math-skill 2.0.1 → 2.1.0

package/skills/algorithmic-thinking/original-texts.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,253 @@
+# Algorithmic Thinking -- Original Texts & Historical Context
+
+---
+
+## 1. Turing Machine (1936)
+
+Alan Turing's paper **"On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem"** (1936) defined a precise mathematical model of "computability" -- the Turing machine.
+
+> "The 'computable' numbers may be described briefly as the real numbers whose expressions as a decimal are calculable by finite means."
+> -- Alan Turing, 1936
+
+**Core definition:**
+- A Turing machine $M = (Q, \Sigma, \Gamma, \delta, q_0, q_{\text{accept}}, q_{\text{reject}})$, where $\delta: Q \times \Gamma \to Q \times \Gamma \times \{L, R\}$ is the transition function.
+- Universal Turing machine: can simulate the execution of any Turing machine $M$ on input $w$, i.e., $U(\langle M \rangle, w) = M(w)$.
+
+**Halting problem:**
+- The halting problem $H = \{\langle M, w \rangle : M \text{ halts on } w\}$ is undecidable.
+- Proof: Suppose $H$ is decidable. Construct $D(\langle M \rangle) = \text{run } H(\langle M, \langle M \rangle \rangle)$; if $M$ halts on $\langle M \rangle$ then $D$ loops forever, otherwise $D$ halts. Applying $D(\langle D \rangle)$ produces a contradiction.
+
+**Entscheidungsproblem (Decision Problem):**
+- Proposed by Hilbert in 1928: Does there exist an algorithm to decide the validity of first-order logic statements?
+- Turing and Church independently proved: No such algorithm exists. The validity of first-order logic is undecidable.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Church-Turing Thesis
+
+**Thesis (not a theorem):**
+> Every "effectively calculable" function is Turing-computable.
+
+**Equivalent formulations:**
+- Church: $\lambda$-definable functions (lambda calculus, 1936)
+- Godel-Herbrand-Kleene: general recursive functions
+- Post: Post canonical systems
+- The sets of functions computable by all these models are identical, supporting the plausibility of the thesis.
+
+**Strong Church-Turing thesis:**
+- Any problem solvable on a physical device in time $T$ can be solved on a Turing machine in time $O(T^k)$ ($k$ a constant).
+- That is: all reasonable computational models are equivalent up to polynomial time.
+- Quantum computing challenges this -- does there exist a polynomial speedup with $k > 1$?
+
+---
+
+## 3. Euclid's Algorithm (~300 BC)
+
+**The oldest algorithm still in use.**
+
+**GCD computation:**
+$$\gcd(a, b) = \gcd(b, a \bmod b), \quad a \bmod b \neq 0$$
+$$\gcd(a, 0) = a$$
+
+**Termination proof:**
+- At each step $b' = a \bmod b < b$, so the sequence $b_0 > b_1 > b_2 > \cdots \geq 0$ is strictly decreasing.
+- Within finitely many steps $b_k = 0$ and the algorithm terminates.
+
+**Extended Euclidean algorithm:**
+- Computes $\gcd(a, b)$ while simultaneously finding $x, y$ such that $ax + by = \gcd(a, b)$.
+- Application: modular inverse $a^{-1} \bmod m$ -- when $\gcd(a, m) = 1$, $ax \equiv 1 \pmod{m}$ and $x = a^{-1}$.
+
+**Time complexity:**
+- Lame's theorem (1844): The number of steps in Euclid's algorithm is at most $5 \times$ the number of decimal digits of the smaller number, i.e., $O(\log \min(a, b))$.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Knuth -- The Art of Computer Programming (1968-)
+
+Donald Knuth's multi-volume magnum opus **TAOCP** systematized the field of algorithm analysis.
+
+> "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music."
+> -- Donald Knuth, TAOCP Vol. 1, Preface
+
+**Contributions:**
+- Introduced and popularized big-O notation from number theory into computer science. $O(f(n))$: there exist constants $c, n_0$ such that $T(n) \leq c \cdot f(n)$ for all $n \geq n_0$.
+- A systematic taxonomy of algorithms (sorting, searching, arithmetic, combinatorial, etc.).
+- MMIX/MIX mixed pseudo-machines for precise models of algorithm analysis.
+- Volumes: Vol. 1 (Fundamental Algorithms, 1968), Vol. 2 (Seminumerical Algorithms, 1969), Vol. 3 (Sorting and Searching, 1973), Vol. 4A (Combinatorial Algorithms, 2011).
+
+---
+
+## 5. Cook-Levin Theorem (1971)
+
+**NP-completeness:**
+
+> "The question 'is P = NP?' is one of the most important open questions in theoretical computer science."
+> -- Stephen Cook, 1971
+
+**The Cook-Levin theorem:**
+- SAT (the Boolean satisfiability problem) is NP-complete.
+- Proof: The accepting computation of a nondeterministic Turing machine $M$ for any NP language $L$ on input $w$ can be encoded as a SAT formula $\varphi_{M,w}$; $w \in L \iff \varphi_{M,w}$ is satisfiable.
