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

Post History

#2: Post edited by user avatar Peter Taylor‭ · 2024-02-12T19:19:15Z (10 months ago)
Reduced the question metainformation to that which is relevant to this site
  • I am reposting my question from Proof Assistants Stack Exchange because due to being suspended I am unable to thank the person who posted an extraordinarily high quality answer - and award the 150 point bounty I had open on the question.
  • I would very much appreciate if anyone seeing this could post the link to this Math Codidact post as a comment on that Stack Exchange post (the answer) so that the person who wrote the answer can see that I deeply appreciated their response. Thank you.
  • https://proofassistants.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/a-program-which-could-derive-theorems-given-formation-rules-in-any-modal-logic
  • ——————
  • There are multiple modal logics which have different formation rules:
  • ![Image_alt_text](https://math.codidact.com/uploads/3otvo5pyjopr24hiyyxew7ymlqa3)
  • Suppose someone asked the intuitive question, "If phi were a theorem in a modal logic M, what general, related conclusions might be drawn from that being so?" (See What is the modality of a statement that follows from a necessary statement? )
  • I am picturing a program which can generate all theorems of a logic L which include a specific formation rule R (for example, the rule □P ⊢ P). There are two criteria I would have it fulfill: a) there must be a bound to how many theorems it should generate; and if necessary, b) an algorithm which "recognizes" interesting vs. non-interesting theorems.
  • For a), I wonder if there are choices as how to one can define the bound. It could be the number of times of application of a formation rule (does this have a name? The "order" of a theorem?), or maybe there are other, better ways.
  • For b), I anticipate this is because, since we are seeking interesting conclusions, we want a way to filter out a large amount of seemingly boring or trivial theorems.
  • (Also, in case brute-force generation of all theorems is too combinatorially explosive, I am interested in algorithms which make more efficient choices in what theorems to generate.)
  • Lastly, I would have such a program run over all modal logics L featuring formation rule R, so as to see what the implications of such a rule are across various logics, to compare them.
  • Can anyone please present a blueprint of such a program, in a programming language (of their choice)? I want a clear conceptual grasp of such a program more than implementable code, which I can write myself once I see the pitfalls, best practices and common design patterns and so on.
  • There are multiple modal logics which have different formation rules:
  • ![Image_alt_text](https://math.codidact.com/uploads/3otvo5pyjopr24hiyyxew7ymlqa3)
  • Suppose someone asked the intuitive question, "If phi were a theorem in a modal logic M, what general, related conclusions might be drawn from that being so?" (See What is the modality of a statement that follows from a necessary statement? )
  • I am picturing a program which can generate all theorems of a logic L which include a specific formation rule R (for example, the rule □P ⊢ P). There are two criteria I would have it fulfill: a) there must be a bound to how many theorems it should generate; and if necessary, b) an algorithm which "recognizes" interesting vs. non-interesting theorems.
  • For a), I wonder if there are choices as how to one can define the bound. It could be the number of times of application of a formation rule (does this have a name? The "order" of a theorem?), or maybe there are other, better ways.
  • For b), I anticipate this is because, since we are seeking interesting conclusions, we want a way to filter out a large amount of seemingly boring or trivial theorems.
  • (Also, in case brute-force generation of all theorems is too combinatorially explosive, I am interested in algorithms which make more efficient choices in what theorems to generate.)
  • Lastly, I would have such a program run over all modal logics L featuring formation rule R, so as to see what the implications of such a rule are across various logics, to compare them.
  • Can anyone please present a blueprint of such a program, in a programming language (of their choice)? I want a clear conceptual grasp of such a program more than implementable code, which I can write myself once I see the pitfalls, best practices and common design patterns and so on.
  • ---
  • NB I originally asked this question [elsewhere](https://proofassistants.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/a-program-which-could-derive-theorems-given-formation-rules-in-any-modal-logic) and have copied across a very good CC-SA answer.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Julius H.‭ · 2024-02-10T19:46:01Z (11 months ago)
A program which could derive theorems given formation rules in any modal logic?
I am reposting my question from Proof Assistants Stack Exchange because due to being suspended I am unable to thank the person who posted an extraordinarily high quality answer - and award the 150 point bounty I had open on the question.

I would very much appreciate if anyone seeing this could post the link to this Math Codidact post as a comment on that Stack Exchange post (the answer) so that the person who wrote the answer can see that I deeply appreciated their response. Thank you.

https://proofassistants.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/a-program-which-could-derive-theorems-given-formation-rules-in-any-modal-logic

——————


There are multiple modal logics which have different formation rules:

![Image_alt_text](https://math.codidact.com/uploads/3otvo5pyjopr24hiyyxew7ymlqa3)

Suppose someone asked the intuitive question, "If phi were a theorem in a modal logic M, what general, related conclusions might be drawn from that being so?" (See What is the modality of a statement that follows from a necessary statement? )

I am picturing a program which can generate all theorems of a logic L which include a specific formation rule R (for example, the rule □P ⊢ P). There are two criteria I would have it fulfill: a) there must be a bound to how many theorems it should generate; and if necessary, b) an algorithm which "recognizes" interesting vs. non-interesting theorems.

For a), I wonder if there are choices as how to one can define the bound. It could be the number of times of application of a formation rule (does this have a name? The "order" of a theorem?), or maybe there are other, better ways.

For b), I anticipate this is because, since we are seeking interesting conclusions, we want a way to filter out a large amount of seemingly boring or trivial theorems.

(Also, in case brute-force generation of all theorems is too combinatorially explosive, I am interested in algorithms which make more efficient choices in what theorems to generate.)

Lastly, I would have such a program run over all modal logics L featuring formation rule R, so as to see what the implications of such a rule are across various logics, to compare them.

Can anyone please present a blueprint of such a program, in a programming language (of their choice)? I want a clear conceptual grasp of such a program more than implementable code, which I can write myself once I see the pitfalls, best practices and common design patterns and so on.