Differential Propositional Calculus • 3

Casual Introduction (cont.)

Figure 3 returns to the situation in Figure 1, but this time interpolates a new quality specifically tailored to account for the relation between Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 3. Back, To The Future
\text{Figure 3. Back, To The Future}

This new quality, \mathrm{d}q, is an example of a differential quality, since its absence or presence qualifies the absence or presence of change occurring in another quality.  As with any other quality, it is represented in the venn diagram by means of a “circle” distinguishing two halves of the universe of discourse, in this case, the portions of X outside and inside the region \mathrm{d}Q.

Figure 1 represents a universe of discourse, X, together with a basis of discussion, \{ q \}, for expressing propositions about the contents of that universe.  Once the quality q is given a name, say, the symbol ``q", we have the basis for a formal language specifically cut out for discussing X in terms of q.  This language is more formally known as the propositional calculus with alphabet \{ ``q" \}.

In the context marked by X and \{ q \} there are just four distinct pieces of information which can be expressed in the corresponding propositional calculus, namely, the constant proposition \text{false}, the negative proposition \lnot q, the positive proposition q, and the constant proposition \text{true}.

For example, referring to the points in Figure 1, the constant proposition \text{false} holds of no points, the negative proposition \lnot q holds of a and d, the positive proposition q holds of b and c, and the constant proposition \text{true} holds of all points in the sample.

Figure 3 preserves the same universe of discourse and extends the basis of discussion to a set of two qualities, \{ q, \mathrm{d}q \}.  In corresponding fashion, the initial propositional calculus is extended by means of the enlarged alphabet, \{ ``q", ``\mathrm{d}q" \}.

cc: FB | Differential LogicLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Dynamical Systems, Equational Inference, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematical Models, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Time, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Differential Propositional Calculus • 2

Casual Introduction (cont.)

Now consider the situation represented by the venn diagram in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Same Names, Different Habitations
\text{Figure 2. Same Names, Different Habitations}

Figure 2 differs from Figure 1 solely in the circumstance that the object c is outside the region Q while the object d is inside the region Q.  So far, nothing says our encountering these Figures in this order is other than purely accidental but if we interpret this sequence of frames as a “moving picture” representation of their natural order in a temporal process then it would be natural to suppose a and b have remained as they were with regard to the quality q while c and d have changed their standings in that respect.  In particular, c has moved from the region where q is true to the region where q is false while d has moved from the region where q is false to the region where q is true.

cc: FB | Differential LogicLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Dynamical Systems, Equational Inference, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematical Models, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Time, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Differential Propositional Calculus • 1

A differential propositional calculus is a propositional calculus extended by a set of terms for describing aspects of change and difference, for example, processes taking place in a universe of discourse or transformations mapping a source universe to a target universe.

Casual Introduction

Consider the situation represented by the venn diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Local Habitations, And Names
\text{Figure 1. Local Habitations, And Names}

The area of the rectangle represents a universe of discourse, X.  The universe under discussion may be a population of individuals having various additional properties or it may be a collection of locations occupied by various individuals.  The area of the “circle” represents the individuals having the property q or the locations in the corresponding region Q.  Four individuals, a, b, c, d, are singled out by name.  It happens that b and c currently reside in region Q while a and d do not.

cc: FB | Differential LogicLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Dynamical Systems, Equational Inference, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematical Models, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Time, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Differential Propositional Calculus • Overview

The most fundamental concept in cybernetics is that of “difference”, either that two things are recognisably different or that one thing has changed with time.

W. Ross Ashby • An Introduction to Cybernetics

Here’s the outline of a sketch I wrote on differential propositional calculi, which extend propositional calculi by adding terms for describing aspects of change and difference, for example, processes taking place in a universe of discourse or transformations mapping a source universe to a target universe.  I wrote this as an intuitive introduction to differential logic, which is my best effort so far at dealing with the ancient and persistent problems of treating diversity and mutability in logical terms.  I’ll be looking at ways to improve this draft as I serialize it to my blog.

Part 1

Casual Introduction

Cactus Calculus

Part 2

Formal_Development

Elementary Notions

Special Classes of Propositions

Linear Propositions

Positive Propositions

Singular Propositions

Differential Extensions

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1. Propositional Forms and Differential Expansions

Table A1. Propositional Forms on Two Variables

Table A2. Propositional Forms on Two Variables

Table A3. Ef Expanded Over Differential Features

Table A4. Df Expanded Over Differential Features

Table A5. Ef Expanded Over Ordinary Features

Table A6. Df Expanded Over Ordinary Features

Appendix 2. Differential Forms

Table A7. Differential Forms Expanded on a Logical Basis

Table A8. Differential Forms Expanded on an Algebraic Basis

Table A9. Tangent Proposition as Pointwise Linear Approximation

Table A10. Taylor Series Expansion Df = df + d²f

Table A11. Partial Differentials and Relative Differentials

Table A12. Detail of Calculation for the Difference Map

Appendix 3. Computational Details

Operator Maps for the Logical Conjunction f8(u, v)

Computation of εf8
Computation of Ef8
Computation of Df8
Computation of df8
Computation of rf8
Computation Summary for Conjunction

