Poinsot's ellipsoid: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
en>ZéroBot
m r2.7.1) (Robot: Adding ko:푸앵소 타원체
 
en>Slawekb
Line 1: Line 1:
Andera is what you can call her but she never really favored that title. He works as a bookkeeper. To perform lacross is the thing I love most of all. Alaska is exactly where I've usually been residing.<br><br>my homepage :: free tarot readings ([http://c045.danah.co.kr/home/index.php?document_srl=1356970&mid=qna c045.danah.co.kr])
The '''drinker paradox''' (also known as '''drinker's principle''', '''drinkers' principle''' or (the) '''drinking principle''') is a [[theorem]] of [[classical logic|classical]] [[predicate logic]], usually stated in [[natural language]] as: ''There is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, everyone in the pub is drinking''. The actual theorem is
 
:<math>\exists x.\ [D(x) \rightarrow \forall y.\ D(y)]. \, </math>
 
where D is an arbitrary [[Predicate (mathematical logic)|predicate]]. The [[paradox]] was popularised by the [[mathematical logician]] [[Raymond Smullyan]], who called it the "drinking principle" in his 1978 book ''What Is the Name of this Book?''<ref name="Smullyan">{{cite book
| title = What is the Name of this Book? The Riddle of Dracula and Other Logical Puzzles
| author= [[Raymond Smullyan]]
| publisher = [[Prentice Hall]]
| year = 1978
| isbn = 0-13-955088-7
| nopp = true
| pages = chapter 14. How to Prove Anything. (topic) 250. The Drinking Principle. pp. 209-211
}}</ref>
 
== Proofs of the paradox ==
The proof begins by recognizing it is true that either everyone in the pub is drinking, or at least one person in the pub isn't drinking. Consequently, there are two cases to consider:<ref name="Smullyan"/><ref name="Images of SMC Research 1996"/>
 
# Suppose everyone is drinking. For any particular person, it can't be wrong to say that ''if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking'' — because everyone is drinking. Because everyone is drinking, then that one person must drink because when ' ''that person'' ' drinks ' ''everybody'' ' drinks, everybody includes that person.<ref name="Smullyan"/><ref name="Images of SMC Research 1996"/>
# Suppose that at least one person is not drinking. For any particular nondrinking person, it still cannot be wrong to say that ''if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking'' — because that person is, in fact, not drinking. In this case the condition is false, so the statement is [[vacuous truth|vacuously true]] due to the nature of [[Material_conditional#Definition|material implication]] in formal logic, which states that "If P, then Q" is always true if P (the condition or [[Antecedent (logic)|antecedent]]) is false.<ref name="Smullyan"/><ref name="Images of SMC Research 1996"/>
 
Either way, ''there is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, everyone in the pub is drinking''. A slightly more formal way of expressing the above is to say that if everybody drinks then anyone can be the [[witness (mathematics)|witness]] for the validity of the theorem. And if someone doesn't drink, then that particular non-drinking individual can be the witness to the theorem's validity.<ref name="Cameron1999">{{cite book|author=Peter J. Cameron|authorlink=Peter Cameron (mathematician)|title=Sets, Logic and Categories|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sDfdbBQ75MQC&pg=PA91|year=1999|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-85233-056-9|page=91}}</ref>
 
The proof above is essentially [[First-order_logic#Semantics|model-theoretic]] (can be formalized as such). A purely syntactic proof is possible and can even be mechanized (in [[Otter (theorem prover)|Otter]] for example), but only for an [[equisatisfiable]] rather than an [[Logical equivalence|equivalent]] negation of the theorem.<ref name="Coq">Marc Bezem , Dimitri Hendriks (2008) [http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/lg/2008-0402-200713/preprint187.pdf Clausification in Coq]</ref> Namely, the negation of the theorem is
: <math>\neg [\exists x.\ [D(x) \rightarrow \forall y.\ D(y)]]\, </math>
which is equivalent with the [[prenex normal form]]
: <math>\forall x \exists y.\ [D(x) \wedge \neg D(y)]\, </math>
By [[Skolemization]] the above is equisatisfiable with
: <math>\forall x .\ [D(x) \wedge \neg D(f(x))]\, </math>
The [[Resolution_(logic)#Resolution_in_first_order_logic|resolution]] of the two [[Clause (logic)|clauses]] <math>D(x)</math> and <math>\neg D(f(x))</math> results in an empty set of clauses (i.e. a [[contradiction]]), thus proving the negation of the theorem is [[Satisfiability|unsatisfiable]]. The resolution is slightly non-straightforward because it involves a search based on [[Herbrand's theorem]] for [[Ground expression|ground instances]] that are [[Propositional calculus|propositionally]] unsatisfiable. The bound variable ''x'' is first instantiated with a constant ''d'' (making use of the assumption that the domain is non-empty), resulting in the [[Herbrand universe]]:<ref name="GrumbergNipkow2008"/>
: <math>\{ d, f(d), f(f(d)), f(f(f(d))), \ldots \}</math>
One can sketch the following [[natural deduction]]:<ref name="Coq"/>
 