+- Reduction: $L \leq_p \text{SAT}$ holds for all $L \in \text{NP}$.
+
+**Karp's 21 NP-complete problems (1972):**
+- Richard Karp, in "Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems," proved 21 classic problems to be NP-complete, including:
+  - 3SAT, CLIQUE, VERTEX-COVER, HAM-CYCLE, TSP, SUBSET-SUM, PARTITION, etc.
+
+**P vs NP:**
+- $\text{P} = \text{NP}$? If true, all NP problems would have polynomial-time algorithms. The prevailing conjecture is $\text{P} \neq \text{NP}$. One of the Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize Problems.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Divide-and-Conquer
+
+**Key idea:** Decompose the problem into subproblems, solve recursively, and combine results.
+
+**Canonical examples:**
+- **Merge sort:** $T(n) = 2T(n/2) + O(n) \Rightarrow T(n) = O(n \log n)$. A stable sort.
+- **Quicksort:** Average $O(n \log n)$, worst case $O(n^2)$. Hoare (1962).
+- **Binary search:** $T(n) = T(n/2) + O(1) \Rightarrow T(n) = O(\log n)$. Requires a sorted array.
+
+**Master theorem:**
+$$T(n) = a\,T(n/b) + f(n)$$
+- Case 1: If $f(n) = O(n^{\log_b a - \varepsilon})$, then $T(n) = \Theta(n^{\log_b a})$.
+- Case 2: If $f(n) = \Theta(n^{\log_b a} \log^k n)$, then $T(n) = \Theta(n^{\log_b a} \log^{k+1} n)$.
+- Case 3: If $f(n) = \Omega(n^{\log_b a + \varepsilon})$ and $af(n/b) \leq cf(n)$, then $T(n) = \Theta(f(n))$.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Dynamic Programming
+
+> "I decided to use the word 'dynamic' ... it was something not even a Congressman could object to."
+> -- Richard Bellman, on naming "dynamic programming" (1957)
+
+**Core principles:**
+1. **Optimal substructure:** An optimal solution contains optimal solutions to subproblems.
+2. **Overlapping subproblems:** Different subproblems share smaller sub-subproblems, so naive recursion redundantly recomputes them.
+
+**Classic algorithms:**
+- **Shortest paths:** Dijkstra (1959) -- single-source shortest paths, $O((V+E)\log V)$.
+- **Floyd-Warshall (1962):** All-pairs shortest paths, $O(V^3)$. Recurrence: $d_{ij}^{(k)} = \min(d_{ij}^{(k-1)}, d_{ik}^{(k-1)} + d_{kj}^{(k-1)})$.
+- **Knapsack problem:** $O(nW)$ pseudo-polynomial time.
+
+**Bottom-up vs Top-down (memoization):**
+- Bottom-up: Fill in a table from the smallest subproblems to the largest.
+- Top-down + memoization: Recurse but cache the results of already-solved subproblems.
+
+---
+
+## 8. Greedy Algorithms
+
+**Key idea:** At each step, choose the locally optimal option, hoping to reach a globally optimal solution.
+
+**Classic algorithms:**
+- **Kruskal's minimum spanning tree (1956):** Add edges in ascending order of weight, skipping those that form a cycle. $O(E \log E)$. Greedy is optimal for MST problems.
+- **Huffman coding (1952):** Repeatedly merge the two nodes with the lowest frequencies. Produces an optimal prefix code.
+
+**When greedy works:**
+- **Matroid structure:** If the set of feasible solutions forms a matroid $(E, \mathcal{I})$ -- satisfying the hereditary property and the exchange property -- then the greedy algorithm yields an optimal solution for any weight function.
+- Exchange property: If $A, B \in \mathcal{I}$ and $|A| < |B|$, then there exists $e \in B \setminus A$ such that $A \cup \{e\} \in \mathcal{I}$.
+
+---
+
+## 9. Backtracking and Search
+
+**Depth-First Search (DFS) / Breadth-First Search (BFS):**
+- DFS: Uses a stack (or recursion), explores as deep as possible first; used for topological sorting and connected components.
+- BFS: Uses a queue, expands level by level; used for shortest paths in unweighted graphs.
+
+**Backtracking:**
+- Systematically enumerates candidate solutions, retreating as soon as a constraint is violated.
+- Examples: N-Queens problem, subset enumeration, permutation enumeration.
+
+**Pruning and branch-and-bound:**
+- Pruning: Uses constraints to eliminate impossible branches early, reducing the search space.
+- Branch-and-bound: For optimization problems, maintains a bound on the current best solution and prunes branches that cannot improve it. Commonly used for TSP and integer programming.
+
+**Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP):**
+- A set of variables + domains + constraints. Backtracking search + constraint propagation (AC-3, etc.).
+
+---
+
+## 10. Randomized Algorithms
+
+**Two types:**
+- **Las Vegas algorithms:** Always produce correct results; running time is random. Example: randomized quicksort.
+- **Monte Carlo algorithms:** Running time is deterministic; result may be incorrect (but error probability can be made arbitrarily small). Example: Miller-Rabin primality test.
+
+**Miller-Rabin primality test (1976/1980):**
+- For an odd number $n$, choose a random $a \in \{2, \ldots, n-1\}$ and check whether the sequence $a^{d} \bmod n$ satisfies the strengthened conditions of Fermat's little theorem.
+- Error probability per test $\leq 1/4$; after $k$ independent tests, error probability $\leq 4^{-k}$.
+- Time complexity $O(k \log^3 n)$.
+
+**Randomized quicksort:**
+- Randomly select a pivot; expected number of comparisons $2n \ln n \approx 1.39 n \log_2 n$; expected running time $O(n \log n)$.
+- The probability of the worst case $O(n^2)$ can be shown to be extremely low.
+
+---
+
+## 11. Decidability and Undecidability
+
+**The halting problem is undecidable (see Section 1).**
+
+**Rice's theorem (1953):**
+> Every non-trivial semantic property of Turing machines is undecidable.
+
+- "Semantic property": depends only on the function computed by $M$, not on the structure of $M$.
+- "Non-trivial": holds for some Turing machines but not for others.
+- Examples: "Does $M$ compute a constant function?", "Does $M$ halt on some input?", "Does $M$ compute a decidable language?" -- all undecidable.
+
+**Post Correspondence Problem (PCP, 1946):**
+- Given a set of dominos $\{(t_1, b_1), \ldots, (t_k, b_k)\}$ (where $t_i, b_i$ are strings), does there exist a sequence $i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_m$ such that $t_{i_1} t_{i_2} \cdots t_{i_m} = b_{i_1} b_{i_2} \cdots b_{i_m}$?
+- PCP is undecidable. Commonly used to prove the undecidability of other problems.
+
+---
+
+## 12. Complexity Classes
+
+| Class | Definition | Description |
+|-------|-----------|-------------|
+| **P** | $\{L : L \text{ is decidable in } O(n^k) \text{ time}\}$ | Decidable in polynomial time |
+| **NP** | $\{L : L \text{ has a polynomial-length certificate}\}$ | Decidable in nondeterministic polynomial time |
+| **co-NP** | $\{L : \bar{L} \in \text{NP}\}$ | Complement of NP |
+| **EXP** | $\{L : L \text{ is decidable in } O(2^{n^k}) \text{ time}\}$ | Decidable in exponential time |
+| **R** | $\{L : L \text{ is decidable}\}$ | Recursive / decidable languages |
+| **RE** | $\{L : L \text{ is recognizable by a Turing machine}\}$ | Recursively enumerable languages |
+
+**Hierarchies:**
+$$\text{P} \subseteq \text{NP} \subseteq \text{PSPACE} \subseteq \text{EXP} \subseteq \text{R} \subseteq \text{RE}$$
+$$\text{P} \neq \text{EXP} \quad (\text{time hierarchy theorem, Hartmanis-Stearns 1965})$$
+$$\text{R} \neq \text{RE} \quad (\text{halting problem} \in \text{RE} \setminus \text{R})$$
+
+---
+
+## 13. Sorting Lower Bound
+
+**Lower bound for comparison-based sorting:**
+
+$$T(n) \geq \Omega(n \log n)$$
+
+**Information-theoretic argument:**
+- The number of permutations of $n$ elements $= n!$; each comparison halves the search space at most.
+- The decision tree height $h$ must satisfy $2^h \geq n!$, so $h \geq \log_2(n!) = \Omega(n \log n)$.
+- By Stirling's formula: $\log_2(n!) \approx n \log_2 n - n \log_2 e + O(\log n)$.
+
+**Breaking the bound:**
+- Non-comparison sorts can surpass $\Omega(n \log n)$: counting sort $O(n+k)$, radix sort $O(d(n+k))$ -- but require special structure in the input.
+
+---
+
+## 14. Algorithm Design Paradigms -- Summary Table
+
+| Paradigm | Key Idea | When to Use | Canonical Example |
+|----------|---------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Divide-and-Conquer | Decompose -> recurse -> combine | Problem naturally decomposes into independent subproblems | Merge sort, Binary search |
+| Dynamic Programming | Overlapping subproblems + optimal substructure; fill a table to avoid recomputation | Severe subproblem overlap with optimal substructure | Floyd-Warshall, Knapsack |
+| Greedy | Choose locally optimal at each step | Matroid structure or provable greedy correctness | Kruskal MST, Huffman coding |
+| Backtracking | Systematic search + pruning | Search space is finite but large | N-Queens, CSP |
+| Branch-and-Bound | Search + maintain upper/lower bounds for pruning | Optimization problems where bounds on solutions can be computed | TSP (exact), Integer programming |
+| Randomized | Introduce randomness to reduce expected cost or error probability | Probabilistic guarantees or expected efficiency needed | Miller-Rabin, Randomized quicksort |
+| Reduction | Transform a problem into a known problem | An efficient algorithm already exists for the target problem | SAT -> 3SAT (Cook-Levin) |
+
+---
+
+*This file provides mathematical references and historical context for the algorithmic-thinking skill, covering core results from ancient Greece to modern computational theory.*

package/skills/axiomatization/SKILL.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+---
+name: axiomatization
+description: |
+  Trigger when examining the reasonableness of a theory's assumptions, constructing an axiom system, discovering internal contradictions, verifying consistency/independence/completeness; or defining axioms and invariants for an algorithm/operator/structure and checking their computability.
+---
+
+# 📐 Axiomatization
+
+> "Starting from minimal assumptions, building through rigorous logic — examining premises matters more than checking conclusions"
+>
+> — Euclid's *Elements*, Hilbert's *Foundations of Geometry*, Axiomatic Set Theory
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Any theoretical system can (and should) be reduced to a set of fundamental axioms, from which all theorems in that domain can be derived through rigorous logical inference. Examining premises matters more than checking conclusions — if premises are wrong, no amount of elegant reasoning can save the conclusion.**
+
+> **Mathematical Formalization**
+>
+> The quality of an axiom system is judged by the following core criteria:
+>
+> - **Consistency**: The axioms must not contradict one another. If the axiom set is contradictory, then by the principle of explosion (*ex falso quodlibet*) any proposition can be derived, and the system collapses.
+> - **Independence**: No axiom should be derivable from the others.
+> - **Completeness**: All true propositions in the domain should be provable from the axioms (note: completeness varies with the order of the logical system; see Method).
+>
+> **Categoricity**: An axiom system is categorical if all its models are isomorphic to one another. A categorical system uniquely determines the structure of its subject — for example, the second-order Peano axioms are categorical (the unique model is the natural number structure ℕ), whereas the first-order Peano axioms are not (non-standard models exist).
+>
+> **Relative Consistency**: If all axioms of system A can be embedded as true propositions in system B, and system B is known to be consistent, then system A is consistent. This is the standard method for proving consistency — for example, the consistency of PA can be proved within ZFC (the axioms of PA are all true in ZFC), but the consistency of ZFC itself can only be relatively proved in a stronger system (e.g., ZFC + the existence of an inaccessible cardinal).
+>
+> See `original-texts.md` for detailed mathematical foundations.
+
+## GPU-Friendliness (Cross-Cutting Check)
+
+When axiomatization is used to **define axioms and invariants for an algorithm/operator/structure**, the defined structures must pass the eight-dimension gate of `../../references/gpu-friendly-math.md` — "axiomatically self-consistent" does not mean "computable":
+
+- **Friendly**: The axiom system naturally reduces to linear algebra — group action axioms → equivariant layers = GEMM (weight sharing along orbits); ring axioms relaxed to semirings → generalized GEMM (min-plus / tropical). Passes dimensions 1/2/3.
+- **Adaptable**: Essentially discrete/symbolic axioms (hard Top-K, exact finite-field arithmetic, symbolic proof search) block gradients → relax the axioms: tropical semiring piecewise-linear gating, Gumbel-softmax, differentiable surrogates.
+- **Anti-pattern**: Invariants requiring global symbolic reasoning or exact discrete satisfaction (e.g., exact Čech cohomology, exact orbit-equality testing) → "beautiful but not computable"; switch to local/continuous approximations.
+
+Eight-dimension minimum assessment (formal terminology): **Tensorization** — whether axiom instances can be batch-checked; **GEMM-Mappability** — whether operational axioms can reduce to linear/semiring matrix multiplication; **Complexity** — whether consistency/independence checking degenerates to undecidable or exponential search; **Memory & KV-Cache** — whether invariants require a global state table; **Low-Precision Stability** — whether axioms tolerate approximate equalities; **Parallelism & Communication** — whether local axioms can be verified in blocks; **Sparsity Structure** — whether the constraint graph is structured; **Operator Fusion** — whether axiom checks can be compiled into lightweight loss/guard kernels.
+
+> In conjunction with `../../references/books/abstract-algebra.md` (group/ring/field axioms, ring→semiring relaxation) and `../../references/books/algebraic-geometry-rising-sea.md` (sheaf/category/cohomology axioms).
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- **Pure factual queries** (e.g., "what is this formula") — no theoretical system needs examination.
+- **The user has already accepted a theoretical framework and only needs to apply it** — the axioms are already chosen.
+- **Empirical questions** (requiring experimental data rather than logical reasoning) — axiomatization cannot substitute for empirical evidence.
+- **Defaulting to classical tools in a constructive context** — if the user requires constructive proofs, the law of excluded middle or the axiom of choice should not be assumed by default.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- When reading a paper, examining whether its theoretical assumptions are reasonable and self-consistent.
+- When building a theoretical framework, starting from the minimal axiom set.
+- When discovering contradictions or inconsistencies within a theoretical system.
+- When determining whether a formal system is decidable or complete.
+- When comparing the consequences of different axiom choices (constructive vs. classical, first-order vs. second-order).
+- **Defining axioms and invariants for an operator/structure** and checking their computability on GPU.
+
+## Method
+
+### Step 1: Identify the Axioms
+Find all fundamental assumptions (axioms) of the theoretical system, distinguishing: **explicit axioms** (clearly stated by the author), **implicit axioms** (unstated but actually used in the argument), **background axioms** (default assumptions of the larger framework, e.g., defaulting to ZFC).
+
+> "Every science truly matures only after it has been axiomatized." — Hilbert
+
+### Step 2: Specify the Formal Language
+The expressive power of an axiom system depends on the chosen formal language; before axiomatizing, one must specify:
+
+- **First-order Logic**: Quantifiers range only over individual elements. Expressive power is limited, but it admits a complete proof theory (Gödel's Completeness Theorem: the provable coincides with the valid). Models of a first-order theory are not unique (non-categoricity), but the proof system is sound and complete.
+- **Second-order Logic**: Quantifiers may range over subsets and functions. Greater expressive power (can express categoricity, e.g., second-order Peano uniquely characterizes ℕ), but no complete proof system exists — its semantics cannot be fully captured by any recursive axiom set.
+- **Constructive / Intuitionistic Logic**: Rejects the law of excluded middle (∀P, P∨¬P). Existential proofs must provide an explicit witness: proving ∃x.φ(x) requires constructing a specific x₀ such that φ(x₀) holds. Inference rules are stricter, but all proofs are guaranteed to be computable.
+
+> Choosing a language is not merely a technical detail but a fundamental philosophical decision: first-order logic commits to an exhaustible proof system, second-order logic commits to structural uniqueness, constructive logic commits to computability.
+
+### Step 3: Check Consistency
+Check whether the axioms contradict one another. If the axiom set is contradictory, then by the principle of explosion any proposition can be derived, and the system collapses. Methods:
+
+- Look for two axioms P and ¬P that hold simultaneously.
+- Attempt to construct a model in which all axioms are simultaneously true (model existence ⇒ consistency).
+- **Relative consistency proof**: Embed the axioms of system A as true propositions in system B; if B is known consistent, then A is consistent. For example, PA is consistent (the PA axioms are all true in the von Neumann natural number model within ZFC).
+- **Finite model method**: For weaker formal systems (propositional logic, certain finitely axiomatized weak arithmetics), construct a finite model to directly verify consistency.
+
+### Step 4: Check Independence
+Check whether any axiom can be derived from the others. If so, it is not a true axiom but a theorem. Methods:
+
+- For each axiom A, construct a model in which A fails but all other axioms hold.
+- If such a model exists, then A is independent of the other axioms.
+- Classical examples: the parallel postulate is independent of the remaining axioms of Euclidean geometry (non-Euclidean geometry models); the Axiom of Choice is independent of ZF (Cohen's forcing method).
+
+### Step 5: Assess Completeness
+Check whether the axiom system is strong enough to derive all important results in the domain. Completeness properties vary with the logical order and the content of the theory:
+
+- **First-order theories can be complete**: Dense Linear Order (DLO), Algebraically Closed Fields of fixed characteristic (ACF_p), and other first-order theories are complete and decidable. Completeness ≠ absence of open problems; completeness means that for every sentence φ, either φ or ¬φ is provable from the axioms.
+- **Scope of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems**: Incompleteness specifically applies to first-order recursively enumerable theories containing sufficient arithmetic (PA, ZFC, etc.), in which there necessarily exist undecidable propositions (e.g., the Gödel sentence in PA, CH in ZFC).
+- **Decidability is an independent question**: A complete first-order theory is typically decidable (there exists an algorithm to determine whether any formula is a theorem), but an incomplete theory is not necessarily undecidable — decidability depends on whether an algorithm for deciding theorems exists, not on whether all propositions have proofs.
+
+### Step 6: Analyze the Impact of Axiom Choice
+What happens to the theory if an axiom is changed or relaxed? Many branches of mathematics developed precisely through altering axioms:
+
+- Changing the parallel postulate → non-Euclidean geometries (hyperbolic geometry, elliptic geometry).
+- **Constructive vs. Classical**: Removing the law of excluded middle → constructive mathematics (Brouwer, Heyting), where existence proofs must provide explicit constructions; adding the Axiom of Choice → stronger classical mathematics, but yielding non-constructive proofs (e.g., the Banach-Tarski paradox).
+- **Zorn's Lemma, the Well-Ordering Theorem, and the Axiom of Choice**: These three are equivalent within ZF — accepting any one means accepting all; this equivalence itself is non-constructive.
+- Changing the induction axiom → non-standard analysis.
+
+### Step 7: Apply and Conclude
+Synthesize the above analysis and give an overall assessment of the axiom system: Is it suitable for its intended domain of application? Are there axioms that need to be supplemented or revised? What are the limitations of the system (undecidable propositions, non-categoricity, lack of constructivity, etc.)?
+
+## Common Errors
+
+| Error | Critique | Correct Approach |
+|---|---|---|
+| Confusing axioms with theorems | Treating a proposition that needs proof as a self-evident axiom | Clearly distinguish: axioms are the starting point, theorems are the endpoint |
+| Overlooking implicit assumptions | Using unstated assumptions in the argument, making the reasoning imprecise | Scrutinize every step of reasoning, exposing all hidden assumptions |
+| Accepting a contradictory axiom set | From contradictory axioms, any conclusion can be derived (principle of explosion) | Verify the consistency of the axiom set |
+| Treating axioms as truths | Axioms are merely conventions about starting points, not absolute truths | The value of axioms lies in the usefulness of their consequences |
+| Ignoring the possibility of axiom change | Assuming axioms are the only possible choice | Consider what new theories arise from changing axioms |
+| Confusing first-order and second-order completeness | First-order logic has a complete proof system (Gödel completeness); second-order does not; "completeness" has different meanings in each | Distinguish proof-theoretic completeness from model-theoretic completeness; specify the logical order |
+| Neglecting constructive obligations | Using the law of excluded middle in a constructive context, or proving only ¬¬∃x.φ(x) without providing a witness | Constructive proofs of ∃x.φ(x) must provide an explicit witness x₀; the law of excluded middle is prohibited in constructive contexts |
+| Assuming all incomplete theories are equally incomplete | Different incomplete theories vary enormously in the number and nature of their undecidable propositions | Analyze the specific theory: which propositions are undecidable, and what are their structural properties |
+| Forcing discrete/symbolic axioms into training | Essentially discrete/symbolic axiom systems are non-differentiable and non-computable | Pass the eight-dimension gate; relax to differentiable/approximate forms when necessary (tropical semiring, Gumbel-softmax) |
+
+## Operating Procedure
+
+When this skill is triggered, the output must contain:
+
+1. **Axiom Inventory**: `[Axiom N]: [content] (source: explicit / implicit / background)`
+2. **Formal Language Specification**: `[Language type]: [first-order / second-order / constructive] (rationale: ...)`
+3. **Consistency Check**: `✅ Consistent` or `❌ Contradiction found: [specific contradiction]`; if using relative consistency, note the target system of the embedding
+4. **Independence Analysis**: Flag any redundant axioms `⚠️ [Axiom N] may be derivable from [Axiom M]`
+5. **Completeness Assessment**: `✅ Complete` / `⚠️ Incomplete: missing [X]`; note whether Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply, and indicate decidability
+6. **Axiom Change Analysis**: If a particular axiom is changed (removing excluded middle, adding/removing the Axiom of Choice), how does the theory change?
+7. **Conclusion**: Overall assessment of the system's consistency, independence, completeness, categoricity, and decidability
+8. **[GPU Feasibility]** (if used for algorithm/operator/structure design) — structures derived from the defined axioms and invariants pass the eight-dimension gate of `../../references/gpu-friendly-math.md`, rated friendly / retrofittable / unfriendly + adaptation recommendations
+
+**Output must never provide analysis alone without a conclusion. Every item must receive a definitive verdict — no hedging.**
+
+## Relations to Other Skills
+
+- **Logic Deduction**: Axiomatization requires logical deduction as its inference tool; formal inference rules are the proof mechanism of the axiom system.
+- **Abstraction**: Axiomatization is abstraction at the highest level — reducing everything to minimal assumptions.
+- **Modeling**: An axiom system is itself a kind of model, whose applicability to reality must be verified; model theory directly serves consistency and independence checks.
+- **Induction and Analogy**: The choice of axioms is often inspired through induction and analogy.
+- **Algorithmic Thinking**: Formal systems and decidability are directly linked — decidable theories admit algorithmic theorem-decision procedures; undecidable theories do not.
+- **Modern Math Activation**: `../../references/books/abstract-algebra.md` (axiom systems / groups, rings, fields; ring→semiring relaxation), `../../references/books/algebraic-geometry-rising-sea.md` (sheaf/category/cohomology foundations).

package/skills/axiomatization/SKILL.md

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ description: |
   English: Trigger when examining the reasonableness of a theory's assumptions, constructing an axiom system, discovering internal contradictions, verifying consistency/independence/completeness; or defining axioms and invariants for an algorithm/operator/structure and checking their computability.
 ---
 
+> **语言路由**：若用户消息为英文，请读取并遵循同目录下的 `SKILL.en.md`，按其操作规程以英文输出；中文消息则继续使用本文件。
+
 # 📐 公理化思想 / Axiomatization
 
 > "从最少假设出发，用严格逻辑构建——审查前提比检查结论更重要"

package/skills/axiomatization/original-texts.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+# Mathematical Sources and Classic Texts
+
+## Euclid's *Elements* (~300 BC)
+
+**The Axiomatic System (Five Postulates)**:
+
+> 1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
+> 2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
+> 3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
+> 4. All right angles are congruent.
+> 5. (Parallel Postulate) If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect on that side if extended far enough.
+
+1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
+2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.
+3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
+4. All right angles are congruent.
+5. (Parallel Postulate) If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect on that side if extended far enough.
+
+**Significance**: The first axiomatic system in human history, demonstrating that 465 propositions can be rigorously derived from 5 postulates and 5 common notions through strict logical deduction.
+
+## The Parallel Postulate Controversy (~300 BC – 1820s)
+
+Euclid's fifth postulate was disquieting from the very beginning: its formulation is far more complex than the first four, resembling a theorem rather than an axiom. For two millennia, countless mathematicians attempted to derive it from the first four postulates, all to no avail.
+
+Key figures and developments:
+- **Saccheri** (1733): Attempted to derive a contradiction by assuming the parallel postulate false; though unsuccessful, he was the first to systematically explore the properties of non-Euclidean geometry.
