TOPOCOGNITIVE DYNAMICS

Javier Anta

Final Undergrade Work. June 2015

ABSTRACT
In this paper we intend to connect a wide range of languages natural or symbolic ones- with spatial
structures mathematically expressed, in order to show how spatial realities can involve linguistic
phenomena and also in the contrary. It has as a consequence the fact that the limit between these
both fields it is not very clear.

KEY WORDS
Cognitive Philosophy, spatial cognition, topological logics, cognitive linguistic, topology,
HoTT, extensionality, intentionality.

All changes of place in the spiritual world are

affected by changes of state of the interiors, which
means that change of place is nothing else than
change of states
Emmanuel Swedenborg

1. INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this paper is show that an intensional object is cognitively equivalent
to an extensional objet; that also mean that a particular kind of language or a fragment of
it a sentence- is able to be intertranslated from an informational-cognitive point of view
to a particular kind of spatial structure. Both languages and spaces are interrelated in
different planes of complexity-abstraction: in chapter 2 we will see how logics are close
to topological realities as well as in chapter 3 how natural languages is related to manifold
structures. All of this serve to the goal of create a theory of cognitive types that connect
in several orders the space with the language, the extensional with the intensional.

2. LOGICALISING TOPOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTS

2.1. A toposemic-epistemic language: the logic of TOPOLOGIC.

The logical system of TOPOLOGIC was created 20 years ago by logician as Lawrence
Moss and Rohit Parikh, and developed until now. Today, we can recognise it as the most
useful logical language as to express topological realities.
We can define shortly its syntax by:
::= p K
Considering the dual bimodality and K as independently interdefinable: is equal
to as well as K can be expressed by L.
Definition 1. A topological space is a pair = X, O where X is an non-empty set and
O is a topology that (1) is not empty either and X O (2) If U, V O then UVO and
(3) if UiiI then UiI UiO.
The elements of O is called opens, and it complements, closed. Each open N such that x
N will be called open neighborhood of x, and obviously x X O. A topology will
be an alexandrov topology or T0 if there is an open neighborhood around each pont.
Definition 2. A subset space is a = X, O, i where X, O is subset frame in which X
is a set not empty of points and O is a family of subsets of X, called opens. Beside we
consider intuitively X O, it is not strictly necessary as it is for topologies. We have i as
a map At P(X). Then
1. For all proposition p, i (p) O
2. i() = i()
3. i( ) = i() i()
4. i() =

UQ entails Q i() y Q O

5. i(K) =

Q entails Q is a neighborhood of each x i()

The sentences of this language would be made from the atomic proposition closed under
, , K and . We define a relation for p X and p u O on (X x O) and
recursion on as:
U, p q

iff

p i(q)

U, p iff

U, p y p, u

U, p

iff

U, p

U, p K

iff

U, p for all q u

U, p L

iff

U, p for some q u

U, p

iff

U, p for all v O such that p U O

U, p

iff

U, p for some v O such that p U O

2.2.1. Relations between Topological and Kripkean Semantics

We can see how the modalities of TOPOLOGIC works in kripkean terms. Considering
the pair (U, p) where p U and U O.
According to Paririkh, the point p represent the actual word and the open U but could
be other thing than an open- means a determined observation on reality. Each of our
modalities entail a different relation of accessibility.

U
p

p
q

Image.1. Basic Components (p, U)

Image 2. Topogram representing L

Firstly, the relation of accesibility based on the dual modality K and L consist on capture
the informational properties on levels of words or similar ontological structures. On the
other hand, the dual and intend to express the dynamic among different observations.
-L is true in U, p for other word q U, even if the actual word is q instead p.
-K is true in U, p for all q within the same observation. That means that K is
true in a whole observation-region, relating observation with knowledge.
-The sentence is true in U, p if it is also true in a suborservation or refinementV which also contains p, such that V U.
-Its dual sentence , is true in all possible refinement conteined in U.

U
p

V
Image 3. Topogram satisfying

Image 4. Topogram satisfying

Lemma 3 (KRIPKEAN ISOMORPHISM OF TOPOLOGIC) For a topological model M

S4/5 there is a kripkean model Mk S4/5 with a mixed relation of accessibility reflexive
and transitive (S4) in one hand, and equivalence (S5: S4 and symmetry), on the othersuch that, for each sentence LTOP its verify that:
M, x

S4

iff Mk, xk

S4/S5

Demonstration: We define the relation of accessibility in our topological model M = ,

v with a topological space = X, O. We also define the relations of accessibility on the
correspondent kripkean model Mk = Wk, Rk, Rk, v where Wk = X as well as Rk Rk
X2 and Rk Rk W.
Starting with a topological model M = , i where = X, O , we define the kripkean
model Mk = Wk, Rk, Rk ,v so that:
1. Wk =

UO = X

2. For xi, xj Wk, xi Rkxj iff

Q O such that xi, xj Q

3. For wi, wj Wk, xi Rkxj

iff

O O such that wi, wj Q

Being Rk a reflexive-transitive relation:

4. For each tRt it is verified that if t Q, then t Q.

Being Rk a reflexive, transitive and symmetric (equivalence) relation:

5. For each tRt iff t, t Q O.

By induction on the grade of complexity of we see that M, x

6. M, x

p iff x i(p) = v(p) but Mk, x

iff Mk, xk

p iff x v(p)

(By recurrence on inductive hypothesis , , , )

4

7. M, x

K iff by definition M, x

and by inductive hypothesis Mk, x

and because Rk, is an equivalence relation, for all t such that xRk it is verified
that Mk, t
8. M, x

iff Mk, x

K.

L iff by definition M, x

and by inductive hypothesis Mk, x

and

because Rk, is an equivalence relation, for some t such that xRk it is verified
that Mk, t

9. M, x

iff Mk, x

iff x

L.

UO ; Q i(), Q O. M, t

for all t Q particularly M,

x , by inductive hypothesis Mk, t and by definition of Rk, for all t, such

that xRt, Mk, t equivalently Mk, x .
10. M, x

iff x

UO ; Q i(), Q O. M, t

for some t Q particularly

M, x , by inductive hypothesis Mk, t and by definition of Rk, for all t,

such that xRt, Mk, t equivalently Mk, x .
In the same way, there is a correspondence in a topological model M = X, O, v where
X = Wk: , X O for each kripkean model Mk = Wk, Rk, Rk ,v. If Q X such that
p: i(p) = Q, then Q O. Being x Q O and x such that xRkx, then Q X such
that x O and Q Q O. Considering steps 1-10 inversely, we can also demonstrate
the inverse direction of this lemma.
Q.E.D.

2.2.2 Epistemic properties and axioms of TOPOLOGIC

As an epistemological language, TOPOLOGIC take into account a wide variety of

properties not only concerning knowledge but also topological issues. We have claim that
his logic has an evident intuitionist bias that allow it this idiosyncratic approach to both
spatial and epistemic realities and connect them. We see:
The sentence is persistent in the whole if for all U, V, p, such that p V V, we
have that if U, p then V, p, .

The sentence is bi-persistent in the whole if for all U, V, p such that p V U, we

have that U, p iff V, p .
The reliability is the property which claim that a sentence cannot become false in any
place within the space where it is contained. Intuitively we see how has more
information that but the quality of this information is fewer, epistemologically
speaking. In the same way, K represent the plenty of information in a reality given.
-A sentence is reliable in a space if it verify the scheme K K.
-A sentence is everywhere or always reliable in a space if it K.
Among the main topological concepts that this language can express, we find:
-Open: i(A) is open iff the expression A KA hold in our space .
-Closed: i(A) is closed iff the expression LA A hold in our space .
-Density: i(A) is dense iff

LA hold in .

-No-where-dense: i(A) is no-where-dense iff LA hold in .

To provide an axiomatic for this language, it is necessary to t has been shown in this work
as the bimodality of TOPOLOGIC is a hybrid logical system where the dual works in
S4 as the dual K works in a S5 system.
K( ) (K K) ;

( ) ( )

K ;

Toporeflexive (T)

K KK ;

Topotransitive (S)

L KL ;

Topoeuclidean (5)

The both relations of accessibility are connected by the cross axiom:

K K ; or dualy L L
In addition, the atomic permanence axiom tell us that atomic A is true in a point
independently of the open-observation.
(A A) (A A)

Among the inference rules of this logic, we have modus ponens and necessitation for
both modalities:
6

Below there are important axioms for Directed Spaces and its derivated:
Axiomatic

Axiom

Scheme

Weak Direction (WD)

Union Axiom (UA)

L [ L KL( )]

CI

Weak Union (WU)

L L L [L L KL( )]

TOPOLOGIC

TOPOLOGIC (WD and UA) are complete and sound for Directed Spaces, which is a
type of space that for each p, U, V with p U and p V there is W O such that p
W, W (U V). (Georgatos ;1993)
It is easy to check the soundness of WD for Directed Spaces. Given U, x as well
as a V u such that V, x . We see that U, x , and U U. Given W O such
that p W U U. Since w v we have W, x . Then U, x. Since u is arbitrary,
U, x hold .
We do the same for UA: L [ L KL( )]. Supposing that x, U
satisfy the antecedent through U, y, and V such that U U, y U, y V U, x, U
and y, V . Given W = U V then W U. As conclusion, and given that each
point of W is either in U or in V, each point of W has a neighborhood that or makes
true the sentence x, W L.

2.2.3 TOPOLOGIC in Use: The logical knowledge of topological structures.

Now we will view how our toposemic logic works.

The Periodic Table of Elements1

Given a topological space X = h, he, li, be, b, c lr2, the set of atomics elements
of the Periodic Table, whose cardinality is 118: X= 118. X is a well ordered set and
numerable. We consider this space as an alexandrov space, so each x X has a
neighborhood (x) around it. Given O as the set of all the opens of X which also contains
X. Among the opens we have G = G1G18 for groups, P = P1 P7 for periods, B
= S, P, D, F for blocs and C = MT (metals), MD (metalloids), NM for categories;
therefore O = X, G, P, B, C, . Now, we check WD and UA on this space.
A. Weak Directness ( ). Given o, P being i(*) = (o), the oxygen
observed from the bloc P. The sentence holds since the neighborhood (o)
from block D also holds because D NM3 P2 G16; then the antecedent of
this axiom are satisfied. Then o, NM due to D NM, and shrunk one more
time o, P2 since NM P2 G16. It is easy to see how o, G16 and NM
G16, then NM . Therefore, we obtain o, P since NM is closed under
finite intersection. As we claimed before the axiom Weak Directedness an
Directed Space like the Periodic Table or X- is also an Finite Space, so then
(Parikh: 2010).
B. Union Axiom ( L [ L KL( )] Supposing the carbon
observed from the whole space c, X L we see how this is hold by c, X
L due to na, N , and also c, X since we are in a alexandrov space and
then (c) MD. Then, there is an c, X [ L KL( )] since ca, MD
and na, MD L and also c, X KL( ).
With WD and UA, we have check how the axiomatic of TOPOLOGIC is sound for the
topological space of the periodic table; both axioms reflect the two main topological
operation WD: intersection and UA: union-. A sentence of TOPOLOGIC reveals to us
where the information is, which mean epistemologically what and how our knowledge
is.

