Mathematical Logic

Turing’s Deep Field: Visualizing the Computational Universe

Posted in Complexity, Computability, Universality and Unsolvability, Computer Science, Foundations of Computation, Foundations of Math, Mathematical Logic on January 5th, 2012 by Hector Zenil – Be the first to comment

I generated this image in the course of an investigation of the distribution of runtimes of programs in relation to the lengths of mathematical proofs, the results of which are being published in my paper bearing the title “Computer Runtimes and the Length of Proofs with an Algorithmic Probabilistic Application to Optimal Waiting Times in Automatic Theorem Proving” Volume 7160 of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science series (LNCS), a festschrift for Cristian Calude.

The preprint is now available online in the ArXiv here. The paper shows that as theoretically predicted, most machines either stop quickly or never halt. It also suggests how a theoretical result for halting times may be used to predict the number of random theorems (dis)proven in a random axiom system –see the section I’ve called “Gödel meets Turing in the computational universe”.

Turing View of The Computational Universe

The plot was the winning image in this year’s Kroto Institute Image Competition, in the Computational Imagery category titled “Runtime Space in a Peano Curve”, it shows the calculation of the distribution of runtimes from simulating (4n+2)^(4n) = 10000 Turing machines with 2 symbols and n=2 states (of a total of more than 10^12 simulated Turing machines with up to n=4 states) following a quasi-lexicographical order in a Peano curve preserving–as far as possible–the distance between 2 machines arranged in a 2-dimensional array from a 1-dimensional enumeration of Turing machines.

In the image each point or cluster of points represents a Turing machine or a group of Turing machines, and the color is determined by a spectrum encoding their halting runtimes–the lighter the square the sooner the machine entered the halting state. White cells represent machines that are proven to halt in infinite time. Red cells show the Turing machines that take longer to halt (popularly called Busy Beavers). Knowing the values of the Busy Beaver functions allows us to identify the machines that never halt (depicted in white). The image is noncomputable, meaning that the process cannot be arbitrarily extended because of the undecidability of the halting problem (i.e. there is no procedure for ascertaining the color of the following pixels to zoom out the picture and cover a larger fraction of the computational universe). Put it in the words of crystilogic,

What you’re looking at is a subset of descriptions of all possible things, and some impossible things. This is possibility and reality compressed into an image.

Turing machines with an arbitrary number of states can encode any possible mathematical problem and are therefore perfect compressors of the known, the yet to be known, and even the unknowable (due to the undecidability of the halting problem).

This is how the image looks like as displayed in the stairway of the Kroto Research Institute in the UK:

Some postcards with the winning image were printed and they can be sent to scholar or enthusiasts upon request sending an email to hectorz[at] labores.eu.

I want to dedicate this prize to my former thesis advisor Jean-Paul Delahaye who suggested me the Peano arrangement as a packing for my visual results of halting times. And also to Cristian Calude who co-advised me all along my PhD thesis and who encouraged me to publish this paper and what better place to do so than for his festschrift.

I’m releasing the images under an open licence in honour of the Turing Year, so that it may be used for any artistic illustration of some of Turing’s main results (the halting problem) or for any other purpose in any medium.

Postcards of the winning image are also available upon request. Just send an email requesting 1 or more postcards to hectorz [at] labores.eu or to let him know (if you can) that you will be using any of the images (or if you need better resolution versions).

Collections of axioms and information on theories dependency

Posted in Foundations of Math, Mathematical Logic on March 3rd, 2007 by Hector Zenil – Be the first to comment

List of Axioms from Computer Science Department, University of Miami
Documentation, Computer Science Department, University of Miami
List of axioms collected from Wikipedia.
MBase: A Mathematical Knowledge Base. A collection of definitions, theorems and proofs.
The Mathematical Atlas.
Methamath.
Proof symbolic visualizations, University of Texas.

On single and shortest axioms for Boolean logic

Posted in Foundations of Math, Mathematical Logic on March 3rd, 2007 by Hector Zenil – 3 Comments

Both the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce in 1880 and the American logician H. M. Sheffer in 1913 realized that the truth-functions of elementary logic could all be defined from a single operation. The Sheffer stroke, also known as the Nand operation, is a logical operator with the following meaning: p Nand q is true if and only if not both p and q are true. It is named for Henry M. Sheffer, who proved that all the usual operators of Boolean algebra (Not, And, Or, Implies) could be expressed in terms of Nand. There is another logical operator which is able to express all the others: Nor [A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants. Transactions of the American Mathematical Soc. 14 (1913), pp. 481-488]. In 1933, Edward Huntington proposed an alternative set of axioms for Boolean algebra, consisting of associativity and commutativity plus Huntington’s axiom:

!( !x [Or] y) [Or] ( !( !x [Or] !y ) = x

Huntington showed that the three axioms together imply the axioms of Boolean algebra. Sometime after, Herbert Ellis Robbins also found a single axiom:

!( !( x [Or] y) [Or] ( y [Or] !x )) = x

that he conjectured (when taken  together with associativity and commutativity) implied that of Huntington, so that Robbins algebras are equivalent to Boolean algebras. The proof was finally delivered in 1996 by William McCune, using his theorem prover EQP. See:

Gina Kolata, Computer Math Proof Shows Reasoning Power, The New York Times, 1996.

Tutorial on Automatic Reasoning and Theorem Proving related to the course MAT 504, Topics in Logic, for the Spring term of 1997 from prof. Edward Nelson

As a result of an exhaustive and systematic computer exploration undertaken by Stephen Wolfram looking for the shortest single axiom equivalent to the axioms of Boolean algebra. Wolfram found among 288684 a single formula (up to other equivalent of the same size) with 6 Nands and 3 variables. It then turns out that Wolfram’s axiom:

(((x [Nand] y) [Nand] z) [Nand] (x [Nand] ((x [Nand] z) [Nand] x))) = z

is equivalent to the axioms of Boolean algebra and the shortest (in the number of operators and variables) single axiom equivalent to Boolean algebra (Wolfram 2002, pp. 808-811 and 1174).

In the NKS notes at the end of the book there is an account that around 1949 Carew Meredith found the axiom system (NKS page 1173):

f[f[a, f[b, c]], f[a, f[b, c]]] = f[f[f[c, a], a],f[f[b, a], a]]f[f[a, a], f[b, a]] ==a

And in 1967 George Spencer Brown found:

f[f[a, a], f[f[b, b], b]] ==af[a, f[b, c]] = f[f[f[f[c, c], a], f[f[b, b], a]], f[f[f[c, c], a], f[f[b, b], a]]]

and again Meredith in 1969:

f[a, f[b, f[a, c]]] = f[a, f[b, f[b, c]]]f[f[a, a], f[b, a]] = af[a, b] == f[b, a]

Carew Meredith spent a long time studying somewhat similar forms. Meredith’s interest in short axioms came originally from Lukasiewicz.

More references:

More bibliographical references (Meredith and Prior 1968 and Meredith 1969b are the main ones on equational logic, and Meredith 1951 contains the six-character single axiom that Prior described as ‘sensational’):

  • - Meredith, C.A. 1951. ‘On an Extended System of the Propositional Calculus’. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. 54 Sect. A, 37-47.
  • - Meredith, C.A. 1953a. ‘Single Axioms for the Systems (C,N), (C, 0), and (A, N) of the Two-Valued Propositional Calculus’. Journal of Computing Systems, vol. 1, 155-164.
  • - Meredith, C.A. 1953b. ‘A Single Axiom of Positive Logic’. Journal of Computing Systems, vol. 1, 169-170.
  • - Meredith, C.A. 1958. ‘The Dependence of an Axiom of Lukasiewicz’. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 87, 54.
  • - Meredith, C.A. 1966. ‘Postulates for Implicational Calculi’. Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 31, 7-9.
  • - Meredith, C.A. 1969b. ‘Equational Postulates for the Sheffer Stroke’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 10, 266-270.
  • - Meredith, C.A., Prior, A.N. 1963. ‘Notes on the Axiomatics of the Propositional Calculus’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 4, 171-187.
  • - Meredith, C.A., Prior, A.N. 1968. ‘Equational Logic’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 9, 212-226.