Transparent intensional logic, -r ule and Compositionality
description
Transcript of Transparent intensional logic, -r ule and Compositionality
Transparent intensional logic, -rule and Compositionality
Marie DužíVSB-Technical University Ostravahttp://www.cs.vsb.cz/duzi
Rules of substition 2
Attitude Logic(s) A reliable test on Compositionality Attitudes:
Notional Propositional
We are dealing with a fine difference between the meanings of sentences like
(P1) Charles believes that the Pope is in danger(P2) Charles believes of the Pope that he is in
danger Some authors even claim that (P1) is ambiguous, that
it can be also read as (P2).
Rules of substition 3
Attitude logics and belief sentencesIn our opinion it is not so. We can, for instance,
reasonably say (it may be true) thatCharles believes of the Pope that he is not the
Pope,whereas the sentence
Charles believes that the Pope is not the Popecannot be true, unless our Charles is completely irrational. The sentences like (P1) and (P2) have different meanings, and their difference consists in using ‘the Pope’ in the de dicto supposition (P1) vs. the de re supposition (P2).
The two sentences are neither equivalent, nor is any of them entailed by the other.
Rules of substition 4
Belief sentences in doxastic logics In the usual notation of doxastic logics the distinction
is characterised as the contrast between BCharles D[p] (de dicto) (x) (x = p BCharles D[x] (de re) But there are worrisome questions (Hintikka, Sandu
1989):Where does the existential quantifier come from in the de
re case? There is no trace of it in the original sentence. How can the two similar sentences be as different in their
logical form as they are? Hintikka, Sandu propose in their (1996) a remedy by
means of the Independence Friendly (IF) first-order logic:
Rules of substition 5
Belief sentences in doxastic logics “Independence Friendly (IF) first-order logic deals with
a frequent and important feature of natural language semantics. Without the notion of independence, we cannot fully understand the logic of such concepts as belief, knowledge, questions and answers, or the de dicto vs. de re contrast.”
Hintikka, Sandu (1989): Informational Independence as a Semantical Phenomenon. In J.E. Fenstad et el (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Elsevier, Amsterodam 1989, pp. 571-589.
Hintikka, Sandu (1996): A revolution in Logic? Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol.1, No.2, pp. 169-183.
Rules of substition 6
Belief sentences and IF semantics Hinttika, Sandu solve the de dicto case as above, and propose the
de re solution with the independence indicator ‘/’: BCharles D[p / BCharles]
This is certainly a more plausible analysis, closer to the syntactic form of the original sentence, and the independence indicator indicates the essence of the matter:
There are two independent questions: ”Who is the pope” and ”What does Charles think of that person”. Of course, Charles has to have a relation of an ”epistemic intimity”
to a certain individual, but he does not have to connect this person with the office of the Pope (only the ascriber must do so).
(Chisholm,R.(1976): Knowledge and Belief: ‘De dicto’ and ‘de re’. Philosophical Studies 29 (1976), 1-20. )
Rules of substition 7
Belief sentences and Intensional logics
BCharles D(p) (de dicto)x BCharles D(x)(p) (de re)
But: x BCharles D(x)(p) BCharles D(p) !(applying the rule of -reduction).
What then is the difference between de dicto and de re?
Why is it “forbidden” here to perform the fundamental rule of -calculi?
Rules of substition 8
Solomon Feferman (1995): Logic of DefinednessIntroduces the axioms (λp) for Partial Lambda Calculus
as follows (t↓ means - the term t is defined):i. λx.t ↓ ii. (λx.t(x))y t(y). The axiom (ii) corresponds to the trivial β-reduction,
but the limitation on instantiation in PLC restricts its application to:
s↓ (λx.t(x))s t(s). (but why this restriction?, proof?)
Our system (TIL) introduces a generally valid β-reduction for the Partial Higher-Order Hyper-intensional Lambda Calculus.
