{"title":"指称语义学驱动简单同源性?","authors":"Davide Barbarossa","doi":"arxiv-2409.11566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We look at the proofs of a fragment of Linear Logic as a whole: in fact,\nLinear Logic's coherent semantics interprets the proofs of a given formula $A$\nas faces of an abstract simplicial complex, thus allowing us to see the set of\nthe (interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ as a geometrical space, not just a\nset. This point of view has never been really investigated. For a ``webbed''\ndenotational semantics -- say the relational one --, it suffices to down-close\nthe set of (the interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ in order to give rise to\nan abstract simplicial complex whose faces do correspond to proofs of $A$.\nSince this space comes triangulated by construction, a natural geometrical\nproperty to consider is its homology. However, we immediately stumble on a\nproblem: if we want the homology to be invariant w.r.t. to some notion of\ntype-isomorphism, we are naturally led to consider the homology functor acting,\nat the level of morphisms, on ``simplicial relations'' rather than simplicial\nmaps as one does in topology. The task of defining the homology functor on this\nmodified category can be achieved by considering a very simple monad, which is\nalmost the same as the power-set monad; but, doing so, we end up considering\nnot anymore the homology of the original space, but rather of its\ntransformation under the action of the monad. Does this transformation keep the\nhomology invariant ? Is this transformation meaningful from a geometrical or\nlogical/computational point of view ?","PeriodicalId":501306,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Denotational semantics driven simplicial homology?\",\"authors\":\"Davide Barbarossa\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2409.11566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We look at the proofs of a fragment of Linear Logic as a whole: in fact,\\nLinear Logic's coherent semantics interprets the proofs of a given formula $A$\\nas faces of an abstract simplicial complex, thus allowing us to see the set of\\nthe (interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ as a geometrical space, not just a\\nset. This point of view has never been really investigated. For a ``webbed''\\ndenotational semantics -- say the relational one --, it suffices to down-close\\nthe set of (the interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ in order to give rise to\\nan abstract simplicial complex whose faces do correspond to proofs of $A$.\\nSince this space comes triangulated by construction, a natural geometrical\\nproperty to consider is its homology. However, we immediately stumble on a\\nproblem: if we want the homology to be invariant w.r.t. to some notion of\\ntype-isomorphism, we are naturally led to consider the homology functor acting,\\nat the level of morphisms, on ``simplicial relations'' rather than simplicial\\nmaps as one does in topology. The task of defining the homology functor on this\\nmodified category can be achieved by considering a very simple monad, which is\\nalmost the same as the power-set monad; but, doing so, we end up considering\\nnot anymore the homology of the original space, but rather of its\\ntransformation under the action of the monad. Does this transformation keep the\\nhomology invariant ? Is this transformation meaningful from a geometrical or\\nlogical/computational point of view ?\",\"PeriodicalId\":501306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - MATH - Logic\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - MATH - Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.11566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - MATH - Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.11566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
We look at the proofs of a fragment of Linear Logic as a whole: in fact,
Linear Logic's coherent semantics interprets the proofs of a given formula $A$
as faces of an abstract simplicial complex, thus allowing us to see the set of
the (interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ as a geometrical space, not just a
set. This point of view has never been really investigated. For a ``webbed''
denotational semantics -- say the relational one --, it suffices to down-close
the set of (the interpretations of the) proofs of $A$ in order to give rise to
an abstract simplicial complex whose faces do correspond to proofs of $A$.
Since this space comes triangulated by construction, a natural geometrical
property to consider is its homology. However, we immediately stumble on a
problem: if we want the homology to be invariant w.r.t. to some notion of
type-isomorphism, we are naturally led to consider the homology functor acting,
at the level of morphisms, on ``simplicial relations'' rather than simplicial
maps as one does in topology. The task of defining the homology functor on this
modified category can be achieved by considering a very simple monad, which is
almost the same as the power-set monad; but, doing so, we end up considering
not anymore the homology of the original space, but rather of its
transformation under the action of the monad. Does this transformation keep the
homology invariant ? Is this transformation meaningful from a geometrical or
logical/computational point of view ?