+- **Lambert** (1766): Pursued a similar approach, investigating more deeply the geometric consequences under the hypothesis of the obtuse angle and the hypothesis of the acute angle.
+- **Gauss** (~1820): Privately recognized the logical consistency of non-Euclidean geometry but refrained from publishing for fear of controversy.
+- **Bolyai** (1832) & **Lobachevsky** (1829): Independently published hyperbolic geometry — a geometry in which the parallel postulate is false yet the system is entirely self-consistent.
+
+> "I have created a new universe from nothing." — Bolyai
+
+**Significance**: The parallel postulate is independent of the other four — it can neither be proved nor refuted from them. This is the earliest instance of axiom independence, revealing the profound fact that "axioms cannot be forced to be true" a full century before Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The birth of non-Euclidean geometry directly gave rise to Riemannian geometry, which later became the mathematical foundation of general relativity.
+
+## Hilbert's *Foundations of Geometry* (1899)
+
+> "We must be able to replace 'points, lines, planes' with 'tables, chairs, beer mugs' — as long as they satisfy the relations between the axioms."
+
+Hilbert proposed more rigorous requirements for axiomatic systems:
+- **Consistency**: The axioms must not contradict one another
+- **Independence**: No axiom can be derived from the others
+- **Completeness**: All geometric propositions must be decidable within the system
+
+## Peano Axioms for Arithmetic (1889)
+
+Peano formulated five axioms for the natural numbers, constituting the most classical form of the axiomatization of arithmetic:
+
+> P1. 0 is a natural number.
+> P2. Every natural number n has a unique successor S(n).
+> P3. 0 is not the successor of any natural number.
+> P4. Different natural numbers have different successors.
+> P5. (Induction) If P(0) and P(n) → P(S(n)), then P holds for all natural numbers.
+
+**Significance**: First-order Peano Arithmetic (PA) is the standard object of study in Gödel's incompleteness theorems — PA is consistent but incomplete. Second-order Peano Arithmetic is categorical (see below), uniquely characterizing the structure of the natural numbers.
+
+## Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory with Choice (ZFC, 1908–1922)
+
+ZFC is the standard axiomatic foundation of contemporary mathematics, consisting of 9 axioms:
+
+> Z1. Extensionality: Sets with the same elements are equal.
+> Z2. Empty Set: ∅ exists.
+> Z3. Pairing: {a, b} exists.
+> Z4. Union: The union of any family of sets exists.
+> Z5. Power Set: P(A) exists.
+> Z6. Infinity: An infinite set exists.
+> Z7. Replacement (Fraenkel's addition): Images of functions on sets are sets.
+> Z8. Foundation: Every nonempty set has a minimal element; no set contains itself.
+> Z9. Axiom of Choice (AC): For any family of nonempty sets, a choice function exists.
+
+**The Axiom of Choice Controversy**: AC seems intuitive yet leads to counterintuitive conclusions — most famously the **Banach-Tarski Paradox** (1924): a ball can be cut into five pieces which, after rotation and reassembly, form two balls each identical in size to the original. Zermelo used AC to prove that every set can be well-ordered (1904), a result that is itself deeply puzzling.
+
+> "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well-Ordering Theorem obviously false, and who can tell the difference?" — Jerry Bona
+
+**Significance**: ZFC's 9 axioms suffice to derive virtually all of modern mathematics. Yet ZFC itself is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorems — ZFC is consistent but cannot prove its own consistency from within.
+
+## Continuum Hypothesis (Cantor 1878, Gödel 1940, Cohen 1963)
+
+Cantor proposed in 1878 that the cardinality of the real numbers (the continuum) is exactly ℵ₁ — that is, there exists no infinite cardinal strictly between the cardinality of the natural numbers ℵ₀ and the cardinality of the reals.
+
+> CH: 2^ℵ₀ = ℵ₁. There is no cardinal between ℵ₀ and 2^ℵ₀.
+
+- **Gödel** (1940): Proved that CH is consistent with ZFC — CH cannot be refuted within ZFC. He constructed the constructible universe L, in which CH holds.
+- **Cohen** (1963): Using the forcing method, proved that ¬CH is also consistent with ZFC — CH cannot be proved within ZFC. This marked the birth of forcing.
+
+**Significance**: CH is the most concrete instance of Gödel's incompleteness theorems — a natural proposition about the size of infinity that is neither provable nor refutable within the standard axiomatic system of mathematics. This profoundly reveals the limitations of axiomatic systems: even the most fundamental mathematical questions may exceed the power of the axioms.
+
+## Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (1931)
+
+> **First Incompleteness Theorem**: In any consistent axiomatic system that includes arithmetic, there exist propositions that can neither be proved nor refuted.
+> **Second Incompleteness Theorem**: A consistent axiomatic system cannot prove its own consistency from within.
+
+**Implications for the axiomatic program**: A perfect axiomatization is impossible. But this does not mean axiomatization is without value — it helps us understand the boundaries of a theory.
+
+## Whitehead & Russell, *Principia Mathematica* (1910–1913)
+
+An attempt to reduce all of mathematics to logic and set-theoretic axioms — the pinnacle of the axiomatization program. Although Gödel later proved the impossibility of such a complete reduction, *Principia* demonstrated the enormous power of the axiomatic method.
+
+## Categoricity (Veblen 1904)
+
+Veblen introduced the concept of categoricity in 1904: an axiomatic system is called *categorical* if all of its models are isomorphic — that is, the axioms uniquely characterize the object of study.
+
+> Categoricity = all models of the axiom system are isomorphic.
+
+**Key examples**:
+- **Second-order Peano Arithmetic** is categorical — all models satisfying second-order PA are the standard natural number structure ℕ, unique up to isomorphism.
+- **First-order Peano Arithmetic** is not categorical — there exist non-standard models containing "infinitely large" natural numbers (Skolem 1934).
+- **First-order theory of real closed fields** is categorical (Tarski) — it uniquely characterizes ℝ.
+
+**Significance**: Categoricity is the ideal property of an axiomatic system — the axioms truly "pin down" a unique mathematical object. However, the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem shows that any first-order axiomatic system with an infinite model also has infinite models of arbitrary cardinality, and therefore a first-order system can never be categorical (unless it has only finite models). Second-order systems can be categorical, but second-order logic lacks a complete proof system. This is the fundamental tension between first-order and second-order approaches in the axiomatic method.
+
+## Tarski's Axiomatization of Geometry (1926–1959)
+
+Tarski axiomatized Euclidean plane geometry in first-order logic, using only points together with two primitive relations: betweenness and equidistance.
+
+> Tarski's geometry = first-order logic + points + betweenness + equidistance, ~10 axioms (7 in the short version).
+
+**Decidability and Completeness**: Tarski proved in 1959 that this axiomatic system is **complete and decidable** — every geometric proposition can be decided within the system, and an algorithm exists to perform this decision automatically.
+
+**Contrast with Gödel**: This may seem to contradict Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The crucial point is that Tarski's geometry does not contain arithmetic — it cannot encode the natural numbers, so the condition "includes arithmetic" required by Gödel's theorem is not satisfied. This profoundly illustrates that the completeness or incompleteness of an axiomatic system depends on whether it can express sufficient arithmetic.
+
+**Significance**: Tarski's result is a marvel of axiomatic methodology — there exist first-order axiomatic systems that are both complete and decidable. The price is that one must sacrifice the ability to express arithmetic.
+
+## Bourbaki (1935–)
+
+Bourbaki is the collective pseudonym of a group of French mathematicians dedicated to systematically reconstructing all of mathematics using the axiomatic method. Their monumental work, *Éléments de mathématique*, is grounded in set theory and builds up, layer by layer, the branches of algebra, analysis, topology, differential geometry, and more.
+
+> "Mathematics is not about numbers, but about structures." — The Bourbaki spirit
+
+**Three Mother Structures**:
+- **Algebraic Structures**: Groups, rings, fields — characterizing the laws of operation and composition.
+- **Order Structures**: Partial orders, total orders, lattices — characterizing the laws of comparison and ordering.
+- **Topological Structures**: Topological spaces, metric spaces — characterizing the laws of continuity and proximity.
+
+Bourbaki held that all mathematical structures can be generated through the combination of these three mother structures. This program profoundly influenced the classification and pedagogy of modern mathematics.
+
+**Significance**: Bourbaki elevated axiomatization from "laying foundations for a single discipline" to "building a unified architecture for all of mathematics." Although category theory later provided a more flexible perspective, Bourbaki's structuralism remains one of the core legacies of mathematical axiomatic thought.
+
+## Constructive Mathematics (Brouwer 1908, Heyting 1930, Bishop 1967)
+
+Constructive mathematics rejects the Law of Excluded Middle and the Axiom of Choice in classical logic, requiring that every existence proof must provide a concrete construction method — that is, "there exists x" must be accompanied by "how to find x."
+
+> "To exist is to construct." — Core credo of constructive mathematics
+
+**Key figures and systems**:
+- **Brouwer** (1908–): Founder of intuitionism, held that mathematics is a free creation of the mind, and opposed treating the Law of Excluded Middle as universally valid.
+- **Heyting** (1930): Established a formal axiomatic system for intuitionistic logic — intuitionistic logic (Heyting arithmetic).
+- **Bishop** (1967): In *Foundations of Constructive Analysis*, demonstrated that constructive methods can reconstruct much of classical analysis without the Law of Excluded Middle and without the Axiom of Choice.
+
+**Key differences between constructive logic and classical logic**:
+- Excluded middle ¬¬P → P is not valid in constructive logic.
+- AC is nearly unacceptable in constructive frameworks.
+- Proving ¬P means constructing a function from P to contradiction; proving P ∨ Q means providing a proof of P or a proof of Q.
+
+**Significance**: Constructive mathematics is not merely a philosophical stance but a practical necessity — computer-executable proofs must provide algorithms (i.e., constructions). This also has profound connections to Gödel's incompleteness theorems: if the Law of Excluded Middle is rejected, many classical "proofs" no longer hold, and the "incompleteness" profile of an axiomatic system changes accordingly.