04/22/23 TIL & beta-rule 9
Transparent Intensional LogicFormally:
The language of TIL constructions can be viewed as a hyper-intensional -calculus operating over partial functions.
“hyper-intensional”: -terms are not interpreted as set-theoretical mappings (”modern functions”) but as algorithmically structured procedures (which produce as an output the (partial) mapping).
Procedures, known as TIL constructions, are objects sui generis: they can be not only used but also mentioned within a theory.
04/22/23 TIL & beta-rule 10
Suppositio (substitution) A lot of misunderstanding and many
paradoxes arise from confusing different ways in which a meaningful expression can be used.
We are going to show that these different ways consist in using and mentioning entities (by means of an expression)
In which way can an entity be used or mentioned?
04/22/23 Use / Mention 11
Using / Mentioning EntitiesExpression
used mentioned to express its meaning:
procedure (‘TIL construction’)
de dicto / de re mentioned used to produce a function:
mentioned used to point at …
Rules of substition 12
TIL constructions Abstract procedures, structured from the algorithmic
point of view. structured meanings: Instructions specifying how to arrive
at less-structured entities. Being abstract, they are reachable only via a verbal
definition. The ‘language of constructions’: a modified version of the
typed -calculus, where Montague-like -terms denote, not the functions constructed, but the constructions themselves.
Henk Barendregt (1997): -terms denote functions, yet “... in this interpretation the notion of a function is taken to be (hyper-)intensional, i.e., as an algorithm.”
Operate on input objects (of any type, even constructions) and yield as output objects of any type: they realize functions (mappings)
04/22/23 Constructions 13
Kinds of constructions1. Atomic: do not contain as a used constituent any
other construction but themselves (supply objects …) Variables x, y, p, c, … v-constructing Trivialisation of X: 0X
2. Compound. Composition [X X1…Xn]: the instruction to apply a
(partial) function f (constructed by X) to an argument A (constructed by X1,…,Xn) to obtain the value (if any) of f at A.
-Closure [x1…xn X]: the instruction to abstract over variables in order to obtain a function.
Double execution 2X: the instruction to use a higher-order construction X twice over as a constituent.
Rules of substition 14
TIL Ramified Hierarchy of Types
The formal ontology of TIL is bi-dimensional.
One dimension is made up of constructions.
The other dimension encompasses non-constructions, i.e., partial functions mapping (the Cartesian product of) types to types.
Rules of substition 15
TIL Ramified Hierarchy of Types
1st-order: non-constructionsBase: , , , , partial functions ((())), (()), …, (01…n)2nd-order: Base: *1 constructions of 1st-order entities, partial functions involving such constructions: (01…n), i = *1
3rd-order: Base: *2, constructions of 2nd-order entities, partial functions involving such constructions: (01…n), i = *2, or *1
And so on, ad infinitum
Rules of substition 16
-intensions; examples Functions of type () Usually both modal and temporal
parameters: (()) Abbreviation:
Propositions /
(individual) offices / Magnitudes /
Empirical functions (attributes)/()
Attitudes / (n)
04/22/23 Use / Mention 17
Definition Used* vs. Mentioned*Let C be a construction and D a sub-construction of C. Then an
occurrence of D is used* as a constituent of C iff: If D is identical to C (i.e., 0C = 0D) then the occurrence of D is
used* as a constituent of C. If C is identical to [X1 X2…Xm] and D is identical to one of the
constructions X1, X2,…,Xm, then the occurrence of D is used* as a constituent of C.
If C is identical to [x1…xmX] and D is identical to X, then the occurrence of D is used* as a constituent of C.
If C is identical to 1X or 2X and D is identical to X, then the occurrence of D is used* as a constituent of C.
If C is identical to 2X and X v-constructs a construction Y and D is identical to Y, then the occurrence of D is used* as a constituent of C.
If an occurrence of D is used* as a constituent of an occurrence of C’ and this occurrence of C’ is used* as a constituent of C, then the occurrence of D is used * as a constituent of C.
If an occurrence of a sub-construction D of C is not used* as a constituent of C, then the occurrence of D is mentioned* in C.
04/22/23 Use / Mention 18
Definition Used* vs. Mentioned*
Let C be a construction and D a sub-construction of C.
Then an occurrence of D is mentioned* in C iff it is not necessary to execute D in order to execute C;
Otherwise D is used* as a constituent of C.
Makes a fine individuation possible; finer than just an equivalence.
Rules of substition 19
Two kinds of using a construction:de dicto vs. de re supposition.
Roughly: C = [… D … ], D () 1. D occurs in C with de dicto supposition iff D is
not composed with a construction A ; the respective function / () is just mentioned
2. D occurs in C with de re supposition iff D is composed with a construction A , and D does not occur as a constituent of a de dicto occurrence D’ (de dicto context is dominant); the respective function / () is used as a pointer
to its actual, current value /
Rules of substition 20
Contextssuppositio substitution
The President of USA knows that John Kerry wanted to become the President of USA.
The President of USA is (=) the husband of Laura Bush.
Hence what ?Did John Kerry want to become the husband of
Laura Bush?
04/22/23 21
Contextssuppositio substitution
C1 wt [0= [wt [0Preswt 0USA]]wt [0Husbandwt 0Bush]]
extensional context: of using* de re C2 wt [0Wwt 0K [wt [0Bwt 0K wt [0Pres 0USA]]] ]
intensional context: of using* de dicto
C3 wt [0Knowwt [wt [0Preswt 0USA]]wt 0[wt [0Wwt 0K wt [0Bwt 0K wt [0Preswt 0USA]]]] ]
hyper-intensional context: of mentioning*
Rules of substition 23
Using / Mentioning Constructions
Dividing six by three gives two and dividing six by zero is improper.
Types: 0, 2, 3, 6 / , Div / (), Improper / (1)the class of v-improper constructions for all v
[[[0Div 06 03] = 02] [0Improper 0[0Div 06 00]]]
used* constituents mentioned*
Rules of substition 24
Using / Mentioning Constructions
There is a number such that dividing any number by it is improper.
Types: Div / (), Improper / (1), ,/(()), x, y .Exists x for all y [0Improper 0[0Div x y]].But x, y occur in the hyper-intensional context of mention*;
they are not free for evaluation or substitution. How to quantify? To this end we use functions Sub and Tr:Sub / (1111)the mapping which takes a construction C1,
variable x, and a construction C2 to the resulting construction C3, where C3 is the result of substituting C1 for x in C2.
Tr / (1)the mapping which takes a number and returns its trivialisation
Rules of substition 25
Using / Mentioning Constructions
(*) [0y [0x [0Improper [0Sub [0Tr y] 0y’ [0Sub [0Tr x] 0x’ 0[0Div x’ y’ ]]]]]].
Let a valuation v assign 0 to y and 6 to x. Then the sub-construction [0Sub [0Tr y] 0y’ [0Sub [0Tr x] 0x’ 0[0Div x’ y’ ]]]
v-constructs the construction [0Div 06 00], which belongs to the class Improper. This is true for any valuation v’ that differs from v at most by assigning another number to x.
The construction (*) constructs True.
Rules of substition 26
De dicto / de re supposition The temperature in Amsterdam equals the temperature in
Prague. The temperature in Amsterdam is increasing.
--------------------------------------------------------- The temperature in Prague is increasing.
Types: Temp(erature in …)/(), Amster(dam), Prague/, Increas(ing)/().
wt [wt [0Tempwt 0Amster]wt = (de re) wt [0Tempwt 0Prague]wt]
wt [0Increaswt [wt [0Tempwt 0Amst]] the magnitude is (de dicto) mentioned.
27
Rules of Substitution (logic of partial functions !)
“Homogeneous” substitution: no problemLebniz’s law Used* de re extensional context de re Used* de dicto intensional context de dicto Mentioned* construction hyperintensional context
Used* constructions – constituents: De re (extensional) context: [Cx] = [C’y]
co-incidental constructions substitutable De dicto (intensional context): C = C’
equivalent constructions substitutable Mentioned* (hyper-intensional) context: 0C = 0C’
Only identical constructions substitutable
28
Rules of Substitution (logic of partial functions !)
Heterogeneous substitutions. Construction of a lower-order into a higher-
order context (which is dominant): We must not carelessly draw a construction
D occurring in a lower-order context into a higher-order context.
Why not? The substitution would not be correct even if there is no collision of variables, due to partiality
Rules of substition 29
De re rules
The president of CR is (is not) an economist. de reThe president of CR exists.
The president of CR is eligible. de dictoThe president of CR may not exist.
In the de re case there is an existential presupposition, unlike the de dicto case.
Rules of substition 30
Charles believes of the president of CR that he is an economist.
Types: Ch/, B/(), Pr(esident of …)/(), CR/, Ec/()
Synthesis (h , a free variablethe meaning of “he”):He is an economist: wt [0Ecwt h] v (anaphora)The President of CR: wt [0Prwt
0CR]
a) The President of CR is believed by Charles to be an economist – the passive variantwt [h [0Bwt 0Ch wt [0Ecwt h]] wt [0Prwt
0CR]wt ] Now, can we perform -reduction ???
Yes, but only the trivial one: wt [0Prwt
0CR]wt | [0Prwt 0CR]
Collision of variables? Let us rename them:
Rules of substition 31
Charles believes of the president of CR that he is an economist.
-reduction “by name” :wt [h [0Bwt 0Ch w’t’ [0Ecw’t’ h]] [0Prwt
0CR] ] | ??? wt [0Bwt 0Ch w’t’ [0Ecw’t’ [0Prwt
0CR]]] No collision of variables,
But. [h [0Bwt 0Ch w’t’ [0Ecw’t’ h]] [0Prwt 0CR] ]
[0Existwt wt [0Prwt
0CR]] = [0x [x = [0Prwt
0CR]] Unlike the latter.
Therefore, don’t perform -reduction (!?!)
Rules of substition 32
Charles believes of the president of CR that he is an economist.
b) The direct analysis of the active form, using Tr and Sub.
-reduction “by value”:Now we have to substitute for h the construction
of the individual (if any) that actually plays the role of the president:
) wt [0Belivewt 0Charles 2[0Sub [0Tr wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt] 0h (extens.) 0[wt [0Ecwt h]]]] (intens.)
Rules of substition 34
2-phase -reduction: how does it work?
wt [0Belwt 0Ch 2[0Sub [0Tr wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt] 0h 0[wt [0Ecwt h]]]]
1. Let wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt be v-improper (the president does not exist).
Then [0Tr wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt] is v-improper and The function Sub does not have an argument to operate on: [0Sub [0Tr wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt] 0h 0[wt [0Ecwt h]]]
v-improper. (And so is the Double execution.) The so-constructed proposition does not have a truth-value, as
it should be (the existential presupposition)
Rules of substition 35
Substitution by value (-reduction)
wt [0Belwt 0Ch 2[0Sub [0Tr wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt] 0h 0[wt [0Ecwt h]]]]
2. Let wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt be v-proper (the president exist). Then the construction [0Prwt 0CR] v-constructs particular individual
Y (For instance V. Klaus.) Then [0Tr wt [0Prwt 0CR]wt] v-constructs 0Y, and Sub inserts it for
the variable h. the result is the construction: [wt [0Ecwt 0Y]] that is
executed (Double execution) in order to construct the proposition that is believed by Charles.
