István Németi

Non-Turing Computations Via Malament-Hogarth Space-Times

We investigate the Church–Kalmár–Kreisel–Turing theses theoretical concerning (necessary) limitations of future computers and of deductive sciences, in view of recent results of classical general relativity theory. We argue that (i) there are several distinguished Church–Turing-type theses (not only one) and (ii) validity of some of these theses depend on the background physical theory we choose to use. In particular, if we choose classical general relativity theory as our background theory, then the above-mentioned limitations (predicted by these theses) become no more necessary, hence certain forms of the Church–Turing thesis cease to be valid (in general relativity). (For other choices of the background theory the answer might be different.) We also look at various “obstacles” to computing a nonrecursive function (by relying on relativistic phenomena) published in the literature and show that they can be avoided (by improving the “design” of our future computer). We also ask ourselves, how all this reflects on the arithmetical hierarchy and the analytical hierarchy of uncomputable functions.

Logic of Space-Time and Relativity Theory

2 Special relativity 4 2.1 Motivation for special relativistic kinematics in place of Newtonian kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.3 Axiomatization Specrel of special relativity in first-order logic 15 2.4 Characteristic differences between Newtonian and special relativistic kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.5 Explicit description of all models of Specrel, basic logical investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.6 Observer-independent geometries in relativity theory; duality and definability theory of logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 2.7 Conceptual analysis and “reverse relativity” . . . . . . . . . . 59

A logic road from special relativity to general relativity

We present a streamlined axiom system of special relativity in first-order logic. From this axiom system we “derive” an axiom system of general relativity in two natural steps. We will also see how the axioms of special relativity transform into those of general relativity. This way we hope to make general relativity more accessible for the non-specialist.

Twin Paradox and the Logical Foundation of Relativity Theory

We study the foundation of space-time theory in the framework of first-order logic (FOL). Since the foundation of mathematics has been successfully carried through (via set theory) in FOL, it is not entirely impossible to do the same for space-time theory (or relativity). First we recall a simple and streamlined FOL-axiomatization Specrel of special relativity from the literature. Specrel is complete with respect to questions about inertial motion. Then we ask ourselves whether we can prove the usual relativistic properties of accelerated motion (e.g., clocks in acceleration) in Specrel. As it turns out, this is practically equivalent to asking whether Specrel is strong enough to “handle” (or treat) accelerated observers. We show that there is a mathematical principle called induction (IND) coming from real analysis which needs to be added to Specrel in order to handle situations involving relativistic acceleration. We present an extended version AccRel of Specrel which is strong enough to handle accelerated motion, in particular, accelerated observers. Among others, we show that~the Twin Paradox becomes provable in AccRel, but it is not provable without IND.

Logical Axiomatizations of Space-Time. Samples from the Literature

We study relativity theory as a theory in the sense of mathematical logic. We use first-order logic (FOL) as a framework to do so. We aim at an “analysis of the logical structure of relativity theories”. First we build up (the kinematics of) special relativity in FOL, then analyze it, and then we experiment with generalizations in the direction of general relativity. The present paper gives samples from an ongoing broader research project which in turn is part of a research direction going back to Reichenbach and others in the 1920’s. We also try to give some perspective on the literature related in a broader sense. In the perspective of the present work, axiomatization is not a final goal. Axiomatization is only a first step, a tool. The goal is something like a conceptual analysis of relativity in the framework of logic.

Axiomatizing Relativistic Dynamics without Conservation Postulates

A part of relativistic dynamics is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within first-order logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein’s famous Exa0= mc2. The connection of our geometrical axioms and the usual axioms on the conservation of mass, momentum and four-momentum is also investigated.

First-Order Logic Foundation of Relativity Theories

Motivation and perspective for an exciting new research direction interconnecting logic, spacetime theory, relativity—including such revolutionary areas as black hole physics, relativistic computers, new cosmology—are presented in this paper. We would like to invite the logician reader to take part in this grand enterprise of the new century. Besides general perspective and motivation, we present initial results in this direction.

On the Equational Theory of Representable Polyadic Equality Algebras

Among others we will prove that the equational theory of ω dimensional representable polyadic equality algebras (RPEA ω s) is not schema axiomatizable. This result is in interesting contrast with the Daigneault-Monk representation theorem, which states that the class of representable polyadic algebras is finite schema-axiomatizable (and hence the equational theory of this class is finite schema-axiomatizable. as well). We will also show that the complexity of the equational theory of RPEA ω is also extremely high in the recursion theoretic sense. Finally, comparing the present negative results with the positive results of Ildiko Sain and Viktor Gyuris [12], the following methodological conclusions will be drawn: The negative properties of polyadic (equality) algebras can be removed by switching from what we call the “polyadic algebraic paradigm” to the “cylindric algebraic paradigm”.

Using Isabelle/HOL to Verify First-Order Relativity Theory

Logicians at the Rényi Mathematical Institute in Budapest have spent several years developing versions of relativity theory (special, general, and other variants) based wholly on first-order logic, and have argued in favour of the physical decidability, via exploitation of cosmological phenomena, of formally unsolvable questions such as the Halting Problem and the consistency of set theory. As part of a joint project, researchers at Sheffield have recently started generating rigorous machine-verified versions of the Hungarian proofs, so as to demonstrate the soundness of their work. In this paper, we explain the background to the project and demonstrate a first-order proof in Isabelle/HOL of the theorem “no inertial observer can travel faster than light”. This approach to physical theories and physical computability has several pay-offs, because the precision with which physical theories need to be formalised within automated proof systems forces us to recognise subtly hidden assumptions.

The equational theory of Kleene lattices

Languages and families of binary relations are standard interpretations of Kleene algebras. It is known that the equational theories of these interpretations coincide and that the free Kleene algebra is representable both as a relation and as a language algebra. We investigate the identities valid in these interpretations when we expand the signature of Kleene algebras with the meet operation. In both cases, meet is interpreted as intersection. We prove that in this case, there are more identities valid in language algebras than in relation algebras (exactly three more in some sense), and representability of the free algebra holds for the relational interpretation but fails for the language interpretation. However, if we exclude the identity constant from the algebras when we add meet, then the equational theories of the relational and language interpretations remain the same, and the free algebra is representable as a language algebra, too. The moral is that only the identity constant behaves differently in the language and the relational interpretations, and only meet makes this visible.