The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
Replies: 12   Last Post: May 26, 2013 10:56 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Oskar Trestone

Posts: 22
From: Germany
Registered: 9/17/11
Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
Posted: Dec 28, 2012 12:04 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


in the layer logic defined in this thread there is an inconsequence:
The axioms 5 and 6 for meta statements, especially that the truth values of meta statements are the same for all layers t>0
are in objection to the principle, that no information about higher (or same) layers is available at a lower level.
I.e. W(W(A,t)=w,1)=w woul allow to conclude in layer 1, that W(A,t)=w even for t>1.

Without axioms 5 and 6 for meta statements it is more complicated to define a value for statements over all layers,
nevertheless I think we should go this more consequent way.

Now we have two basic layer logic axioms:

A1): statements have truth values only in combination with a layer t = 0,1,2,3,?

A2) Layers are hierarchically ordered, i.e. truth values can be defined using truth values of lower layers,
conversely in lower layers nothing is known about higher (or same) layers.

As a consequence: W(W(A,t)=w,t)=u; W(W(A,t)=w,d)=u für d<=t

We therefore need the value ?u? (undefined/unknown) not only in layer 0 but in all layers.
(Vice versa W(A,0)=u now is no longer a isolated formula but a kind of spezial case of W(W(A,t)=w,d)=u für d<=t für d=0)

Annother consequence: The equity of layer statements becomes difficult to be proofed:
1st attempt: W(A=B,d+1) := W ( For all t: W(A,t)=W(B,t) , d+1)
after A2: W( For all t: W(A,t)=W(B,t) , d) = W ( For all t<=d: W(A,t)=W(B,t) , d+1) and W(For all t>d: W(A,t)=W(B,t) , d+1) =
W ( For all t<=d: W(A,t)=W(B,t) , d+1) and u.
Therefore W (A=B, d+1) = u if A=B and W(A=B,d+1)=-w if W(A,t0)-=W(B,t0) for t0<d+1.
Equality could so be (sometimes) disproved and never be proofed positively.

2nd attempt:
Layer statements have to be defined finitely, as they could not be used otherwise.
Often they are recursively defined for layer t+1 using values of statements in layer t.

So we can restrain the statements with a finite periodic value pattern over the layers.
Now positive statements over all layers are possible, if the period k (and the advance v) is fully known.

Two statements A and B are equal (in layer k+v+1), if they have the same advance and the same period in the layers.
The value for the of equality of two statements is constant for layers t >= v+k+1.

Axiom A2) shows that from layer t+1 we only have a perspective to look ?downwards? to layer t or smaller,
the same layer or higher is beyond the information horizon and undefined.

The definition of arithmetics now also becomes more complicated, for example the succesor function is usually defined using equality of sets.

But why do things easy if they can be done complicated?


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.