36
Substitution by value (-reduction)
Type checking: 2[Sub [0Tr [0Prwt 0CR]] 0h 0[wt [0Ecwt h]]]
(*1 ) (*1*1*1*1) *1 *1 *1
*1 ( ) 1. step
2. step (if the 1st did not fail):
1[wt [0Ecwt 0Y]]
wt [0Belwt 0Ch 20[wt [0Ecwt 0Y]]
Rules of substition 37
-reduction, another example(*) [y [0Deg z [0: z y]] 0x ] ( = square root) (Deg/(())-a degenerated function)(*n) -reduced “syntactically-by-name”: [0Deg z [0: z 0x]] [[0Exist x] 0] ??? NO(*v) -reduced “by value”:
2[0Sub [0Tr 0x] 0y 0[0Deg z [0: z y]]]
for: value of (*) of (*n) of (*v)
x > 0 False False False
x = 0 True True True
x < 0 Undefined True Undefined
Rules of substition 38
Valid rule of -reduction (2-phase)
Let C(y) be a construction with a free variable y, y , and let D . Then
[[y C(y)] D] 2[0Sub [0Tr D] 0y 0C(y)]
is a valid rule (proof, see above).
Rules of substition 39
Rules of inference:Types: y β, x , D / (β), [Dx] β, C(y) α, y C(y) (αβ), [[y C(y)] [Dx]] α.
Compositionality:[0Improper 0[Dx]] | [0Improper 0[[y C(y)] [Dx]]][0Improper 0[Dx]] | [0Improper 02[0Sub [0Tr [Dx]] 0y 0C(y)]] [0Proper 0[Dx]] | 2[0Sub [0Tr [Dx]] 0y 0C(y)] = [[y C(y)] [Dx]] =
C(y/[Dx]) Special case: Existential presupposition de reExist / (( (β)) )the property of a (β)-function of being defined at a
-argument, [Exist x] ( (β))
[[0Exist x] D] | [0Improper 0[[y C(y)] [Dx]]][[0Exist x] D] | [0Improper 02[0Sub [0Tr [Dx]] 0y 0C(y)]]
But not: C(y/[Dx]) | [[0Exist x] D] …
Rules of substition 40
The two “de re principles”: a) existential presupposition
Example: [y [0Deg z [0: z y]] [0x]] | [[0Exist x] 0] 2[0Sub [0Tr [0x]] 0y 0[0Deg z [0: z y]]] | [[0Exist x] 0]
Indeed: The square root does not exist for x < 0; for x < 0 the left-hand side is (v-)improper. If the left-hand side is true or false, then the square root exists and x 0.
However, the result of the “syntactical” β-reduction does not meet these rules:
[0Deg z [0: z 0x]] and not (for x < 0) [[0Exist x] 0 ].
Rules of substition 41
The two “de re principles”: b) inter-substitutivity of co-incidentals
[Dx] = [D’ ]
[[y C(y)] [Dx]] = [[y C(y)] [D’ ]] =2[0Sub [0Tr [D’ ]] 0y 0C(y)]
Example:The US President is the husband of Laura.The US President is a Republican. Hence: The husband of Laura is a Republican.But not: John Kerry wanted to become the
husband of Laura.
Rules of substition 42
Substitutions in general
Types: c n, 2c , A , y
a) “by name” (homogeneous substitution):2[0Sub 00A 0c 0C(c)] = C(c/0A)2[0Sub 0A 0y 0C(y)] = C(y/A)
b) “by value” (generally valid, even for heterogeneous substitution): 2[0Sub [0Tr A] 0y 0C(y)] = [y [C(y)] A]
C(y/A)
Rules of substition 43
Conclusions The top-down, fine-grained approach of TIL makes it
possible to adequately model structured meanings, and thus: to formulate meaning-driven (non ad hoc) rules of
substitution taking into account the Use/Mention distinction at all levels;
to adhere to Compositionality and anti-contextualism (even in the cases of anaphora, de re attitudes with anaphoric reference, hyper-intensional attitudes, …);
to take into account partiality; to meet the two de re extensional principles (existential
presupposition, inter-substitutivity of co-referentials).