Mathematical Logic
 Motivations
 Generic Concepts
 Propositional Logic
 First Order Logic
 Equational Logic
 Set Theory
 Model thoery
 Intuitionism / Constructive Math
 Proof Theory
 Recursion Theory
 Misc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic This whole subfolder is about mathematical logic
 Set theory
 Model Theory
 Proof theory
 recursion theory
Motivations
Euclidean Geometry
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logicfirstorderemergence/
Arithmetic, Algebra, Calculus. Highly developed but nonrigorous by modern standards. Logic is highly genralized algebra
Boole Quantifiers. They really do have histrocial roots in sums $\Sigma$ and products $\Pi$.
The really infinite. Not just bigger and bigger finite things. The closure. Naive set theory emerged in the late 1800s. THere is way more structure in the infinite than might be assumed from simple limit notions in calculus. Considering the infinite as a legitimate entity is akin to considering 0, the negative numbers, complex numbers, noneuclidean geometry as legitamate entities with their own rules. It is quite easy to lead yourself astray without carefulness. Perhaps half of mathematics is fixated on the infinite, something which has close to little application.
Russell’s Paradox Hilbert’s Program
Generic Concepts
syntax semantics completeness soundness consistency
inference rules axiom schema
Three Arrows
Why are in this system three notions of “from this follows that” involved: the arrow, the turnstile and the vertical line? Two or infinitely many I could accept, but why three? https://x.com/yandereidiot/status/1752749605891326449?s=20 “It’s cute to me how selfcontained this example is in terms of teasing out the notion of “external hom (2)”, “internal hom (3)”, and whether or not they play nicely together “adjunction (1)”.” () is external hom, (=>) is internal hom, (—) is a metalevel operation.
 I think there’s kinda a literature (keyword: “metainference”) about internalizing the (horizontal?) line as yet another symbol: https://davewripley.rocks/papers/imst.pdf, section 2 has the basic idea. Infinite hierarchies aplenty. This is probably a better reference, but it seems to be paywalled: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992021096157
 possibly related, that lower category theory also has three levels: category, functor, natural transformation. Yes! But s/category/morphism Or: number, function, functional.”
 @freekwiedijk Natural deduction can be formulated to have only two (cf SchroederHeister, and that’s how Isabelle does it). But proof normalisation is simpler for the sequent calculus k An inference line lets you write (to the right) a reference and leave the work to the reader. Frege who came up with the original turnstile in his ConceptScript, also introduced this inference line shorthand (but with the reference to the left
 reekwiedijk They control where implicit quantification occurs. The turnstile is implicitly wrapped in a universal quantifier for any free variables you have. If you do that yourself, you only need “=>” (and the inference rule modus ponens), and it’s called Hilbert deduction.

freekwiedijk ( ) is external hom, (=>) is internal hom, (—) is a metalevel operation  “metalevel (rules), theory level (judgments), internal level (implications) you can have as many as you want if your brain is big enough to handle more levels. for instance talking about proof theories inside a theory will necessitate four levels!”
Propositional Logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus Sentential Logic. 0th order
Truth tables Completeness Compactness  infinite formula. Why? How infinite? Intuitionistic prop logic
 just a sketch. Doesn't compile.
 wff.
inductive Prop0 where
Atom : String > Prop0
Impl : Prop0 > Prop0 > Prop0
 Every expressible formula is good.
def wff : Set Prop0 := fun x => True
 starting from strings. Note that the above Prop0 and the parse proof tree are quite similar.
inductive wff' : String > Prop
 atom : forall x, is_ascii x > wff' x
 impl : (x y : String) > wff' x > wff' y > wff' (x ++ " > " ++ y)
def Env := String > Bool
 a semantic function
def sem prop env : Bool :=
match prop with
 Atom s => env s
 Impl x y => sem x env > sem y env
 a semantic relation
 inductive sem : Prop0 > Env > Bool > Prop where
; deep embedded vampire
(declaresort Formula)
(declarefun atom (String) Formula)
(declarefun impl (Formula Formula) Formula)
()
Categorical Flavored
Double line is fun metalevel “equality” / biimplication
Solvers are nice for determining which axiom sets are equivalent.
a /\ b  c
===========
a  b => c
Could be written as
a /\ b  c = a  b => c
Proof relevance vs irrelevance. LCF style vs Proof carrying style.
Hilbert style Interpolation
Logical equivalence  kind of a bad name. A semantic notion of equivalence Conservative extension. Adding in new propositions. Equisatisfiability  two formulas are equisatisfiable if one is satisfiable iff the other is satisfiable. Could involve changing the signature. Are two unsatsfiable things equisatsifiable?
There isn’t a global universal notion of comparing two theories or systems. The comparison is a defined entity. It gets confusing when the two systems seem nearly the same (signatures that are subsets of each other, sharing inference rules). We could talk about <>
being the same as /\
in some other system, or made up names like pirate ship. You need to always specify a universe of discourse basically.
Mathemtival logic is tryng to look past your intuition to see the formal symbol moving systems as they are. But contradictorily, these systems are only interesting because they correspond to some form of intuition or philosophical notions. Unless you’re just a symbol crunching psycho.
First Order Logic
Framework vs logic vs theory. Is there a distinction? Chris once corrected me saying FOL is a framework. Some useful syntactic infrastrcture for talking about / embedding more interesting theories (and getting various theorem proving strategies). However, it appears by completeness and lowenheim skolem to be intmiately related to sets. So perhaps FOL is a kind of weak theory of sets or a weak theory of comprehensions (like taking python comprehensions and allowing them to be highly (uncountably) infinite).
EPR (effectively propositional reasoning) Many sorted, order sorted
Formalizing Basic First Order Model Theory  Harrison
WFF
Quantifiers
Semantic entailment
=
is used in different ways
G = x
. G is a set of formula. This is to say that every model in which G hold, x also holds
G, not x = {}
is unsat.
Model’s are often treated less carefully. We agree the integers are a thing. Formulas we are sticklers about Models are shallow embedded, formulas are deep embedded
Soundness
G   x –> G  = x 
Syntactic rules are obeyed in models.
Completeness
G  = x –> G   x 
Lowenheim Skolem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim%E2%80%93Skolem_theorem For infinite models, there are always bigger and smaller models. This is possibly a failure of expressivity of FOL, similar in flavor to the inability to express transitivity precisely.
Lindstrom’s theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolem%27s_paradox Skolem’s paradox. Set theory says there are uncountable sets, but set theory is expressed in countable language
Lowenheim spoke of “counting formulae”. Perhaps one can try to “perform” the sums and products with the result being cardinals.
Herbrandization and skolemization. These processes change the signature (constants / function symbols) at play, so they can’t be strongly equivalent. They work at the level of conservative extensions.
T  phi_s <> T  phi
T_h  phi <> T  phi
Compactness
Infinite families of sentences
Propositional compactness
Infinite graphs?
A proof only uses a finite number of axioms (?)
Consistency
Equational Logic
See also note on term rewriting Algebra
Equational logic is about simple equational manipulations. FOL has a first class notion of universal quantification. Equational logic instead has a schematic notion of universal. Axioms can have variables in them which are distinct from 0ary constants
Set Theory
Books: Halmos Naive Set Theory Jech Introduction
from z3 import *
S = DeclareSort("Set1")
empty = Const("empty", S)
elem = Function("elem", S, S, BoolSort())
x,y,z = Consts("x y z", S)
power = Function("P", S, S)
sub = Function("sub", S, S, BoolSort())
union = Function("U", S, S, S)
inter = Function("N", S, S, S)
class Theory():
def __init__(self):
self.ax = {}
self.theorem = {}
# self.kb = {}
def axiom(self, name, formula):
self.ax[name] = formula
self.theorem[name] = formula
def theorem(self, name, formula, lemmas):
assert name not in self.theorem
s = Solver()
s.add(lemmas)
s.add(Not(formula))
res = s.check()
if res == unsat:
self.theorem[name] = formula
else:
print("Theorem {} is not valid".format(name))
def define(name, formula):
c = FreshConst(name,S)
