On the Semantics of Intensionality
In this paper we propose a categorical theory of intensionality. We first revisit the notion of intensionality, and discuss its relevance to logic and computer science. It turns out that 1-category theory is not the most appropriate vehicle for studying the interplay of extension and intension. We are thus led to consider the P-categories of Čubrić, Dybjer and Scott, which are categories only up to a partial equivalence relation (PER). In this setting, we introduce a new P-categorical construct, that of exposures. Exposures are very nearly functors, except that they do not preserve the PERs of the P-category. Inspired by the categorical semantics of modal logic, we begin to develop their theory. Our leading examples demonstrate that an exposure is an abstraction of well-behaved intensional devices, such as Gödel numberings. The outcome is a unifying framework in which classic results of Kleene, Gödel, Tarski and Rice find concise, clear formulations, and where each logical device or assumption involved in their proofs can be expressed in the same algebraic manner.
I would like to thank my doctoral supervisor, Samson Abramsky, for suggesting the topic of this paper, and for his help in understanding the issues around intensionality and intensional recursion.
- 11.Fitting, M.: Intensional logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2015 edn. (2015). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/logic-intensional/
- 13.Kavvos, G.A.: Kleene’s two kinds of recursion. CoRR abs/1602.06220 (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06220
- 16.Lawvere, F.W.: Diagonal arguments and cartesian closed categories. Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 15, 1–13 (2006). http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/reprints/articles/15/tr15abs.html
- 17.Longley, J.R.: Realizability toposes and language semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. College of Science and Engineering. School of Informatics (1995). http://www.lfcs.inf.ed.ac.uk/reports/95/ECS-LFCS-95-332/
- 18.Longley, J.R.: Notions of computability at higher types I. In: Logic Colloquium 2000: Proceedings of the Annual European Summer Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic. Lecture Notes in Logic, 23–31 July Paris, France, vol. 19, pp. 32–142. A. K. Peters (2005)Google Scholar
- 21.van Oosten, J.: Realizability: An Introduction to its Categorical Side, vol. 152. Elsevier (2008). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/bookseries/0049237X/152
- 23.Smith, B.C.: Reflection and semantics in LISP. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 1984), pp. 23–35. ACM Press, New York (1984). https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/800017.800513