<math>
\cfrac
  {\cfrac
    {\cfrac
      {\forall x .\ [D(x) \wedge \neg D(f(x))]\, }
      {D(d) \wedge \neg D(f(d))}
      \forall_E
    }
    {\neg D(f(d))}
    \wedge_E
    \qquad   
    \cfrac
      {\cfrac
        {\forall x .\ [D(x) \wedge \neg D(f(x))]\, }
        {D(f(d)) \wedge \neg D(f(f(d)))}
        \forall_E
      }
      {D(f(d))}
      \wedge_E
  }
  {\bot}\
  \Rightarrow_E
</math>
 
Or spelled out:
# Instantiating ''x'' with ''d'' yields <math>[D(d) \wedge \neg D(f(d))]</math> which implies <math>\neg D(f(d))</math>
# ''x'' is then instantiated with ''f(d)'' yielding <math>[D(f(d)) \wedge \neg D(f(f(d)))]</math> which implies <math>D(f(d))</math>.
Observe that <math>\neg D(f(d))</math> and <math>D(f(d))</math> [[Unification (computer science)|unify]] syntactically in their predicate arguments. An (automated) search thus finishes in two steps:<ref name="GrumbergNipkow2008">{{cite book|editor=Orna Grumberg, Tobias Nipkow, Christian Pfaller|title=Formal Logical Methods for System Security and Correctness|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=QTc3WtqXXwQC&pg=PA123|year=2008|publisher=IOS Press|isbn=978-1-58603-843-4|pages=123–124|author=J. Harrison|chapter=Automated and Interactive Theorem Proving}}</ref>
# <math>D(d) \wedge \neg D(f(d))</math>
# <math>D(d) \wedge \underline{\neg D(f(d)) \wedge D(f(d))} \wedge \neg D(f(f(d)))</math>
 
The proof by resolution given here uses the [[law of excluded middle]], the [[axiom of choice]], and [[Empty domain|non-emptiness of the domain]] as premises.<ref name="Coq"/>
 
== Discussion ==
{{Original research|section|date=February 2011}}
This proof illustrates several properties of classical predicate logic that do not always agree with ordinary language.
 
=== Excluded middle ===
The above proof begins by saying that either everyone is drinking, or someone is not drinking. This uses the validity of [[excluded middle]] for the statement <math>S =</math> "everyone is drinking", which is always available in classical logic. If the logic does not admit arbitrary excluded middle—for example if the logic is [[intuitionistic logic|intuitionistic]]—then the truth of <math>S \or \neg S</math> must first be established, i.e., <math>S</math> must be shown to be [[Decidability (logic)|decidable]].<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Choice in Dynamic Linking |author1=Martin Abadi |author2=Georges Gonthier |author3=Benjamin Werner |title=Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures |editor=Igor Walukiewicz |page=24 |year=1998 |publisher=Springer |isbn=3-540-21298-1}}</ref>
 
=== Material versus indicative conditional ===
Most important to the paradox is that the conditional in classical (and intuitionistic) logic is the [[material conditional]]. It has the property that <math>A \rightarrow B</math> is true if ''B'' is true or if ''A'' is false (in classical logic, but not intuitionistic logic, this is also a necessary condition).
 
So as it was applied here, the statement "if he is drinking, everyone is drinking" was taken to be correct in one case, if everyone was drinking, and in the other case, if he was not drinking — even though his drinking may not have had anything to do with anyone else's drinking.
 
In natural language, on the other hand, typically "if...then..." is used as an [[indicative conditional]].
 