Non Metallic Elements

3. THE LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE OF SPACE

3.1. Grammaticalization Space-cognitive

In this chapter, we are going to explain how the natural or ordinary languages can manage
spatially the flow of information. We start from the more recent works of one of the father
of Cognitive Linguistic, Leonard Talmi, especially in Toward a Cognitive semantics I &
II.
His lessons are articulated around the idea that each language is a system of information,
which have two subsystem: the grammatical or closed class system, that structures the
contents; and the lexical or open class system, that manage the content in his basic
informational sense. The first one can express spatial term very abstract and complex;
and the second, the most intuitive ones. This is the reason why the grammar can be
expressed spatially by mean of topological concepts, as well as the lexical do the same
with geometrical ideas. Therefore, the semantic of each sentence synthetizing both
system- can be expressed spatially as a linguistic manifold.

GRAMMA

TOPOSEMIC
ANALYSIS

LANGUGE

MANIFOLD
LEXIC

TOPOLOGICAL
STRUCTURES

GEOMETRIC
BASE

Image 1. Fluxograme of Toposemic Analysis

An ordinary language can express very different spatial properties from different level of
structural abstraction. Here we have an approximate list of these capitation of notions.
Purelly Topological (Only Grammatical)
Element, inclusion, content-continent, part, region.
Topogeometrical (Gramma-Lexical)
Singularity-plurality, relative distance, movement, distributive structure.
Basically Geometrical (Esentially Lexical)

Quantified magnitudes, metrics, figure-contour, absolute distance.

Firstly, to study the linguistic manifold we have to recognize that we depend on a

intermediate discipline between topology and geometry, between the concrete and the
abstract. Our procedures, called toposemic analysis, will be focused on the level of
sentences. Considering as an example:
She pick up his keys, get out home and then, she start running
(1) Firstly we tell one region from the other. We just have an explicit open region H
meaning home, and possibly a neighborhood (k) around k, if we are in a T0 and a
neighborhood (H) around H, if we are in a T2 topology. It is interesting to treat the
agent she also as an open S, in order to clarify the process. This is the expandeddisposition step of the toposemic analysis.
(2) Secondly, we represent the action over the regions like successions. The action takes
from S including k as one of her interior elements, and then, S moving from the
interior of H to his closure.

3.2. The cognitive richness of the linguistic manifold.

It is highly important to take account of the capability belonging to any sentence made
up by a natural language- of create an image by a frame of information given:
diagramatization or particularly in our case, topogramatization. When we analyze
toposemically any sentence, the manifold that we extract can be expressed not only
thought the symbols of topology or toposemic logic, but also through images. That is
what make the toposemic analysis of natural language a strongly intuitive tool.
A topogram of our example announced above would be:
(1); (2): She (S) pick up her keys k,(3) get out home (H) and then, she start running
(1) S H (H) ; k H ; Initial State
SS

H
k

(H)

(2) k S H (H)
(3) k S (H) ; k S H ; Final State

Each manifold is not limited to just one topogram, there are a lots of way as to convey
imaginarily an ordinary sentence. It can be said in logical terms that a topogram is a visual
model that satisfy the meaning of one sentence. Nevertheless, when the meaning of a
linguistic frame becomes more and more complex by means of join many sentences or
even a paragraph- the usefulness of a topogram decrease rapidly and its semantic become
more suitable for being expressed with a symbolic system.
10

In English language, the semantic that entail phrasal verbs represent nearly an infinite
source of topological structures and easily entails a typology of linguistic manifold
depending on the type of phrasal verbs that structures the sentence. This may be due to
the fact that prepositions, and generally adpositions, are the main grammatical spatialstructurer.
Topological and manifold semantics is not only concerned about spatial structures but
also are able to express temporal and chronological realities, as we saw with our example.
Which means that this semantics has an essential dynamical component, which it is
observed among the element disposed by the toposemic analysis. In addition, it is
important to consider, relating to the psicognitive area, the attentive structure that connect
perceptively the spatial realities that we expanded with the cognitive agent.
In this way, we can represent the linguistic agency grammatical persons- by means of
topology, as the following topogram do.
-First person. The region where the relational
architecture it is expanded, but is not necessarily
the focus of attention. The plural form of this
person, as well as in the other agencies, is
represented by discontinued circle of the
neiborhood open around the first person open.

1
3
2

-Second person. The region contained in the

closed set of the first person region. This show the proximity of this agency respect to the
later.
-Third person. The region contained in the absolute complement of the set containing
either the first and second person.
(1) I told (2) you that (3) Joe would be unable to do this job

1.2.1. Typologies of linguistic manifolds

Now, we are going to anylise a group of representative linguistic topogeometries or
linguistic manifold, as we use to call them- in order to show many useful toposemic
structures for the goals of this work.

Absolute Negation. It is reflected, for instance, by privative alpha cognate with others
Indo-European languages. Given the example:
Marcus think himself as an atheist (1)

11

We are situated semantically in an interior region of Marcus (M), representiong

in this way something that happens as a belief inside Marcus reflexively,
because of the himself- about himself. It can be found in the open of (M) the
belief in the negation of God , it can be translate topologically as the complement
of the belief in God (D) considering the general frame (X).
Dc M = X D M
Concerning propositional attitudes like is the case of belief in- the complete
topologization with additional sentences become very complex. The complement
Dc is inside in the interior region of M as well as D itself, but they also are inside
the region T -from Thomas- or C from Christian- but M is inside the complement
of both T and C. Although this is far from be intuitive, this highly abstract
linguistic manifold is plenty captured by our symbolic apparatus.

The forest wont be able to hold other fire (2)

Relative Negation.

The Relative Negation of an open is a complement of this relating to other open

set. The forest will be able to hold (F), other fire (I).
FI
Superposition.

Rose has gone on living the life after her depression (3)

Topogramically pictured (3) representing the

chronological temporality with the continuous arrow, the
D
agent R and the depression D with the plane. The
direction of the chronological axis is represented in our
culture on this direction -left to right- strongly influenced by our writing system.
The topological dynamics can be expressed by:
R

(a) R D ; (Left part of axis)

(b) after depression R D ; (Right part of axis)
Several topological structures are spatialized superpositionally on a vertical
relation on, under- which work in a similar way that the content relation. We can
call it para-contend (R D).
To show the para-contention we can analyze topostructurally the concepts
superset and contend. The dimensionally extended relation superset-subset are
interconnected with the pure topological relation continent-contend:
12

X
Y

XY

TOP

X4Y
Y

Over all, Im your teacher (4)

This static toposcenary (4) articulate the first and second
person through the vertical and hierarchical- relation t
of Teacher.

A
ll

Subposition.

Under no circumstances may be photographied (5)

Symbolizing circumstances with C and the action of been
photographed with the black arrow, this expression is
expanded dispositionally in this way.

C
ll

Nearness.

I am very close to this ideas (6)

(I)

Againstness.

The neighborhood (I) distended around the element this

ideas and the first person contained in it, topogramed the
information obtained from the sentence.

Against his family, John traveled to Rome (7)

F: Open representing his family
F

Black arrow: action (yet done) of traveling to Rome

Empty arrow: confrontation with F.

Trascontendedness.

I would like to be you in this moment (8)

We use to reflect the metric relation of superposition and subposition on a vertical axis.

13

(a) Previously moment M Y

M

(b) M Y (To be from your position)

Y

Until here, we have seen a group of linguistic manifold that can

show us how this spatial structures can be axiomatized. But overall, we have intended to
approach to our main goal in this chapter: how natural languages can structure the
information conveyed, in a spatial manner very close to the spatial structures called within
mathematics manifold.

4. PROSPECTS OF RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION

To conclude this work, we are going to extract the conclusions that synthetized the past
two chapters. Each linguistic phenomena, in a natural or artificial language and in a wide
range of complexity, is able to hold cognitive information that it is spatially structured;
this structuration has a correspondence, depending on the level, with topoi or with simple
geometries. As we saw in the second character, the modal logic is very closed to
topological disciple; as well as the natural language has affinity with manifold structures.
Then, we can say that the semantic core of any kind of language is spatial itself in a very
particular way.
We have two interrelated goals in this work since the very beginning:
(a) Connect the cognition in its intentional dimension or linguistic, widely speaking,
and its extensional dimension or spatial.
A phenomenon is handed intentionally through a definition which determined :
: being of that manners
A phenomenon is handed extentionally through a depiction which delimited :
, X
(b) Create a typology or theory of topotypes where the different cognitive planes are
superposed relating to its complexity and its level of abstraction
There is a table to illustrate and complete what is said above:

14

S.3

S.2

S.1

S.0

TOPOTYPES

EXTENTIONAL
DIMENSION

INTENTIONAL
DIMENSION

Orden (Type 7)

Categoric Space

Categoretics

Order (Type 6)

Homeomorphic Space

Metalogic; T of Types

Order (Type 5)

Topologic Space

High Order Logic

Order (Type 4)

Topology

Modal Logic

Order (Type 3)

Topometric Space

Propositional Logic

Order (Type 2)

Metric Space

Natural Language (Written)

Order (Type 1)

Geometric Space

Ordinary Language (Spoken)

Order 0 (Type 0)

Inmediate Space

Quiromatic

PROPERTIES
Complexity
(Quantity of Information)
Computable
Abstraction-Formality
Simbolization

Expresivity
Representability
Intuition-Visualization

All this has an similar aspect to what it would be a philosophy of HoTT. What it is HoTT?
The Homotopic Types Theory is a recent developed since 2010- foundational area of
mathematical which combines from a strong intuitionistic bias a theory of types
intensional with a semantics based on extensional homotopies, unifying mathematically
both dimensions of just one reality.
SINTAX:

Internal Logic of Intentional (INTENSIONAL

Types
DIMENSION)

HoTT
SEMANTIC: Planes-Spaces as
Homotopical Object

(EXTENSIONAL
DIMENSION)

This harmonic unification is formalized in what is called Univalence Axiom, that can
be read as identity has the same value as the equivalence:
(A = B) (A B)
The object of HoTT are intensionally types A and extensionally spaces A, therefore
Type A = Space A. Also, the intensional terms a have the same value that extensional
terms a:
a:A =aA
This formal expression is foundationally the hypothesis which this whole paper is
based on and where is directed to.

15

BASIC REFERENCES
AIELLO, M; PRATT-HARTMANN, I; BENTHEM, J; Handbook of Spatial
Logic.Madrid, Springer Healthcare Ibrica S.L , 2007.
-VAN BENTHEM, J; BEZHANISHVILI, G;. Modal Logics of Space (Chapter 5
in HSL)
-PARIKH, R; MOSS, L; STEINSVOLD, C;. Topology and Epistemic Logic.
(Chapter 7 in HSL)
TALMI, L;. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol I&II) Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press 2000.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
AWODEY, S;. Type theory and homotopy. In Dybjer, P.; Lindstrm, Sten; Palmgren,
Erik et al. Epistemology versus Ontology (PDF). Logic, Epistemology, and the
Unity of Science. Springer Netherlands. pp. 183201. 2012.
CROFT, William and CRUSE, A. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
GEORGATOS, K;. Modal Logics for Topological Spaces. PhD thesis, CUNY
Graduate Center, 1993.
MOSS, L and PARIKH, R;. Topological reasoning and the logic of knowledge. In
Moses, Y., editor, Theoretical Aspect of Reasoning About Knoeledge, pages 95105. Morgan Kaufmann.
VAN BENTHEM, J. Modal Logic for Open Minds. Center for the Study of Language
and Information, 2010.
-Multimodal logics of products of topologies. Studia Logica, 2009.

16