self.theorems[name + "_define"] = c == formula
# axiom? theorem?
def spec(A,P): # axiom of specification
y = FreshConst(S)
return ForAll([x], And(elem(x,A), elem(x, P(x))) == elem(x, y))
ZF = Theory()
ZF.axiom("empty", ForAll([x], Not(elem(x, empty))))
ZF.axiom("ext", ForAll([x,y], ForAll([z], elem(z,x) == elem(z,y)) == (x == y)))
ZF.theorem("empty_unique", ForAll([y], Implies(ForAll([x,y], Not(elem(x, y))), y == empty), [])
SchroderBernstein Theorem
hereditarily finite sets set who’s elements are also hereditarily finite. set of sets of sets of … empty set finitary set theory
non well founded hypersets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonwellfounded_set_theory
apg accessible pointed graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooted_graph Hypersets. Set equations. Aczel is a computer scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aczel%27s_antifoundation_axiom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity aka axiom of foundation
Axiom of specification. Let’s us take arbitrary subsets of predefined sets. We need to convert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_pairing
Ordered Pairs  part of the general idea of sequences of subsets.
It is interesting that induction and recursion are principles/theorems and not axioms of set theory. We can use comprehension to find the minimal set that is closed under Induction The recursion theorem. A sequence of equations feel like they define a function. Using the principle of specification, we can define get a set of tuples that satisfy the equations. Being a function requires covering the domain and uniqueness of the output. These are theorems that must be proved. It turns out that simple recursion over naturals does define a function.
Peano inside set theory.
Families of sets
indexed sets
Ordinals
A well order is a total order such that every nonempty subset has a least element.
A well ordered set is a set combined with a well order on it.
Order isomporphic things are the ordinals
A generalizatin of counting or position. In programming, it does come up whether we can index into a type. An infinitary generalization of this
Von Neummann, ordinal is the set of all things less than that ordinal.
Ordinals are totally ordered?
In some sense, successor + “limits” generates ordinals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_ordinal successor ordinal is smallest ordina larger. constructed as $a \cup {a}$ in von neuamann limit ordinal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_ordinal neither zero nor successor ordinal. For every ordinal a less than g, there is an ordinal b between a and g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe von neumann universe. The class of all hereditarily well founded sets Rank  smallest ordinal greater than all members of set
Burali Forti paradox. Related to Type in Type
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1343527/principleoftransfiniteinduction?rq=1 The ordinals are what you get when you use successor and supremum indefinitely
Axiom of Choice
Well ordering principle Zorn’s Lemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorn%27s_lemma Choiceless Grapher Diagram creator for consequences of the axiom of choice (AC). Axioms of dependent choice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaconescu%27s_theorem axiom of choice implies excluded middle
Weaker notions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_countable_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_dependent_choice
Forcing
Continuum hypothesis
https://xavierleroy.org/CdF/20182019/7.pdf Forcing : just another program transformation? Leroy
Timothy Chow beginner’s guide to to forcing http://timothychow.net/forcing.pdf
Axiomatizations
ZFC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory Richard Borcherd lectures on zfc
NBG
Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory
Finite axiomatization? As in no schema? That’s crazy. https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/whichformalismisbestsuitedforautomatedtheoremprovinginsettheory https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/25127/whatparadigmofautomatedtheoremprovingisappropriateforprincipiamathemat metamath is all schemata?
Grothendieck Tarksi
New Foundations
Filters
https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2018/REUPapers/Higgins.pdf Filters are collections of sets closed under subset and finite intersection Ultrafilters are filters for which either a set or it’s complement are in the filter A notion of largeness is being nside an ultrafilter
Relation to hypperreals / non standard analysis compactness
Model thoery
gentle introduction to model theory Model theory is more informal? I have thought model theory is finding what logic looks like in informal set theory A more general notion and precise notion may be finding homomorphisms between . A way of mapping statements to each other such that theorems in one theory are theorems in the other.
finite model theory notes dan suciu
Finite Model Theory
https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/libkin/fmt/fmt.pdf finite model theory book
https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse599c/18sp/calendar/lecturelist.html Finite model theory is actually interesting. Finite models are those for which Z3 can return results even in the prescence of quantifiers.
query containment
from z3 import *
Sort("A")
A = Function("A", BoolSort())
B =
Q1 = And()
Q2 = And()
contains = ForAll([] , Implies(
Q1, Q2
))
prove(contains)
Directly solving for homomorphisms. The alice book is insane
https://simons.berkeley.edu/workshops/logicalstructurescomputationbootcamp/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfvYLCixrdQ&ab_channel=SimonsInstitute
Fixed point logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixedpoint_logic
FixedPoint Logics and Computation  Dawar
Horn clauses interpreted as implications are loose. More models obey than you want. You want the least model. You can fix this (sometimes?) by clark completion and loop formula.
