Advertisement

Axiomathes

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 189–205 | Cite as

On Two Notions of Computation in Transparent Intensional Logic

  • Ivo PezlarEmail author
Original Paper
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

In Transparent Intensional Logic we can recognize two distinct notions of computation that loosely correspond to term rewriting and term interpretation as known from lambda calculus. Our goal will be to further explore these two notions and examine some of their properties.

Keywords

Transparent intensional logic Procedural semantics Lambda calculus Term rewriting Term interpretation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 21st Conference Applications of Logic in Philosophy and the Foundations of Mathematics in Szklarska Porȩba, Poland 2016. I would like to thank all the participants of this conference for their valuable notes and remarks.

References

  1. Barendregt Hendrik P (1984) The lambda calculus: its syntax and semantics. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Duží M (2017) If structured propositions are logical procedures then how are procedures individuated? Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1595-5 (in press)Google Scholar
  3. Duží M, Kosterec M (2017) A valid rule of \(\beta \)-conversion for the logic of partial functions. Organon F 24(1):10–36Google Scholar
  4. Duží M, Jespersen B, Materna P (2010) Procedural semantics for hyperintensional logic: foundations and applications of transparent intensional logic. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Girard J-Y, Taylor P, Lafont Y (1989) Proofs and types. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Jespersen B (2017) Anatomy of a proposition. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1512-y (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Martin-Löf P (1984) Intuitionistic type theory. Bibliopolis, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Materna P (1998) Concepts and objects. Philosophical Society of Finland, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  9. Materna P (2013) Equivalence of problems (an attempt at an explication of problem). Axiomathes 23(4):617–631.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9201-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moschovakis YN (2006) A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy. Linguist Philos 29(1):27–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-6920-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Muskens R (2005) Sense and the computation of reference. Linguist Philos 28(4):473–504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-004-7684-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pezlar I (2017) Algorithmic theories of problems. A constructive and a non-constructive approach. Log Log Philos 26(4):473–508.  https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.010 Google Scholar
  13. Primiero G, Jespersen B (2010) Two kinds of procedural semantics for privative modification. Lect Notes Artif Intell 6284:251–271Google Scholar
  14. Raclavský J (2003) Executions vs. constructions. Logica et Methodologica 7:63–72Google Scholar
  15. Raclavský J, Kuchyňka P, Pezlar I (2015) Transparentní intenzionální logika jako characteristica universalis a calculus ratiocinator. Masaryk University Press (Munipress), BrnoGoogle Scholar
  16. Sierszulska A (2006) On Tichý’s determiners and Zalta’s abstract objects. Axiomathes 16(4):486–498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-006-0002-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tichý P (1988) The foundations of Frege’s logic. de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Heijenoort J (1977) From Frege to Gödel: a source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyThe Czech Academy of SciencesPrague 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations