Propositional Logics for the Lawvere Quantale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lawvere showed that generalised metric spaces are categories enriched over $[0, \infty]$, the quantale of the positive extended reals. The statement of enrichment is a quantitative analogue of being a preorder. Towards seeking a logic for quantitative metric reasoning, we investigate three $[0,\infty]$-valued propositional logics over the Lawvere quantale. The basic logical connectives shared by all three logics are those that can be interpreted in any quantale, viz finite conjunctions and disjunctions, tensor (addition for the Lawvere quantale) and linear implication (here a truncated subtraction); to these we add, in turn, the constant $1$ to express integer values, and scalar multiplication by a non-negative real to express general affine combinations. Quantitative equational logic can be interpreted in the third logic if we allow inference systems instead of axiomatic systems. For each of these logics we develop a natural deduction system which we prove to be decidably complete w.r.t. the quantale-valued semantics. The heart of the completeness proof makes use of the Motzkin transposition theorem. Consistency is also decidable; the proof makes use of Fourier-Motzkin elimination of linear inequalities. Strong completeness does not hold in general, even (as is known) for theories over finitely-many propositional variables; indeed even an approximate form of strong completeness in the sense of Pavelka or Ben Yaacov -- provability up to arbitrary precision -- does not hold. However, we can show it for theories axiomatized by a (not necessarily finite) set of judgements in normal form over a finite set of propositional variables when we restrict to models that do not map variables to $\infty$; the proof uses Hurwicz's general form of the Farkas' Lemma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".