Re:Computability Logic

Giorgi,

I think the very first thing to do is to examine an axiomatisation of 
the smallest fragment of computability logic and see how our methods 
perform. I mean: just a page with the syntax and all the axioms. 
Could you point us to it, or, much better, could you post such a 
thing on Frogs? In this way we have a simple and common object to 
discuss.

-Alessio

At 4:16 -0400 18.4.04, Giorgi Japaridze wrote:
>Hello everyone from a newcomer to Frogs. Alessio has repeatedly
>suggested to me to advertise my work here, and apparently this is
>what I am doing right now. Well, having been raised in a communist
>country, I know very little about the art of advertising, so I am just
>providing the URL for a website devoted to *computability logic*,
>hoping that someone might click on it at leisure:
>
>               http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html
>
>Very briefly, the ambition of computability logic - an infant that has
>not even celebrated its official 1-year birthday yet - is that it is a formal
>theory of computability in the same sense as classical logic is a formal
>theory of truth. Equivalently, it is a logic of computational (and/or
>informational) tasks and resources.
>
>So far my main efforts have been focused on semantics, but what is
>already known about the syntax of computability logic gives a serious
>appearance that it inherently calls for deep inference. If so,
>computability logic could make its modest contribution to providing
>semantical/philosophical backing for the activities of this group.
>In turn, the former might immensely benefit from adopting some
>present or future techniques of the calculus of structures. The current
>versions of axiomatizations of computability logic are what you folks
>would (adequately) call "hand tuned".
>
>Regards,
>- Giorgi