Operator Maps for the Logical Equality f9(u, v)

Computation of εf9
Computation of Ef9
Computation of Df9
Computation of df9
Computation of rf9
Computation Summary for Equality

Operator Maps for the Logical Implication f11(u, v)

Computation of εf11
Computation of Ef11
Computation of Df11
Computation of df11
Computation of rf11
Computation Summary for Implication

Operator Maps for the Logical Disjunction f14(u, v)

Computation of εf14
Computation of Ef14
Computation of Df14
Computation of df14
Computation of rf14
Computation Summary for Disjunction

Appendix 4. Source Materials

Appendix 5. Various Definitions of the Tangent Vector

References

References

cc: FB | Differential LogicLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Computational Complexity, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Dynamical Systems, Equational Inference, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematical Models, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Time, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Survey of Differential Logic • 6

This is a Survey of work in progress on Differential Logic, resources under development toward a more systematic treatment.

Differential logic is the component of logic whose object is the description of variation — the aspects of change, difference, distribution, and diversity — in universes of discourse subject to logical description.  A definition as broad as that naturally incorporates any study of variation by way of mathematical models, but differential logic is especially charged with the qualitative aspects of variation pervading or preceding quantitative models.  To the extent a logical inquiry makes use of a formal system, its differential component treats the use of a differential logical calculus — a formal system with the expressive capacity to describe change and diversity in logical universes of discourse.

Elements

Blog Series

Architectonics

Applications

Blog Dialogs

Explorations

cc: FB | Differential LogicLaws of FormMathstodonOntologAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Category Theory, Change, Cybernetics, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamics, Equational Inference, Frankl Conjecture, Functional Logic, Gradient Descent, Graph Theory, Hologrammautomaton, Indicator Functions, Inquiry Driven Systems, Leibniz, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Surveys, Time, Topology, Visualization, Zeroth Order Logic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 4

Re: Peirce’s Law(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Re: Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality • (1)(2)(3)

Last time we took up Peirce’s law, ((p \Rightarrow q) \Rightarrow p) \Rightarrow p, and saw how it might be expressed in two different ways, under the entitative and existential interpretations, respectively.  The next thing to do is see how our choice of interpretation bears on the patterns of proof we might find.  To that purpose the following table shows a pair of proofs, one of each kind, in parallel array.

\text{Peirce's Law} \stackrel{_\bullet}{} \text{Parallel Proofs}

Peirce's Law • Parallel Proofs

For convenience, the formal axioms and a few theorems of frequent use are linked below.

Resource

cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Interpretive Duality, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 3

Re: Peirce’s Law(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Re: Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality • (1)(2)

To see how our choice of interpretation bears on cases beyond the bare minimum let us start with the familiar example of Peirce’s law, commonly expressed in the following form.

((p \Rightarrow q) \Rightarrow p) \Rightarrow p

The following two formal equations show how Peirce’s law may be expressed in terms of logical graphs, operating under the entitative and existential interpretations, respectively.

\text{Peirce's Law} \stackrel{_\bullet}{} \text{Dual Graphs}

Peirce's Law • Dual Graphs

cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Interpretive Duality, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 2

A logical concept represented by a boolean variable has its extension, the cases it covers in a designated universe of discourse, and its comprehension (or intension), the properties it implies in a designated hierarchy of predicates.  The formulas and graphs tabulated in previous posts are well-adapted to articulate the syntactic and intensional aspects of propositional logic.  But their very tailoring to those tasks tends to slight the extensional and therefore empirical applications of logic.  Venn diagrams, despite their unwieldiness as the number of logical dimensions increases, are indispensable in providing the visual intuition with a solid grounding in the extensions of logical concepts.  All that makes it worthwhile to reset our table of boolean functions on two variables to include the corresponding venn diagrams.

\text{Venn Diagrams and Logical Graphs on Two Variables}

Venn Diagrams and Logical Graphs on Two Variables

cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Interpretive Duality, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 1

The duality between Entitative and Existential interpretations of logical graphs is a good example of a mathematical symmetry, in this case a symmetry of order two.  Symmetries of this and higher orders give us conceptual handles on excess complexity in the manifold of sensuous impressions, making it well worth the effort to seek them out and grasp them where we find them.

Both Peirce and Spencer Brown understood the significance of the mathematical unity underlying the dual interpretation of logical graphs.  Peirce began with the Entitative option and later switched to the Existential choice while Spencer Brown exercised the Entitative option in his Laws of Form.

In that vein, here’s a Rosetta Stone to give us a grounding in the relationship between boolean functions and our two readings of logical graphs.

\text{Boolean Functions on Two Variables}

Boolean Functions on Two Variables

cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Interpretive Duality, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Peirce’s Law • 7

Equational Form (concl.)

The following animation replays the steps of the proof.

Peirce's Law : Strong Form • Proof Animation

Reference

  • Peirce, Charles Sanders (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7 (1885), 180–202.  Reprinted (CP 3.359–403), (CE 5, 162–190).

Resources

cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Equational Inference, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce's Law, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositions As Types Analogy, Semiotics, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments