Source author record

Murdoch Gabbay

Murdoch Gabbay appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
4topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

Semitopology: a topological approach to decentralised collaborative action

We introduce semitopology, a generalisation of point-set topology that removes the restriction that intersections of open sets need necessarily be open. The intuition is that points represent participants in a decentralised system, and open sets represent collections of participants that collectively have the authority to collaborate to update their local state; we call this an actionable coalition. Examples of actionable coalition include: majority stakes in proof-of-stake blockchains; communicating peers in peer-to-peer networks; and even pedestrians working together to not bump into one another in the street. Where actionable coalitions exist, they have in common that: collaborations are local (updating the states of the participants in the coalition, but not immediately those of the whole system); collaborations are voluntary (up to and including breaking rules); participants may be heterogeneous in their computing power or in their goals (not all pedestrians want to go to the same place); participants can choose with whom to collaborate; and they are not assumed subject to permission or synchronisation by a central authority. We develop a topology-flavoured mathematics that goes some way to explaining how and why these complex decentralised systems can exhibit order, and gives us new ways to understand existing practical implementations.

preprint2012arXiv

Denotation of syntax and metaprogramming in contextual modal type theory (CMTT)

The modal logic S4 can be used via a Curry-Howard style correspondence to obtain a lambda-calculus. Modal (boxed) types are intuitively interpreted as `closed syntax of the calculus'. This lambda-calculus is called modal type theory --- this is the basic case of a more general contextual modal type theory, or CMTT. CMTT has never been given a denotational semantics in which modal types are given denotation as closed syntax. We show how this can indeed be done, with a twist. We also use the denotation to prove some properties of the system.

preprint2011arXiv

From nominal sets binding to functions and lambda-abstraction: connecting the logic of permutation models with the logic of functions

Permissive-Nominal Logic (PNL) extends first-order predicate logic with term-formers that can bind names in their arguments. It takes a semantics in (permissive-)nominal sets. In PNL, the forall-quantifier or lambda-binder are just term-formers satisfying axioms, and their denotation is functions on nominal atoms-abstraction. Then we have higher-order logic (HOL) and its models in ordinary (i.e. Zermelo-Fraenkel) sets; the denotation of forall or lambda is functions on full or partial function spaces. This raises the following question: how are these two models of binding connected? What translation is possible between PNL and HOL, and between nominal sets and functions? We exhibit a translation of PNL into HOL, and from models of PNL to certain models of HOL. It is natural, but also partial: we translate a restricted subsystem of full PNL to HOL. The extra part which does not translate is the symmetry properties of nominal sets with respect to permutations. To use a little nominal jargon: we can translate names and binding, but not their nominal equivariance properties. This seems reasonable since HOL---and ordinary sets---are not equivariant. Thus viewed through this translation, PNL and HOL and their models do different things, but they enjoy non-trivial and rich subsystems which are isomorphic.