Foundations of real analysis and computability theory in non-Aristotelian finitary logic

Radhakrishnan Srinivasan; H. P. Raghunandan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · math/0506475

Foundations of real analysis and computability theory in non-Aristotelian finitary logic

Radhakrishnan Srinivasan·H. P. Raghunandan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper outlines new paradigms for real analysis and computability theory in the recently proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL). Constructive real analysis in NAFL (NRA) is accomplished by a translation of diagrammatic concepts from Euclidean geometry into an extension (NPAR) of the NAFL version of Peano Arithmetic (NPA). Such a translation is possible because NPA proves the existence of every infinite proper class of natural numbers that is definable in the language of NPA. Infinite sets are not permitted in NPAR and quantification over proper classes is banned; hence Cantor's diagonal argument cannot be legally formulated in NRA, and there is no `cardinality' for any collection (`super-class') of real numbers. Many of the useful aspects of classical real analysis, such as, the calculus of Newton and Leibniz, are justifiable in NRA. But the paradoxes, such as, Zeno's paradoxes of motion and the Banach-Tarski paradox, are resolved because NRA admits only closed super-classes of real numbers; in particular, open/semi-open intervals of real numbers are not permitted. The NAFL version of computability theory (NCT) rejects Turing's argument for the undecidability of the halting problem and permits hypercomputation. Important potential applications of NCT are in the areas of quantum and autonomic computing.

Explore related subjects

math.LO cs.LO math.GM

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Radhakrishnan Srinivasan, H. P. Raghunandan. 2005-09-29. Foundations of real analysis and computability theory in non-Aristotelian finitary logic. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0506475

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗

arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