Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on How to find dualized quantifier pairs in substitutionally quantified analysis?

Parent

How to find dualized quantifier pairs in substitutionally quantified analysis?

+0
−1

Classically, $\exists$ and $\forall$ are dual. These don't seem to be the quantifiers Newton had quite in mind when differentiating. Suppose quantifiers attached separately to the x- and h-terms, "at least zero-many/much x or h." In this context, the h-terms are of a different sortal or typical aspect than the x-terms, and it's not that they themselves become 0 in the limit, but we consider the existential case where we toggle between "at least zero" and... what?

  1. Are there many and varying such dualities? Like (at least zero, at most zero), (at least zero, exactly zero) (roughly equivalent to the preceding, at least in outcome), (almost zero-much, almost all) (where -much is stronger than -many, passing from discrete cardinal magnitude to continuous material), etc.

  2. Is there a limit $(f: r \rightarrow 0) \circ (rh) = (0h)$? Is that one way to vanish the h-terms at the end of the derivative, by evaluating the model of the formula in which the h-subdomain is empty?

  • (For Newton, then: "kinematically," the h-variable could be any physical thing that admits of continuous determination in this sense. The h-terms, or Newton's counterparts, were not automatically overloaded with specific physical sense, like "h-much metal" or "h-many units of energy/force," but are simply from any sort "not merely numerical variables" in an at least two-sorted logic. So considering their empty subdomain is considering the case of the formula where its merely numerical factors "exist.")
History

2 comment threads

Missing context (1 comment)
Why "not the quantifiers Newton had in mind"? (1 comment)
Post
+2
−0

I confess I don't fully understand this question (I await further clarification), but in general dualization is not that complicated. If $P$ is the dual of $Q$ it just means that it acts on $\bot$ the same way that $Q$ acts on $\top$, and vice versa. So whenever you have $P$ (say, a quantifier), it's easy to find its dual: just define $Q(x_1,x_2,…) := ¬P(¬x_1,¬x_2,…)$.

E.g. let's say we want to find the dual of "there exist countably many $x$ such that…" ($\exists^{\aleph_0} x…$). The dual would be $¬\exists^{\aleph_0}x ¬…$ "there do not exist countably many $x$ such that not…". This expression expands easily to "for all $x$ (except perhaps either a finite or uncountable number of different $x$), …". Thus we have found the dual of the quantifier $\exists^{\aleph_0} x$!

History

1 comment thread

I should've known that 😅 though by explaining it in terms of $\top, \bot$, you've given me a way to f... (3 comments)
I should've known that 😅 though by explaining it in terms of $\top, \bot$, you've given me a way to f...
Ripheus24‭ wrote 4 months ago

I should've known that 😅 though by explaining it in terms of $\top, \bot$, you've given me a way to finesse the application of your observation, a refinement based on my (insane!) theory that the imaginary and split-imaginary units (and the $\epsilon$ of the dual numbers) can serve for nonstandard truth values in an even worse truth-conditional semantics for modal logic.

So to say, we can "rotate" the sidebar deduction in a derivative into the complex/perplex domains, assign nonstandard truth values to the stages of derivation involving implied division-by-zero (or infinitesimals), factor out as much target information (like ln(2) for y'(2x)), then "rotate" the formula back squarely to the real line, dropping the now-unregenerate terms inside the parentheses by sending them to the $\bot$-value in the reduced space, keeping the regenerate part of the formula in play. No overriding need for infinitesimals, though we could juggle quantifying over them just the same...

clemens‭ wrote 4 months ago

Interesting; I'm still wondering what precise quantification you're doing over the $x$ and the $\delta x$ in calculus, though. Also, what is a sidebar deduction?

Ripheus24‭ wrote 4 months ago

clemens‭ in the deduction of a classical-logic conditional $A \rightarrow B$, I saw once that you could assume $A$ and see if you could get $B$ based primarily on that, and if this worked, you'd get a deduction of that conditional. I don't know if this is keyed more to stuff like Gentzen dealt with or not, I have a hazy memory of an association there, but at least the idea is that, like, if we were writing a math textbook, we'd include the counterfactual reasoning in a text box off-set from the rest of the page. So it would be visually a side-bar if displayed in that format, but more in the abstract it's just the assumptive space "adjacent to" the mainline of a deduction.

Skipping 1 deleted comment.