem DNE_is_LEM_not_quite : forall p, (~ ~ p -> p) <-> (p \/ ~ p)
```
 Yet with my `dnt`, my solver proves even that one (but I still have to inspect the proof tree, what I actually get).  Indeed, I am rather worried that it just solves everything I throw at it, though not the falsities... which is why I am also developing a meta-theory for it, in Coq:
 <https://gist.github.com/jp-diegidio/b6a7a071f9f81a469c493c4afcc5cb11#file-gentzen-v>   -Julio

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Dec 24 * Still on negative translation for substructural logics53Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 +* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics19Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i`* intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)18Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i +* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)3Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i i`* Girards Exponentiation after Dragalins Implication (Was: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code)2Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i i `- Does Jens Ottens Int-Prover also do the Repeat? (Was: Girards Exponentiation after Dragalins Implication)1Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code14Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i  `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code13Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i   +- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Mild Shock
1 Dec 24 i   `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code11Julio Di Egidio
1 Dec 24 i    +- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Ross Finlayson
2 Dec 24 i    +- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i    `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code8Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i     `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code7Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i      `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code6Julio Di Egidio
3 Dec 24 i       `* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code5Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 i        +* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code3Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 i        i`* Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code2Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 i        i `- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Ross Finlayson
3 Dec 24 i        `- Re: intuitionistic vs. classical implication in Prolog code1Julio Di Egidio
2 Dec 24 +* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics25Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i+* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics2Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 ii`- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Mild Shock
2 Dec 24 i+* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics20Julio Di Egidio
2 Dec 24 ii+* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics2Julio Di Egidio
3 Dec 24 iii`- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Mild Shock
5 Dec 24 ii`* The solver does not terminate (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)17Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii +* Re: The solver does not terminate7Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii i`* Re: The solver does not terminate6Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 ii i `* Re: The solver does not terminate5Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 ii i  `* Re: The solver does not terminate4Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii i   `* Re: The solver does not terminate3Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 ii i    `* Re: The solver does not terminate2Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 ii i     `- Re: The solver does not terminate1Mild Shock
7 Dec 24 ii `* Re: The solver does not terminate9Julio Di Egidio
7 Dec 24 ii  `* Re: The solver does not terminate8Mild Shock
7 Dec 24 ii   +* Re: The solver does not terminate2Mild Shock
7 Dec 24 ii   i`- Re: The solver does not terminate1Mild Shock
8 Dec 24 ii   `* Re: The solver does not terminate5Julio Di Egidio
8 Dec 24 ii    `* Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers (Was: Fuck the nazi-retards)4Mild Shock
8 Dec 24 ii     +- Re: Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers (Was: Fuck the nazi-retards)1Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 ii     `* Re: Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers2Julio Di Egidio
9 Dec 24 ii      `- Re: Seventy-Five Problems for Testing Automatic Theorem Provers1Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 i`* Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics2Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 i `- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Mild Shock
3 Dec 24 +- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Julio Di Egidio
3 Dec 24 +- Re: Still on negative translation for substructural logics1Julio Di Egidio
4 Dec 24 +* Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)4Mild Shock
4 Dec 24 i`* Re: Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg (Was: Still on negative translation for substructural logics)3Julio Di Egidio
6 Dec 24 i `* Affine Logic, what Properties does it have? (Was: Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg)2Mild Shock
6 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Affine Logic, what Properties does it have? (Was: Counter Example by Troelstra & Schwichtenberg)1Mild Shock
9 Dec 24 `* leanTap wasn't a good idea2Mild Shock
9 Dec 24  `- Re: leanTap wasn't a good idea1Mild Shock

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal