Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1510.08564

Build your own clarithmetic I: Setup and completeness

Abstract

Clarithmetics are number theories based on computability logic (see http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~japaridz/CL/ ). Formulas of these theories represent interactive computational problems, and their "truth" is understood as existence of an algorithmic solution. Various complexity constraints on such solutions induce various versions of clarithmetic. The present paper introduces a parameterized/schematic version CLA11(P1,P2,P3,P4). By tuning the three parameters P1,P2,P3 in an essentially mechanical manner, one automatically obtains sound and complete theories with respect to a wide range of target tricomplexity classes, i.e. combinations of time (set by P3), space (set by P2) and so called amplitude (set by P1) complexities. Sound in the sense that every theorem T of the system represents an interactive number-theoretic computational problem with a solution from the given tricomplexity class and, furthermore, such a solution can be automatically extracted from a proof of T. And complete in the sense that every interactive number-theoretic problem with a solution from the given tricomplexity class is represented by some theorem of the system. Furthermore, through tuning the 4th parameter P4, at the cost of sacrificing recursive axiomatizability but not simplicity or elegance, the above extensional completeness can be strengthened to intensional completeness, according to which every formula representing a problem with a solution from the given tricomplexity class is a theorem of the system. This article is published in two parts. The present Part I introduces the system and proves its completeness, while Part II is devoted to proving soundness.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Giorgi Japaridze. 2016-09-13. Build your own clarithmetic I: Setup and completeness. https://doi.org/10.2168/lmcs-12(3%3A8)2016

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Deciding Predicate Logical Theories of Real-Valued Functions

The notion of a real-valued function is central to mathematics, computer science, and many other scientific fields. Despite this importance, there are hardly any positive results on decision procedures for predicate logical theories that reason about real-valued functions. This paper defines a first-order predicate language for reasoning about multi-dimensional smooth real-valued functions and their derivatives, and demonstrates that - despite the obvious undecidability barriers - certain positive decidability results for such a language are indeed possible.

cs.LO

Structural Liveness of Conservative Petri Nets

We show that the EXPSPACE-hardness result for structural liveness of Petri nets [Jancar and Purser, 2019] holds even for a simple subclass of conservative nets. As our main result, we prove that for structurally live conservative nets, the values of the minimal live markings are at most doubly exponential in the size of the net. This implies the EXPSPACE-completeness of structural liveness for conservative Petri nets. The result also applies to structurally bounded Petri nets, whereas the complexity of the general case remains open. As a proof ingredient of independent interest, we present an extension of known results on the bounds of minimal integer solutions to Boolean combinations of linear equalities, inequalities, and divisibility constraints.

cs.LO

Verifying Numerical Methods with Isabelle/HOL

Modern machine learning pipelines and ODE solvers are built on numerical algorithms. Reliable numerical methods are thus a prerequisite for trustworthy machine learning and cyber-physical systems. We evaluate a framework designed for verifying imperative programs and the Isabelle proof assistant as tools for proving the total correctness of four numerical algorithms: the bisection method, the fixed-point method, the perceptron, and the gradient descent algorithm. Our verifications required subtle extensions and generalisations to Isabelle's version of Taylor's theorem and higher-order derivatives. Finally, we reflect on the framework's automation, friendly syntax, and on further requirements to turn it into a verification tool for numerical methods.

cs.LO