- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: References
Citations of:
A sequent calculus for relation algebras
Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 25 (1):73-101 (1983)
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
|
This is a survey article on algebraic logic. It gives a historical background leading up to a modern perspective. Central problems in algebraic logic (like the representation problem) are discussed in connection to other branches of logic, like modal logic, proof theory, model-theoretic forcing, finite combinatorics, and Gödel’s incompleteness results. We focus on cylindric algebras. Relation algebras and polyadic algebras are mostly covered only insofar as they relate to cylindric algebras, and even there we have not told the whole story. (...) |
|
|
We characterise the class S Ra CA n of subalgebras of relation algebra reducts of n -dimensional cylindric algebras by the notion of a ‘hyperbasis’, analogous to the cylindric basis of Maddux, and by representations. We outline a game–theoretic approximation to the existence of a representation, and how to use it to obtain a recursive axiomatisation of S Ra CA n. |
|
|
|
|
|
We prove, for each 4⩽ n ω , that S Ra CA n+1 cannot be defined, using only finitely many first-order axioms, relative to S Ra CA n . The construction also shows that for 5⩽n S Ra CA n is not finitely axiomatisable over RA n , and that for 3⩽m S Nr m CA n+1 is not finitely axiomatisable over S Nr m CA n . In consequence, for a certain standard n -variable first-order proof system ⊢ m (...) |
|
|
The set of equations which use only one variable and hold in all representable relation algebras cannot be derived from any finite set of equations true in all representable relation algebras. Similar results hold for cylindric algebras and for logic with finitely many variables. The main tools are a construction of nonrepresentable one-generated relation algebras, a method for obtaining cylindric algebras from relation algebras, and the use of relation algebras in defining algebraic semantics for first-order logic. |
|
|
For every finite n ≥ 4 there is a logically valid sentence φ n with the following properties: φ n contains only 3 variables (each of which occurs many times); φ n contains exactly one nonlogical binary relation symbol (no function symbols, no constants, and no equality symbol): φ n has a proof in first-order logic with equality that contains exactly n variables, but no proof containing only n - 1 variables. This result was first proved using the machinery of (...) |
|
|
We describe a relational framework that uniformly supports formalization and automated reasoning in varied propositional modal logics. The proof system we propose is a relational variant of the classical Rasiowa-Sikorski proof system. We introduce a compact graph-based representation of formulae and proofs supporting an efficient implementation of the basic inference engine, as well as of a number of refinements. Completeness and soundness results are shown and a Prolog implementation is described. |
|
|
ABSTRACT Propositional dynamic logic with converse and test, is enriched with complement, intersection and relational operations of weakest prespecification and weakest postspecification. Relational deduction system for the logic is given based on its interpretation in the relational calculus. Relational interpretation of the operators ?repeat? and ?loop? is given. |
|
|
A number of general points behind the story of this paper may be worth setting out separately, now that we have come to the end.There is perhaps one obvious omission to be addressed right away. Although the word “information” has occurred throughout this paper, it must have struck the reader that we have had nothing to say on what information is. In this respect, our theories may be like those in physics: which do not explain what “energy” is (a notion (...) |
|
|
It is known that for all finite n ≥ 5, there are relation algebras with n-dimensional relational bases but no weak representations. We prove that conversely, there are finite weakly representable relation algebras with no n-dimensional relational bases. In symbols: neither of the classes RA n and wRRA contains the other. |
|
|
It is shown that Tarski’s set of ten axioms for the calculus of relations is independent in the sense that no axiom can be derived from the remaining axioms. It is also shown that by modifying one of Tarski’s axioms slightly, and in fact by replacing the right-hand distributive law for relative multiplication with its left-hand version, we arrive at an equivalent set of axioms which is redundant in the sense that one of the axioms, namely the second involution law, (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
Introduced by Leon Henkin back in the fifties, the notion of neat reducts is an old venerable notion in algebraic logic. But it is often the case that an unexpected viewpoint yields new insights. Indeed, the repercussions of the fact that the class of neat reducts is not closed under forming subalgebras turn out to be enormous. In this paper we review and, in the process, discuss, some of these repercussions in connection with the algebraic notion of amalgamation. Some new (...) |
|
|
Relation algebras were invented by Tarski and his collaborators in the middle of the 20th century. The concept of integrality arose naturally early in the history of the subject, as did various constructions of finite integral relation algebras. Later the concept of finite-dimensionality was introduced for classifying nonrepresentable relation algebras. This concept is closely connected to the number of variables used in proofs in first-order logic. Some results on these topics are presented in chronological order. |
|
|
Over the last twenty years, in all of these neighbouring fields, modal systems have been developed that we call multi-dimensional. (Our definition of multi ... |
|
|
Conjecture (1) of [Ma83] is confirmed here by the following result: if $3 \leq \alpha < \omega$, then there is a finite relation algebra of dimension α, which is not a relation algebra of dimension α + 1. A logical consequence of this theorem is that for every finite α ≥ 3 there is a formula of the form $S \subseteq T$ (asserting that one binary relation is included in another), which is provable with α + 1 variables, but not (...) |
|
|
We show that the variety of weakly representable relation algebras is neither canonical nor closed under Monk completions. |
|
|
Relation algebras were invented by Tarski and his collaborators in the middle of the 20th century. The concept of integrality arose naturally early in the history of the subject, as did various constructions of finite integral relation algebras. Later the concept of finite-dimensionality was introduced for classifying nonrepresentable relation algebras. This concept is closely connected to the number of variables used in proofs in first-order logic. Some results on these topics are presented in chronological order. |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6f97f49787-hdzht uwo