BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Claus-Peter Wirth

Claus-Peter Wirth contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceLogic in Computer Sciencemath.LOmath.HO

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
10works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

10 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

A Most Interesting, but Revoked Draft for Hilbert and Bernays' "Grundlagen der Mathematik" that never found its way into any publication, and 2 CV of Gisbert Hasenjaeger

In 1934, in Bernays preface to the 1st edn. of the 1st vol. of Hilbert-Bernays "Grundlagen der Mathematik", a nearly completed draft of the the finally two-volume monograph is mentioned, which had to be revoked because of the completely changed situation in the area of proof theory after Herbrand and Goedels revolutionary results. Nothing at all seems to be known about this draft and its whereabouts. A third of a century later, Bernays preface to the 2nd edn. (1968) of the 1st vol. of Hilbert-Bernays mentions joint work of Hasenjaeger and Bernays on the second edition. Bernays states there that it became obvious that the integration of the many new results in the area of proof theory would have required a complete reorganization of the book, i.e. that the inclusion of the intermediately found new results in the area of proof theory turned out to be unobtainable by a revision, but would have required a complete reorganization of the entire textbook. We document that - even after the need for a complete reorganization had become obvious - this joint work went on to a considerable extent. Moreover, we document when Hasenjaeger stayed in Zurich to assist Bernays in the completion of the 2nd edn. In May 2017, we identified an incorrectly filed text in Bernays scientific legacy at the archive of the ETH Zurich as a candidate for the beginning of the revoked draft for the 1st edn. or of a revoked draft for the 2nd edn. In a partial presentation and careful investigation of this text we gather only some minor evidence that this text is the beginning of the nearly completed draft of the 1st edn., but ample evidence that this text is part of the work of Hasenjaeger and Bernays on the 2nd edn. We provide some evidence that this work has covered a complete reorganization of the entire 1st vol., including a completely new version of its last chapter on the iota.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem - an encyclopedia article

Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem provides a constructive characterization of derivability in first-order predicate logic by means of sentential logic. Sometimes it is simply called "Herbrand's Theorem", but the longer name is preferable as there are other important "Herbrand theorems" and Herbrand himself called it "Théorème fondamental". It was ranked by Bernays [1957] as follows: "In its proof-theoretic form, Herbrand's Theorem can be seen as the central theorem of predicate logic. It expresses the relation of predicate logic to propositional logic in a concise and felicitous form." And by Heijenoort [1967]: "Let me say simply, in conclusion, that Begriffsschrift [Frege, 1879], Löwenheim's paper [1915], and Chapter 5 of Herbrand's thesis [1930] are the three cornerstones of modern logic." Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem occurs in Chapter 5 of his PhD thesis [1930] --- entitled Recherches sur la théorie de la démonstration --- submitted by Jacques Herbrand (1908-1931) in 1929 at the University of Paris. Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem is, together with Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Gentzen's Hauptsatz, one of the most influential theorems of modern logic. Because of its complexity, Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem is typically fouled up in textbooks beyond all recognition. As we are convinced that there is still much more to learn for the future from this theorem than many logicians know, we will focus on the true message and its practical impact. This requires a certain amount of streamlining of Herbrand's work, which will be compensated by some remarks on the actual historical facts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The RatioLog Project: Rational Extensions of Logical Reasoning

Higher-level cognition includes logical reasoning and the ability of question answering with common sense. The RatioLog project addresses the problem of rational reasoning in deep question answering by methods from automated deduction and cognitive computing. In a first phase, we combine techniques from information retrieval and machine learning to find appropriate answer candidates from the huge amount of text in the German version of the free encyclopedia "Wikipedia". In a second phase, an automated theorem prover tries to verify the answer candidates on the basis of their logical representations. In a third phase - because the knowledge may be incomplete and inconsistent -, we consider extensions of logical reasoning to improve the results. In this context, we work toward the application of techniques from human reasoning: We employ defeasible reasoning to compare the answers w.r.t. specificity, deontic logic, normative reasoning, and model construction. Moreover, we use integrated case-based reasoning and machine learning techniques on the basis of the semantic structure of the questions and answer candidates to learn giving the right answers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem: The Historical Facts and their Streamlining

Using Heijenoort's unpublished generalized rules of quantification, we discuss the proof of Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem in the form of Heijenoort's correction of Herbrand's "False Lemma" and present a didactic example. Although we are mainly concerned with the inner structure of Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem and the questions of its quality and its depth, we also discuss the outer questions of its historical context and why Bernays called it "the central theorem of predicate logic" and considered the form of its expression to be "concise and felicitous".

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Lectures on Jacques Herbrand as a Logician

We give some lectures on the work on formal logic of Jacques Herbrand, and sketch his life and his influence on automated theorem proving. The intended audience ranges from students interested in logic over historians to logicians. Besides the well-known correction of Herbrand's False Lemma by Goedel and Dreben, we also present the hardly known unpublished correction of Heijenoort and its consequences on Herbrand's Modus Ponens Elimination. Besides Herbrand's Fundamental Theorem and its relation to the Loewenheim-Skolem-Theorem, we carefully investigate Herbrand's notion of intuitionism in connection with his notion of falsehood in an infinite domain. We sketch Herbrand's two proofs of the consistency of arithmetic and his notion of a recursive function, and last but not least, present the correct original text of his unification algorithm with a new translation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

David Poole's Specificity Revised

In the middle of the 1980s, David Poole introduced a semantical, model-theoretic notion of specificity to the artificial-intelligence community. Since then it has found further applications in non-monotonic reasoning, in particular in defeasible reasoning. Poole tried to approximate the intuitive human concept of specificity, which seems to be essential for reasoning in everyday life with its partial and inconsistent information. His notion, however, turns out to be intricate and problematic, which --- as we show --- can be overcome to some extent by a closer approximation of the intuitive human concept of specificity. Besides the intuitive advantages of our novel specificity ordering over Poole's specificity relation in the classical examples of the literature, we also report some hard mathematical facts: Contrary to what was claimed before, we show that Poole's relation is not transitive. The present means to decide our novel specificity relation, however, show only a slight improvement over the known ones for Poole's relation, and further work is needed in this aspect.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Hilbert's epsilon as an Operator of Indefinite Committed Choice

Paul Bernays and David Hilbert carefully avoided overspecification of Hilbert's epsilon-operator and axiomatized only what was relevant for their proof-theoretic investigations. Semantically, this left the epsilon-operator underspecified. In the meanwhile, there have been several suggestions for semantics of the epsilon as a choice operator. After reviewing the literature on semantics of Hilbert's epsilon operator, we propose a new semantics with the following features: We avoid overspecification (such as right-uniqueness), but admit indefinite choice, committed choice, and classical logics. Moreover, our semantics for the epsilon supports proof search optimally and is natural in the sense that it does not only mirror some cases of referential interpretation of indefinite articles in natural language, but may also contribute to philosophy of language. Finally, we ask the question whether our epsilon within our free-variable framework can serve as a paradigm useful in the specification and computation of semantics of discourses in natural language.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A Self-Contained and Easily Accessible Discussion of the Method of Descente Infinie and Fermat's Only Explicitly Known Proof by Descente Infinie

We present the only proof of Pierre Fermat by descente infinie that is known to exist today. As the text of its Latin original requires active mathematical interpretation, it is more a proof sketch than a proper mathematical proof. We discuss descente infinie from the mathematical, logical, historical, linguistic, and refined logic-historical points of view. We provide the required preliminaries from number theory and develop a self-contained proof in a modern form, which nevertheless is intended to follow Fermat's ideas closely. We then annotate an English translation of Fermat's original proof with terms from the modern proof. Including all important facts, we present a concise and self-contained discussion of Fermat's proof sketch, which is easily accessible to laymen in number theory as well as to laymen in the history of mathematics, and which provides new clarification of the Method of Descente Infinie to the experts in these fields. Last but not least, this paper fills a gap regarding the easy accessibility of the subject.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Progress in Computer-Assisted Inductive Theorem Proving by Human-Orientedness and Descente Infinie?

In this short position paper we briefly review the development history of automated inductive theorem proving and computer-assisted mathematical induction. We think that the current low expectations on progress in this field result from a faulty narrow-scope historical projection. Our main motivation is to explain--on an abstract but hopefully sufficiently descriptive level--why we believe that future progress in the field is to result from human-orientedness and descente infinie.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

lim+, delta+, and Non-Permutability of beta-Steps

Using a human-oriented formal example proof of the (lim+) theorem, i.e. that the sum of limits is the limit of the sum, which is of value for reference on its own, we exhibit a non-permutability of beta-steps and delta+-steps (according to Smullyan's classification), which is not visible with non-liberalized delta-rules and not serious with further liberalized delta-rules, such as the delta++-rule. Besides a careful presentation of the search for a proof of (lim+) with several pedagogical intentions, the main subject is to explain why the order of beta-steps plays such a practically important role in some calculi.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access