BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Rasoul Ramezanian appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
We introduce an axiomatization for the notion of computation. Based on the idea of Brouwer choice sequences, we construct a model, denoted by $E$, which satisfies our axioms and $E \models \mathrm{ P \neq NP}$. In other words, regarding "effective computability" in Brouwer intuitionism viewpoint, we show $\mathrm{ P \neq NP}$.
Mechanism design is concerned with settings where a policymaker (or social planner) faces the problem of aggregating the announced preferences of multiple agents into a collective (or social), system-wide decision. One of the most important ways for aggregating preference that has been used in multi-agent systems is election. In an election, the aim is to select the candidate who reflects the common will of society. Despite the importance of this subject, in some situations, the result of the election does not respect the purpose of those who execute it and the election leads to dissatisfaction of a large amount of people and in some cases causes polarization in societies. To analyze these situations, we introduce a new notion called social disappointment and we show which voting rules can prevent it in elections. In addition, we propose new protocols to prevent social disappointment in elections. A version of the impossibility theorem is proved regarding social disappointment in elections, showing that there is no voting rule for four or more candidates that simultaneously satisfies avoiding social disappointment and Condorcet winner criteria. We give conditions under which one of our new protocols always selects the Condorcet winner under the assumption of single peakedness. We empirically compare our protocols with seven well-known other voting protocols and observe that our protocols are capable of preventing social disappointment and are more robust against manipulations.
In contrast to other constructivist schools, for Brouwer, the notion of "constructive object" is not restricted to be presented as `words' in some finite alphabet of symbols, and choice sequences which are non-predetermined and unfinished objects are legitimate constructive objects. In this way, Brouwer's constructivism goes beyond Turing computability. Further, in 1999, the term hypercomputation was introduced by J. Copeland. Hypercomputation refers to models of computation which go beyond Church-Turing thesis. In this paper, we propose a hypercomputation called persistently evolutionary Turing machines based on Brouwer's notion of being constructive.
The spread of rumors, which are known as unverified statements of uncertain origin, may cause tremendous number of social problems. If it would be possible to identify factors affecting spreading a rumor (such as agents' desires, trust network, etc.), then this could be used to slowdown or stop its spreading. A computational model that includes rumor features and the way a rumor is spread among society's members, based on their desires, is therefore needed. Our research is centering on the relation between the homogeneity of the society and rumor convergence in it and result shows that the homogeneity of the society is a necessary condition for convergence of the spreading rumor.
This article introduce a new model theory call non-predetermined model theory where functions and relations need not to be determined already and they are determined through time.
We argue that the notion of epistemic \emph{possible worlds} in constructivism (intuitionism) is not as the same as it is in classic view, and there are possibilities, called non-predetermined worlds, which are ignored in (classic) Epistemic Logic. Regarding non-predetermined possibilities, we propose a constructive epistemic logic and prove soundness and completeness theorems for it. We extend the proposed logic by adding a public announcement operator. To declare the significance of our work, we formulate the well-known Surprise Exam Paradox, $\mathbf{SEP}$, via the proposed constructive epistemic logic and then put forward a solution for the paradox. We clarify that the puzzle in the $\mathbf{SEP}$ is because of students'(wrong) assumption that the day of the exam is necessarily predetermined.
In the manuscript titled "Computation environment (1)", we introduced a notion called computation environment as an interactive model for computation and complexity theory. In this model, Turing machines are not autonomous entities and find their meanings through the interaction between a computist and a universal processor, and thus due to evolution of the universal processor, the meanings of Turing machines could change. In this manuscript, we discuss persistently evolutionary intensions. We introduce a new semantics, called persistently evolutionary semantics, for predicate logic that the meaning of function and predicate symbols are not already predetermined, and predicate and function symbols find their meaning through the interaction of the subject with the language. In (classic) model theory, the mathematician who studies a structure is assumed as a god who lives out of the structure, and the study of the mathematician does not effect the structure. The meaning of predicate and function symbols are assumed to be independent of the mathematician who does math. The persistently evolutionary semantics could be regarded as a start of "Interactive Model Theory" as a new paradigm in model theory (similar to the paradigm of interactive computation). In interactive model theory, we suppose that a mathematical structure should consist of two parts: 1) an intelligent agent (a subject), and 2) an environment (language), and every things should find its meaning through the interaction of these two parts. We introduce persistently evolutionary Kripke structure for propositional and predicate logic. Also, we propose a persistently evolutionary Kripke semantics for the notion of computation, where the intension of a code of a Turing machine persistently evolve. We show that in this Kripke model the subject can never know P = NP.
To scrutinize notions of computation and time complexity, we introduce and formally define an interactive model for computation that we call it the \emph{computation environment}. A computation environment consists of two main parts: i) a universal processor and ii) a computist who uses the computability power of the universal processor to perform effective procedures. The notion of computation finds it meaning, for the computist, through his \underline{interaction} with the universal processor. We are interested in those computation environments which can be considered as alternative for the real computation environment that the human being is its computist. These computation environments must have two properties: 1- being physically plausible, and 2- being enough powerful. Based on Copeland' criteria for effective procedures, we define what a \emph{physically plausible} computation environment is. We construct two \emph{physically plausible} and \emph{enough powerful} computation environments: 1- the Turing computation environment, denoted by $E_T$, and 2- a persistently evolutionary computation environment, denoted by $E_e$, which persistently evolve in the course of executing the computations. We prove that the equality of complexity classes $\mathrm{P}$ and $\mathrm{NP}$ in the computation environment $E_e$ conflicts with the \underline{free will} of the computist. We provide an axiomatic system $\mathcal{T}$ for Turing computability and prove that ignoring just one of the axiom of $\mathcal{T}$, it would not be possible to derive $\mathrm{P=NP}$ from the rest of axioms. We prove that the computist who lives inside the environment $E_T$, can never be confident that whether he lives in a static environment or a persistently evolutionary one.