INTERLEAVING LOGIC AND COUNTING

J. van Benthem, Thomas F. Icard
{"title":"INTERLEAVING LOGIC AND COUNTING","authors":"J. van Benthem, Thomas F. Icard","doi":"10.1017/bsl.2023.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus “grassroots mathematics”. We begin with a brief review of FO(#), first-order logic with counting operators and cardinality comparisons. This system is known to be of very high complexity, and drowns out finer aspects of the combination of logic and counting. We therefore move to a small fragment that can represent numerical syllogisms and basic reasoning about comparative size: monadic first-order logic with counting, MFO(#). We provide normal forms that allow for axiomatization, determine which arithmetical notions can be defined on finite and on infinite models, and conversely, we discuss which logical notions can be defined out of purely arithmetical ones, and what sort of (non-)classical logics can be induced. Next, we investigate a series of strengthenings of MFO(#), again using normal form methods. The monadic second-order version is close, in a precise sense, to additive Presburger Arithmetic, while versions with the natural device of tuple counting take us to Diophantine equations, making the logic undecidable. We also define a system ML(#) that combines basic modal logic over binary accessibility relations with counting, needed to formulate ubiquitous reasoning patterns such as the Pigeonhole Principle. We prove decidability of ML(#), and provide a new kind of bisimulation matching the expressive power of the language. As a complement to the fragment approach pursued here, we also discuss two other ways of lowering the complexity of FO(#) by changing the semantics of counting in natural ways. A first approach replaces cardinalities by abstract but well-motivated values of “mass” or other mereological aggregating notions. A second approach keeps the cardinalities but generalizes the meaning of counting to work in models that allow dependencies between variables. Finally, we return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax, as well as with natural reasoning modules such as the monotonicity calculus. In addition to these encounters with formal semantics, we discuss the role of counting in semantic evaluation procedures for quantifier expressions and determine, for instance, which binary quantifiers are computable by finite “semantic automata”. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science.","PeriodicalId":22265,"journal":{"name":"The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bsl.2023.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus “grassroots mathematics”. We begin with a brief review of FO(#), first-order logic with counting operators and cardinality comparisons. This system is known to be of very high complexity, and drowns out finer aspects of the combination of logic and counting. We therefore move to a small fragment that can represent numerical syllogisms and basic reasoning about comparative size: monadic first-order logic with counting, MFO(#). We provide normal forms that allow for axiomatization, determine which arithmetical notions can be defined on finite and on infinite models, and conversely, we discuss which logical notions can be defined out of purely arithmetical ones, and what sort of (non-)classical logics can be induced. Next, we investigate a series of strengthenings of MFO(#), again using normal form methods. The monadic second-order version is close, in a precise sense, to additive Presburger Arithmetic, while versions with the natural device of tuple counting take us to Diophantine equations, making the logic undecidable. We also define a system ML(#) that combines basic modal logic over binary accessibility relations with counting, needed to formulate ubiquitous reasoning patterns such as the Pigeonhole Principle. We prove decidability of ML(#), and provide a new kind of bisimulation matching the expressive power of the language. As a complement to the fragment approach pursued here, we also discuss two other ways of lowering the complexity of FO(#) by changing the semantics of counting in natural ways. A first approach replaces cardinalities by abstract but well-motivated values of “mass” or other mereological aggregating notions. A second approach keeps the cardinalities but generalizes the meaning of counting to work in models that allow dependencies between variables. Finally, we return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax, as well as with natural reasoning modules such as the monotonicity calculus. In addition to these encounters with formal semantics, we discuss the role of counting in semantic evaluation procedures for quantifier expressions and determine, for instance, which binary quantifiers are computable by finite “semantic automata”. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science.
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
交错逻辑和计数
自然语言中的量词推理结合了逻辑和算术的特点,超越了定性和定量的严格区分。我们的主题是在日常语言使用中出现的这种风格的合作,以及它在自然语言加“草根数学”的更广泛实践中的延伸。我们首先简要回顾一下FO(#),一阶逻辑与计数运算符和基数比较。众所周知,这个系统非常复杂,并且淹没了逻辑和计数结合的更精细的方面。因此,我们转向一个可以表示数值三段论和关于比较大小的基本推理的小片段:带计数的一元一阶逻辑,MFO(#)。我们提供了允许公理化的正规形式,确定了哪些算术概念可以在有限模型和无限模型上定义,相反,我们讨论了哪些逻辑概念可以从纯算术概念中定义,以及可以归纳出哪种(非)经典逻辑。接下来,我们研究了MFO(#)的一系列增强,同样使用范式方法。一元二阶版本在精确意义上接近于加性普雷斯伯格算术,而具有元组计数自然装置的版本将我们带入丢番图方程,使逻辑不可判定。我们还定义了一个系统ML(#),它将二进制可访问性关系上的基本模态逻辑与计数结合在一起,这是制定泛在推理模式(如鸽子洞原则)所需的。我们证明了ML(#)的可判定性,并提供了一种与语言的表达能力相匹配的新型双模拟。作为本文所追求的片段方法的补充,我们还讨论了另外两种通过以自然方式改变计数语义来降低FO(#)复杂性的方法。第一种方法是用抽象但动机良好的“质量”价值或其他气象学聚合概念取代基数。第二种方法保留基数,但将计数的含义推广到允许变量之间依赖的模型中。最后,我们回到自然语言的起点,用语言量词词汇和语法以及自然推理模块(如单调性演算)来面对我们的形式系统的架构。除了这些与形式语义的接触之外,我们还讨论了计数在量词表达式的语义评估过程中的作用,并确定,例如,哪些二进制量词是由有限的“语义自动机”计算的。我们总结了一些关于逻辑和计数在形式系统中进一步纠缠的一般性想法,关于重新思考定性/定量划分,以及将我们的分析与认知科学的经验发现联系起来。
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
POUR-EL’S LANDSCAPE CATEGORICAL QUANTIFICATION POINCARÉ-WEYL’S PREDICATIVITY: GOING BEYOND A TOPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO UNDEFINABILITY IN ALGEBRAIC EXTENSIONS OF John MacFarlane, Philosophical Logic: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy, Routledge, New York, and London, 2021, xx + 238 pp.
×
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