Fixed point logic binds both a second order variable and a et of tuples to it? And it returns another relation that can be applied.
The least fixed point logic is good for datalog. Greatest fixed point logics include ucalculus.
Thes are both model checking problems.
Translation into datalog
import clingo
type prop = Rel rel * term list
type fof = Forall of fof  Exists of fof  Prop of prop  And  Or  Neg  ...
type form = Lfp of var list * rel * form  FOF of fof
type rule = {head : prop ; body : prop list}
type datalog = rule list
let interp : form > datalog
Finite Model Theory and Its Applications  book
Is the empty set a model of fixed point
https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse344/13au/lectures/querylanguageprimer.pdf compiling first order logic model checking to sql or nonrecursive datalog
Ok, but a prolog program might make sense. Or magicset/ demand style pushing down seeds from existentials.
Model checking first order logic is a strange thing to do. Model finding or proving are more common things to do I feel like. Although since datbase queries are in some sense model checking.. hmm.
Prolog against a ground database. All the negation makes me queasy.
: initialization(main,main).
check(and(P,Q)) : check(P), check(Q).
check(or(P,Q)) : check(P) ; check(Q).
check(not(P)) : \+ check(P).
check(forall(D, P)) : forall(D, check(P)). % \+ check(exists(X, not(P))). % %https://www.swiprolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=forall/2
check(exists(Y, P)) : check(P). % , call(D). Perhaps we should check the
check(pred(P)) : call(P).
check(implies(P,Q)) : check(or(not(P), Q)).
% maybe with tabling I can demonstrate
% check(mu(R,X,P)) : ??
p(1).
q(2).
dom(1).
dom(2).
% sort has to be specified when binding
main(_) : print("hi"), check(forall(dom(X), pred(p(X)))).
% This formulation rather than reflecting to primitive prolog at predicates would be literal translation of
% the satisfactin relation
% sat(Formula, Interp) :
% models of separation logic required proof.
%q1(X) : check(exists(Y, and(likes(X,Y), forall(Z, implies(serves(Z,Y), frequents(X,Z)))))).
Also probably ASP makes this easier. Use  relation for negation. It’s hard to write the interpreter though.
% write down database facts
And
existsp(Y,Z) : p(X,Y,Z).
% forall rule
forallp(Y,Z) : { p(X,Y,Z) : dom(X) }
negp(X,Y,Z) : p(X,Y,Z).
Hmm. EPR. But I want satisfiability of EPR, not model checking. Ok. amusing idea, but no.
 NOT EXISTS in where clause with subquery.
model checking propsitional formula is easy. Plug it in model checking QBF is harder.
datalog is really model producing. That’s kind of the point.
The lfp of lfp(FO) is kind of like the mu minimization operator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C_operator
Intuitionism / Constructive Math
Choice sequences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_set_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_analysis
Proof Theory
See note n proof theory
Recursion Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/recursivefunctions/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262680523/theoryofrecursivefunctionsandeffectivecomputability/ Hartley Rogers
Combinators
Lambda Calculus
Untyped
barendregt book dana scot at lambda conf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjhDyHFqJY&ab_channel=LambdaConf The lambda calculus as an unyped
History of Lambdacalculus and Combinatory Logic Felice Cardone ∗ J. Roger Hindley †
Typed
See note on type theory
Misc
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33236447
mathematical logic through python
Mathematical Logic and Computation  Avigad
https://carnap.io/srv/doc/index.md forall x https://www.fecundity.com/logic/ jscoq, leanwebeditor, sasylf, pie https://github.com/RBornat/jape
https://home.sandiego.edu/~shulman/papers/induction.pdf equality as induction. Defining the axioms of equality as an axiom schema.
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2013/01/from_set_theory_to_type_theory.html from set theory to type theory ects  structural set theory. notion of set and function.
https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2012/12/rethinking_set_theory.html rethinking set theory