=== Non-empty domain ===
 
It is not necessary to assume there was anyone in the pub. The assumption that the [[empty domain|domain is non-empty]] is built into the inference rules of classical predicate logic.<ref>{{cite paper |url=http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/papers/dp.pdf |title=Searchable Sets, Dubuc-Penon Compactness, Omniscience Principles, and the Drinker Paradox |author1=Martín Escardó |author2= Paulo Oliva |publisher=Computability in Europe 2010 |page=2}}</ref>  We can deduce <math>D(x)</math> from <math>\forall x D(x)</math>, but of course if the domain were empty (in this case, if there were nobody in the pub), the proposition <math>D(x)</math> is not well-formed for any [[closed expression]] <math>x</math>.
 
Nevertheless, if we allow empty domains we still have something like the drinker paradox in the form of the theorem:
 
:<math>(\exists x.\ [x=x]) \rightarrow \exists x.\ [D(x) \rightarrow \forall y.\ D(y)]</math>
 
Or in words:
 
:''If there is anyone in the pub at all, then there is someone such that, if he is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking''.
 
=== Temporal aspects ===
Although not discussed in formal terms by Smullyan, he hints that the verb "drinks" is also ambiguous by citing a postcard written to him by two of his students, which contains the following dialogue (emphasis in original):<ref name="Smullyan"/>
{{quote|
''Logician'' / I know a fellow who is such that whenever he drinks, everyone does.<br/>
''Student'' / I just don't understand. Do you mean, everyone on earth?<br/>
''Logician'' / Yes, naturally.<br/>
''Student'' / That sounds crazy! You mean as soon as he drinks, at ''just'' that moment, ''everyone'' does?<br/>
''Logician'' / Of course.<br/>
''Student'' / But that implies that at some time, ''everyone'' was drinking at ''once''. Surely that never happened!}}
 
== History and variations ==
Smullyan in his 1978 book attributes the naming of "The Drinking Principle" to his graduate students.<ref name="Smullyan"/> He also discusses variants (obtained by substituting D with other, more dramatic predicates):
* "there is a woman on earth such that if she becomes sterile, the whole human race will die out." Smullyan writes that this formulation emerged from a conversation he had with philosopher John Bacon.<ref name="Smullyan"/>
* A "dual" version of the Principle: "there is at least one person such that if anybody drinks, then he does."<ref name="Smullyan"/>
 
As "Smullyan's ‘Drinkers’ principle" or just "Drinkers' principle" it appears in [[H.P. Barendregt]]'s "The quest for correctness" (1996), accompanied by some machine proofs.<ref name="Images of SMC Research 1996">{{cite book|title=Images of SMC Research 1996|year=1996|publisher=Stichting Mathematisch Centrum|isbn=978-90-6196-462-9|url=http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/13544/13544A.pdf|contribution=The quest for correctness|author=H.P. Barendregt|pages=54–55}}</ref> Since then it has made regular appearance as an example in publications about [[automated reasoning]]; it is sometimes used to contrast the expressiveness of [[proof assistants]].<ref name="Coq"/><ref name="GrumbergNipkow2008"/><ref>
Freek Wiedijk. 2001. [http://www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/mizar/miz.pdf Mizar Light for HOL Light]. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs '01), Richard J. Boulton and Paul B. Jackson (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 378-394.</ref>
 
== See also ==
* [[List of paradoxes]]
* [[Reification (linguistics)]]
* [[Temporal logic]]
 
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
 
[[Category:Predicate logic]]
[[Category:Paradoxes]]

Revision as of 14:05, 11 September 2013

The drinker paradox (also known as drinker's principle, drinkers' principle or (the) drinking principle) is a theorem of classical predicate logic, usually stated in natural language as: There is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, everyone in the pub is drinking. The actual theorem is

where D is an arbitrary predicate. The paradox was popularised by the mathematical logician Raymond Smullyan, who called it the "drinking principle" in his 1978 book What Is the Name of this Book?[1]

Proofs of the paradox

The proof begins by recognizing it is true that either everyone in the pub is drinking, or at least one person in the pub isn't drinking. Consequently, there are two cases to consider:[1][2]

  1. Suppose everyone is drinking. For any particular person, it can't be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because everyone is drinking. Because everyone is drinking, then that one person must drink because when ' that person ' drinks ' everybody ' drinks, everybody includes that person.[1][2]
  2. Suppose that at least one person is not drinking. For any particular nondrinking person, it still cannot be wrong to say that if that particular person is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking — because that person is, in fact, not drinking. In this case the condition is false, so the statement is vacuously true due to the nature of material implication in formal logic, which states that "If P, then Q" is always true if P (the condition or antecedent) is false.[1][2]

