Denotational semantics driven simplicial homology?

Davide Barbarossa
{"title":"Denotational semantics driven simplicial homology?","authors":"Davide Barbarossa","doi":"arxiv-2409.11566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We look at the proofs of a fragment of Linear Logic as a whole: in fact,\nLinear Logic's coherent semantics interprets the proofs of a given formula $A$\nas faces of an abstract simplicial complex, thus allowing us to see the set of\nthe (interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ as a geometrical space, not just a\nset. This point of view has never been really investigated. For a ``webbed''\ndenotational semantics -- say the relational one --, it suffices to down-close\nthe set of (the interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ in order to give rise to\nan abstract simplicial complex whose faces do correspond to proofs of $A$.\nSince this space comes triangulated by construction, a natural geometrical\nproperty to consider is its homology. However, we immediately stumble on a\nproblem: if we want the homology to be invariant w.r.t. to some notion of\ntype-isomorphism, we are naturally led to consider the homology functor acting,\nat the level of morphisms, on ``simplicial relations'' rather than simplicial\nmaps as one does in topology. The task of defining the homology functor on this\nmodified category can be achieved by considering a very simple monad, which is\nalmost the same as the power-set monad; but, doing so, we end up considering\nnot anymore the homology of the original space, but rather of its\ntransformation under the action of the monad. Does this transformation keep the\nhomology invariant ? Is this transformation meaningful from a geometrical or\nlogical/computational point of view ?","PeriodicalId":501306,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.11566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We look at the proofs of a fragment of Linear Logic as a whole: in fact, Linear Logic's coherent semantics interprets the proofs of a given formula $A$ as faces of an abstract simplicial complex, thus allowing us to see the set of the (interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ as a geometrical space, not just a set. This point of view has never been really investigated. For a ``webbed'' denotational semantics -- say the relational one --, it suffices to down-close the set of (the interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ in order to give rise to an abstract simplicial complex whose faces do correspond to proofs of $A$. Since this space comes triangulated by construction, a natural geometrical property to consider is its homology. However, we immediately stumble on a problem: if we want the homology to be invariant w.r.t. to some notion of type-isomorphism, we are naturally led to consider the homology functor acting, at the level of morphisms, on ``simplicial relations'' rather than simplicial maps as one does in topology. The task of defining the homology functor on this modified category can be achieved by considering a very simple monad, which is almost the same as the power-set monad; but, doing so, we end up considering not anymore the homology of the original space, but rather of its transformation under the action of the monad. Does this transformation keep the homology invariant ? Is this transformation meaningful from a geometrical or logical/computational point of view ?
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
指称语义学驱动简单同源性?
我们将线性逻辑片段的证明视为一个整体:事实上,线性逻辑的连贯语义学将给定公式 $A$ 的证明解释为一个抽象单纯复数的面,从而使我们可以将 $A$ 证明的(解释)集合视为一个几何空间,而不仅仅是一个集合。这个观点从未被真正研究过。对于一个 "网状 "的指称语义学--比如关系语义学--来说,只要向下闭合$A$的(解释)证明集合,就足以产生一个抽象的单纯复数,其面确实对应于$A$的证明。然而,我们马上就遇到了一个问题:如果我们希望同调在某种类型同构概念下是不变的,我们就会自然而然地考虑在形态层次上作用于 "简单关系 "而非简单映射的同调函子,就像在拓扑学中所做的那样。我们可以考虑一个非常简单的单子,它与幂集单子几乎相同;但是,这样做,我们最终考虑的不再是原始空间的同调,而是它在单子作用下的变换。这种变换能保持同调不变吗?从几何或逻辑/计算的角度看,这种变换有意义吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Denotational semantics driven simplicial homology? AC and the Independence of WO in Second-Order Henkin Logic, Part II Positively closed parametrized models Neostability transfers in derivation-like theories Tameness Properties in Multiplicative Valued Difference Fields with Lift and Section
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1