Either way, there is someone in the pub such that, if he is drinking, everyone in the pub is drinking. A slightly more formal way of expressing the above is to say that if everybody drinks then anyone can be the witness for the validity of the theorem. And if someone doesn't drink, then that particular non-drinking individual can be the witness to the theorem's validity.[3]

The proof above is essentially model-theoretic (can be formalized as such). A purely syntactic proof is possible and can even be mechanized (in Otter for example), but only for an equisatisfiable rather than an equivalent negation of the theorem.[4] Namely, the negation of the theorem is

which is equivalent with the prenex normal form

By Skolemization the above is equisatisfiable with

The resolution of the two clauses and results in an empty set of clauses (i.e. a contradiction), thus proving the negation of the theorem is unsatisfiable. The resolution is slightly non-straightforward because it involves a search based on Herbrand's theorem for ground instances that are propositionally unsatisfiable. The bound variable x is first instantiated with a constant d (making use of the assumption that the domain is non-empty), resulting in the Herbrand universe:[5]

One can sketch the following natural deduction:[4]

Or spelled out:

  1. Instantiating x with d yields which implies
  2. x is then instantiated with f(d) yielding which implies .

Observe that and unify syntactically in their predicate arguments. An (automated) search thus finishes in two steps:[5]

The proof by resolution given here uses the law of excluded middle, the axiom of choice, and non-emptiness of the domain as premises.[4]

Discussion

Picking the right webhosting service is vital. The last thing you wish to do is get a website released with a hosting service (after discovering to utilize that hosting service), then be disappointed with the service and need to mess around with moving your website to another hosting service.



I'm a delighted HostGator client. I utilize both HostGator and Bluehost. I suggest both. This short article is a thorough HostGator evaluation.

I'll begin with among the most important considerations: Cost

HostGator has several rates plans. They are as follows (since the date this short article was released):.

Hatchling Strategy: as low as $4.95 per month with a 3 year commitment. On this plan you can host one website.
Baby Plan: as reduced as $7.95 per month with a 3 year dedication. On this plan you can host an endless variety of websites.
Business Strategy: as reduced as $12.95 per month with 3 year commitment.

You do not need to commit for 3 years. With much shorter term commitments, you'll pay somewhat more per month.

You can likewise get your own specialized server if this is something you like to have.

If you loved this article and also you would like to obtain more info concerning http://www.hostgator1centcoupon.info/ i implore you to visit our own web site. Limitless variety of websites.

I wouldn't think about a hosting service that didn't let me host an unrestricted variety of websites for one regular monthly price under $10. I have numerous sites and I such as the versatility of having the ability to construct more websites at no added expense (except for signing up the domain).

If you go with the Infant Plan (this is the strategy I have) or Business Strategy, you can host as numerous websites on as numerous domain names as you like. This is where making use of a hosting service like HostGator can conserve you a lot of cash in the long run against making use of a website builder or having a website designer host your websites. When you utilize a website builder or have a website designer host your site, you'll normally pay additional for each extra site (or each added set of websites).

The disadvantage obviously, is you must handle your very own hosting. Nevertheless, luckily, this isn't really tough with the user friendly CPanel and technical support.

Domain registration.

You can easily register domain names with HostGator. You have to spend for each domain. REMEMBER to set your domain names on auto-renew (and that your billing details is set up to auto-pay) so your domain name registration does not lapse. Absolutely nothing can be worse than developing a terrific internet site and afterwards to lose it all due to the fact that you forgot to renew your domain name. It's possible then that somebody else registers your domain and you cannot get it once again. That might be devastating.

All HostGator prepares offer unrestricted bandwidth.

This is great and you ought to require this with any website hosting service. I would rule out using a hosting service that didn't provide unlimited bandwidth.

Simple CPanel Control panel.

You manage your sites with HostGator in a control panel referred to as a CPanel. The CPanel is an easy-to-use user interface to manage your sites and domains.

Easy website setup.

I specifically require with any hosting service that I utilize can set up WordPress with practically a single click or a series of simple clicks. HostGator provides Fantastico De Luxe and QuickInstall choices for easily setting up WordPress and many other scripts to develop your site (i.e. Joomla and others).

Access to 4,500 website design templates.

For any internet designer, this is huge. This is a fantastic way to develop websites inexpensively for customers. You can examine out these design templates for yourself on the HostGator website without having to sign up.

Free website home builders.

With an account, you can quickly develop an internet site with one of two website builders you get access to. The 2 website contractors are:.

Trendy Site Builder, and.
Website Studio website contractor.

Note, you can just use the website contractors for one website on your account. Exactly what this means is if you get an account where you can host unrestricted domains, you can just construct one website with a website contractor.

Email accounts.

You get endless POP3 e-mail accounts with SMTP. Having e-mail accounts on your customized domain names is more professional than a gmail or hotmail e-mail account.

45 day cash back assure.

You can get your refund if you cancel your account within 45 days if HostGator isn't for you.

Video tutorials.

HostGator offers you access to many video tutorials that step you with many processes.

Consumer support.

You can access live consumer support by means of the telephone and live talk. The operators for technical support know a lot about working in HostGator. Note, nonetheless, you will not get much help with specific scripts such as WordPress. If you have a concern about tailoring a WordPress theme, HostGator won't help you (I found this to be the case with Bluehost. What I do in these scenarios is inquire on my premium WordPress style support online forum and/or do general Google searches).

1 Criticism of HostGator.

I needed to call HostGator to verify my account upon opening it. This didn't take long, but it was an extra action. I would have chosen just to sign up and get going without having to call them for confirmation. This proof illustrates several properties of classical predicate logic that do not always agree with ordinary language.

Excluded middle

The above proof begins by saying that either everyone is drinking, or someone is not drinking. This uses the validity of excluded middle for the statement "everyone is drinking", which is always available in classical logic. If the logic does not admit arbitrary excluded middle—for example if the logic is intuitionistic—then the truth of must first be established, i.e., must be shown to be decidable.[6]

Material versus indicative conditional

Most important to the paradox is that the conditional in classical (and intuitionistic) logic is the material conditional. It has the property that is true if B is true or if A is false (in classical logic, but not intuitionistic logic, this is also a necessary condition).

So as it was applied here, the statement "if he is drinking, everyone is drinking" was taken to be correct in one case, if everyone was drinking, and in the other case, if he was not drinking — even though his drinking may not have had anything to do with anyone else's drinking.

In natural language, on the other hand, typically "if...then..." is used as an indicative conditional.

Non-empty domain

It is not necessary to assume there was anyone in the pub. The assumption that the domain is non-empty is built into the inference rules of classical predicate logic.[7] We can deduce from , but of course if the domain were empty (in this case, if there were nobody in the pub), the proposition is not well-formed for any closed expression .

Nevertheless, if we allow empty domains we still have something like the drinker paradox in the form of the theorem:

Or in words:

If there is anyone in the pub at all, then there is someone such that, if he is drinking, then everyone in the pub is drinking.

Temporal aspects

Although not discussed in formal terms by Smullyan, he hints that the verb "drinks" is also ambiguous by citing a postcard written to him by two of his students, which contains the following dialogue (emphasis in original):[1] 31 year-old Systems Analyst Bud from Deep River, spends time with pursuits for instance r/c cars, property developers new condo in singapore singapore and books. Last month just traveled to Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape.

History and variations

Smullyan in his 1978 book attributes the naming of "The Drinking Principle" to his graduate students.[1] He also discusses variants (obtained by substituting D with other, more dramatic predicates):

  • "there is a woman on earth such that if she becomes sterile, the whole human race will die out." Smullyan writes that this formulation emerged from a conversation he had with philosopher John Bacon.[1]
  • A "dual" version of the Principle: "there is at least one person such that if anybody drinks, then he does."[1]

As "Smullyan's ‘Drinkers’ principle" or just "Drinkers' principle" it appears in H.P. Barendregt's "The quest for correctness" (1996), accompanied by some machine proofs.[2] Since then it has made regular appearance as an example in publications about automated reasoning; it is sometimes used to contrast the expressiveness of proof assistants.[4][5][8]

See also

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  3. ↑ 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Marc Bezem , Dimitri Hendriks (2008) Clausification in Coq
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  6. ↑ 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  7. ↑ Template:Cite paper
  8. ↑ Freek Wiedijk. 2001. Mizar Light for HOL Light. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs '01), Richard J. Boulton and Paul B. Jackson (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 378-394.
Retrieved from "https://en.formulasearchengine.com/index.php?title=Poinsot%27s_ellipsoid&oldid=13805"