math-skill 2.1.0 → 3.0.0

package/skills/logic-deduction/original-texts.en.md

@@ -1,160 +0,0 @@
-# Mathematical Sources and Classic Texts
-
-## Propositional Logic
-
-**Basic inference rules**:
-
-| Rule Name | Form | Validity |
-|-----------|------|----------|
-| Modus Ponens | P → Q, P ⊢ Q | Valid |
-| Modus Tollens | P → Q, ¬Q ⊢ ¬P | Valid |
-| Hypothetical Syllogism | P → Q, Q → R ⊢ P → R | Valid |
-| Disjunctive Syllogism | P ∨ Q, ¬P ⊢ Q | Valid |
-| Affirming the Consequent | P → Q, Q ⊢ P | Invalid |
-| Denying the Antecedent | P → Q, ¬P ⊢ ¬Q | Invalid |
-
-## Boolean Algebra (Boole, 1854)
-
-George Boole, in *An Investigation of the Laws of Thought* (1854), established an algebraic system for propositional logic, transforming logical reasoning into algebraic computation:
-
-> "Logic is a species of algebra whose variables take only the values 0 and 1."
-
-The core operations of Boolean algebra — ∧ (multiplication), ∨ (addition), ¬ (complement) — satisfy algebraic properties such as distributivity and De Morgan's laws. This is the algebraic dual of propositional logic: the same inferential structure can be handled either deductively or computationally. Boolean algebra later became the mathematical foundation of digital circuit design (Shannon, 1938) and computer science.
-
-## Frege's *Begriffsschrift* (1879)
-
-Frege invented the first complete formal system of first-order logic, introducing quantifiers (∀, ∃) and function symbols, demonstrating that logical reasoning can be fully mechanized. This is the starting point of modern mathematical logic — henceforth, mathematical proofs had precise syntactic rules rather than relying solely on intuitive narration.
-
-> "Can arithmetical truths be proved purely logically? The Begriffsschrift provides the instrument for this."
-
-## Peano Axioms (1889)
-
-Constructing the natural number system from logic:
-
-> 1. 0 is a natural number.
-> 2. Every natural number n has a successor S(n).
-> 3. 0 is not the successor of any natural number.
-> 4. Different natural numbers have different successors.
-> 5. (Induction Axiom) If a property holds for 0, and if it holds for n then it also holds for S(n), then the property holds for all natural numbers.
-
-This demonstrates how to construct a complete mathematical system from a minimal set of logical assumptions. The Peano axioms are a paradigm of first-order theories — a single second-order induction axiom (or a first-order induction schema) suffices to characterize the entire structure of the natural numbers.
-
-## Russell's Paradox (1901)
-
-> "Consider the set R of all sets that do not contain themselves: does R contain R?"
-
-If R ∈ R, then by definition R ∉ R; if R ∉ R, then by definition R ∈ R. The contradiction is irresolvable. This paradox directly demolished Frege's naive set theory (Frege acknowledged the fundamental flaw in his system upon receiving Russell's letter), triggering the "third crisis" of the foundations of mathematics. It gave rise to:
-
-- **ZFC Set Theory** (Zermelo-Fraenkel + Choice): Eliminates the paradox by restricting set construction rules (the Separation schema rather than unrestricted Comprehension)
-- **Type Theory** (Russell, 1908): Prohibits self-reference through a hierarchy of types
-- **Intuitionism** (Brouwer): Rejects treating infinite sets as completed objects
-
-Russell's paradox profoundly reveals that the consistency of a logical system cannot be taken for granted — it must be proved or constructively guaranteed.
-
-## ZFC as Background Logic for Mathematics
-
-Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) is the default foundational language of contemporary mathematics — virtually all mathematical objects (numbers, functions, spaces, groups) can be defined as sets within ZFC, and all mathematical theorems can (in principle) be translated into formal proofs in ZFC.
-
-> "Mathematicians do not write ZFC proofs in daily work, but they presuppose that all proofs can in principle be formalized in ZFC."
-
-ZFC's nine axioms (Extensionality, Empty Set, Pairing, Union, Power Set, Infinity, Separation, Replacement, Choice) carefully circumvent Russell's paradox while preserving sufficient constructive power. The Axiom of Choice (AC) has provoked ongoing controversy — it permits non-constructive selections (as in Zorn's Lemma and the Well-Ordering Theorem), revealing its cost in counterintuitive results such as the Banach-Tarski decomposition.
-
-## First-Order vs Higher-Order Logic
-
-**First-Order Logic (FOL)**: Quantifiers range only over individuals (∀x, ∃x), not over predicates or functions. This is the "standard language" of mathematical logic, possessing completeness (Gödel 1929) and compactness.
-
-**Higher-Order Logic (HOL)**: Allows quantification over predicates (∀P) and functions (∀f), offering greater expressive power at a steep cost — higher-order logic is **incomplete** (no recursively enumerable proof system can capture all valid inferences) and non-compact.
-
-> "First-order logic is complete but limited in expressive power; higher-order logic is expressive but incomplete. This is a fundamental trade-off."
-
-Peano Arithmetic (PA) is a first-order theory whose induction axiom is encoded as infinitely many first-order axiom schemas; the genuine Peano axioms (with second-order induction) uniquely characterize ℕ, but first-order PA has non-standard models. This connects directly to the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem.
-
-## Gödel: Completeness (1929) vs Incompleteness (1931)
-
-**Completeness Theorem (1929)**: The deductive system of first-order logic is complete — every logically valid formula can be formally proved.
-
-> "In first-order logic, all logically valid formulas can be proved from the axioms through formal inference."
-
-**Incompleteness Theorem (1931)**: Any consistent formal system that includes basic arithmetic contains undecidable propositions — neither provable nor refutable.
-
-> "In any sufficiently strong consistent formal system T, there exists a sentence G such that T ⊬ G and T ⊬ ¬G."
-
-The crucial distinction: the Completeness Theorem states that the **logical system itself** does not miss any valid inference; the Incompleteness Theorem states that **arithmetic theory** cannot exhaust all truths. The two are not contradictory — completeness guarantees "the inference rules are sufficient," while incompleteness reveals "arithmetical truth transcends any fixed set of axioms."
-
-## Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem (1920, 1922)
-
-> "If a first-order theory T has an infinite model, then T has a model of every infinite cardinality κ ≥ ℵ₀."
-
-Downward Löwenheim-Skolem: T must have a countable model. Upward Löwenheim-Skolem: T must have models of arbitrarily large cardinality.
-
-A startling corollary: a first-order theory **cannot control the cardinality of its models**. Even though ZFC aims to describe an uncountable universe of sets, ZFC itself has countable models (the Skolem paradox). This reveals a fundamental limitation of first-order logic's expressive power — first-order sentences cannot distinguish the "internal" and "external" perspectives on "countable" versus "uncountable."
-
-## Tarski's Semantic Theory of Truth (1933)
-
-> "'Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white."
-
-Tarski provided a formal definition of truth (the T-schema), illuminating the distinction between "truth" and "provability" in logic — "truth" is a semantic concept (dependent on models), while "provability" is a syntactic concept (dependent on proof systems). The Completeness Theorem bridges the two (in FOL, T ⊢ φ ⇔ T ⊨ φ), but in strong theories such as arithmetic they are permanently separated (Gödel's incompleteness).
-
-Tarski also proved that a sufficiently expressive language **cannot consistently define truth within itself** — a truth definition must employ a stronger metalanguage. This, together with Russell's paradox and Gödel's incompleteness, forms a triad of impossibility results concerning self-reference.
-
-## Gentzen's Natural Deduction and Sequent Calculus (1935)
-
-Gerhard Gentzen, in *Investigations into Logical Deduction*, invented two entirely new proof structures:
-
-**Natural Deduction**: Inference rules are organized around the introduction (I) and elimination (E) of each logical connective — ∧I, ∧E, →I, →E, ∀I, ∀E, etc. This captures the way mathematicians actually reason: assume a premise, derive a conclusion, then discharge the assumption (→I, i.e., conditional proof).
-
-**Sequent Calculus**: The objects of proof are sequents Γ ⊢ Δ (assumptions on the left, conclusions on the right), and rules operate between sequents. The key breakthrough: the **Cut-Elimination Theorem** (Hauptsatz) — any proof using the Cut rule can be transformed into a cut-free proof.
-
-> "The Hauptsatz states that all proofs can be transformed into cut-free proofs, eliminating all 'intermediate formulas'."
-
-Cut-elimination is the central tool of proof theory: it guarantees the subformula property (every step of a cut-free proof involves only subformulas of the final conclusion), making consistency and decidability proofs possible. Gentzen's work shifted logic from an "axiomatic" to a "structural" paradigm, founding the discipline of Proof Theory.
-
-## Turing's Halting Problem (1936)
-
-Alan Turing, in *On Computable Numbers*, defined the Turing machine and proved:
-
-> "There is no general algorithm that can decide whether an arbitrary Turing machine halts on an arbitrary input."
-
-The undecidability of the halting problem is a fundamental limitation on computation and logic. Its logical essence is equivalent to Gödel's incompleteness: if the halting problem were decidable, arithmetic incompleteness could be circumvented; if arithmetic were complete, the halting problem would be decidable. The two are duals — two faces of the same wall.
-
-A direct corollary of the halting problem: the **Entscheidungsproblem** for first-order logic is also undecidable (Church, 1936; Turing, 1936) — there is no general algorithm that can decide whether an arbitrary first-order formula is logically valid. Logical deduction can be executed, but it cannot be mechanically and fully predicted.
-
-## Resolution and Unification (Robinson, 1965)
-
-J. A. Robinson, in *A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle*, introduced the resolution rule:
-
-> "Resolve P ∨ Q and ¬P ∨ R to obtain Q ∨ R."
-
-Resolution compresses all inference into a single rule combined with the Unification algorithm — automatically finding an algebraic substitution σ that makes two terms equal, so that σ(P) = σ(P'), thereby enabling resolution on complementary literals.
-
-Resolution-unification is the mathematical core of Automated Theorem Proving and Logic Programming (e.g., Prolog). It demonstrates that proof search in first-order logic can be unified into a single algorithmic process, although efficiency issues (search space explosion) remain a severe practical challenge.
-
-## Curry-Howard Correspondence (1969)
-
-> "Propositions as types, proofs as programs."
-
-Curry (1958) first observed the correspondence between types in combinatory logic and formulas in propositional logic; Howard (1969) extended it to constructive predicate logic:
-
-| Logic Concept | Type Theory / Programming Concept |
-|---------------|-----------------------------------|
-| Proposition A | Type A |
-| A ∧ B | A × B (product type) |
-| A ∨ B | A + B (sum type) |
-| A → B | A → B (function type) |
-| ∀x. P(x) | Πx:A. P(x) (dependent function type) |
-| ∃x. P(x) | Σx:A. P(x) (dependent pair type) |
-| Constructive proof | Executable program |
-
-The Curry-Howard correspondence reveals a deep isomorphism between logical deduction and computation: a constructive proof is a program, and the execution of the program is proof normalization. This is the computational counterpart of Gentzen's cut-elimination — β-reduction is cut-elimination.
-
-This correspondence became the theoretical foundation of type theory (Martin-Löf, 1972), dependently typed programming (Coq, Agda), and Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT, 2013), unifying "proof correctness" and "program correctness" into a single problem.
-
-## Formalization of Common Logical Fallacies
-
-| Fallacy Name | Form | Counterexample |
-|--------------|------|----------------|
-| Affirming the Consequent | P → Q, Q ∴ P | "If it rains, the ground is wet; the ground is wet, therefore it rained" (could be a sprinkler) |
-| Denying the Antecedent | P → Q, ¬P ∴ ¬Q | "If it rains, the ground is wet; it did not rain, therefore the ground is not wet" (could be a sprinkler) |
-| Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning) | P ∴ P | "This book tells the truth because the book says so" |
-| Straw Man | Attacking P' ≠ P | A: "We should increase the education budget." B: "You want to give all the money to schools." |
-| Slippery Slope | A → B → ... → Z, ∴ ¬A | "Allow this → that → disaster, therefore we must not allow it." |

package/skills/logic-deduction/original-texts.md

@@ -1,173 +0,0 @@
-# 数学出处与经典文献 / Mathematical Sources and Classic Texts
-
-## 命题逻辑 / Propositional Logic
-
-**基本推理规则**：
-
-| 规则名 | 形式 | 有效性 |
-|--------|------|--------|
-| 假言推理 (Modus Ponens) | P → Q, P ⊢ Q | ✅ 有效 |
-| 拒取式 (Modus Tollens) | P → Q, ¬Q ⊢ ¬P | ✅ 有效 |
-| 假言三段论 | P → Q, Q → R ⊢ P → R | ✅ 有效 |
-| 析取三段论 | P ∨ Q, ¬P ⊢ Q | ✅ 有效 |
-| 肯定后件 | P → Q, Q ⊢ P | ❌ 无效 |
-| 否定前件 | P → Q, ¬P ⊢ ¬Q | ❌ 无效 |
-
-## Boole 布尔代数 / Boolean Algebra (1854)
-
-George Boole 在 *An Investigation of the Laws of Thought* (1854) 中建立了命题逻辑的代数化系统，将逻辑推理转化为代数运算：
-
-> "逻辑是代数的一种，其变量仅取 0 与 1 两个值。"
-> "Logic is a species of algebra whose variables take only the values 0 and 1."
-
-布尔代数的核心运算：∧ (乘法), ∨ (加法), ¬ (补), 满足分配律、德摩根律等代数性质。这是命题逻辑的代数对偶——同一推理结构既可用演绎方式也可用计算方式处理。布尔代数后来成为数字电路设计（Shannon, 1938）与计算机科学的数学基础。
-
-## Frege《概念文字》/ Frege's *Begriffsschrift* (1879)
-
-Frege 发明了第一个完整的一阶逻辑形式系统，引入量词 (∀, ∃) 和函数符号，展示了逻辑推理可以被完全机械化。这是现代数理逻辑的起点——从此，数学证明有了精确的语法规则，而非仅靠直觉叙述。
-
-> "算术真理能否被纯逻辑地证明？概念文字为此提供了工具。"
-> "Can arithmetical truths be proved purely logically? The Begriffsschrift provides the instrument for this."
-
-## Peano 公理 / Peano Axioms (1889)
-
-从逻辑出发构建自然数体系：
-
-> 1. 0 是一个自然数。
-> 2. 每个自然数 n 有一个后继 S(n)。
-> 3. 0 不是任何自然数的后继。
-> 4. 不同的自然数有不同的后继。
-> 5. （归纳公理）如果一个性质对 0 成立，且对 n 成立则对 S(n) 也成立，则该性质对所有自然数成立。
-
-这展示了如何从最少量的逻辑假设出发构建一个完整的数学体系。Peano 公理是一阶理论的典范——仅用一条二阶归纳公理（或一阶归纳公理模式）即可刻画自然数的全部结构。
-
-## Russell 悖论 / Russell's Paradox (1901)
-
-> "考虑所有不包含自身的集合所组成的集合 R：R 是否包含 R？"
-> "Consider the set R of all sets that do not contain themselves: does R contain R?"
-
-若 R ∈ R，则按定义 R ∉ R；若 R ∉ R，则按定义 R ∈ R。矛盾不可消解。此悖论直接摧毁了 Frege 的朴素集合论（Frege 在收到 Russell 信后承认其系统存在根本缺陷），引发了数学基础的"第三次危机"。由此催生了：
-
-- **ZFC 集合论** (Zermelo-Fraenkel + Choice)：通过限制集合构造规则（分离公理模式而非概括公理）排除悖论
-- **类型论** (Russell, 1908)：通过类型层级禁止自指
-- **直觉主义** (Brouwer)：拒绝将无穷集视为已完成对象
-
-Russell 悖论深刻揭示：逻辑系统的一致性不能被默认，必须被证明或被构造性地保证。
-
-## ZFC 集合论 / ZFC as Background Logic for Mathematics
-
-Zermelo-Fraenkel 集合论加选择公理 (ZFC) 是当代数学的默认基础语言——几乎所有数学对象（数、函数、空间、群）都可以在 ZFC 中被定义为集合，所有数学定理都可以（原则上）被翻译为 ZFC 中的形式证明。
-
-> "数学家在日常工作中不写 ZFC 证明，但他们默认所有证明都可以在 ZFC 中被形式化。"
-> "Mathematicians do not write ZFC proofs in daily work, but they presuppose that all proofs can in principle be formalized in ZFC."
-
-ZFC 的九条公理（外延、空集、配对、并集、幂集、无穷、分离、替换、选择）精心规避了 Russell 悖论，同时保留了足够强的构造能力。选择公理 (AC) 引发了持续争议——它允许非构造性选择（如 Zorn 引理、良序定理），在 Banach-Tarski 分球等反直觉结果中显露其代价。
-
-## 一阶逻辑 vs 高阶逻辑 / First-Order vs Higher-Order Logic
-
-**一阶逻辑 (FOL)**：量词仅作用于个体 (∀x, ∃x)，不允许量化谓词或函数。这是数理逻辑的"标准语言"，拥有完备性（Gödel 1929）和紧致性。
-
-**高阶逻辑 (HOL)**：允许量化谓词 (∀P) 和函数 (∀f)，表达力更强但代价沉重——高阶逻辑**不完备**（无递归可枚举的证明系统能覆盖所有有效推理），且不可紧致。
-
-> "一阶逻辑是完备的但表达力受限；高阶逻辑表达力强但不可完备。这是一个根本性的权衡。"
-> "First-order logic is complete but limited in expressive power; higher-order logic is expressive but incomplete. This is a fundamental trade-off."
-
-Peano 算术 (PA) 是一阶理论，其归纳公理被编码为无穷多条一阶公理模式；真正的 Peano 公理（二阶归纳）唯一刻画 ℕ，但一阶 PA 有非标准模型。这直接联系到 Löwenheim-Skolem 定理。
-
-## Gödel 完备性 vs 不完备性 / Completeness (1929) vs Incompleteness (1931)
-
-**完备性定理 (1929)**：一阶逻辑的演绎系统是完备的——每个逻辑上有效的公式都可被形式证明。
-
-> "一阶逻辑中，所有逻辑上有效的公式都可以从公理出发通过形式推理得到证明。"
-> "In first-order logic, all logically valid formulas can be proved from the axioms through formal inference."
-
-**不完备性定理 (1931)**：任何包含基本算术的一致形式系统都存在不可判定命题——既不可证也不可否证。
-
-> "任何足够强的一致形式系统 T 中，存在语句 G 使得 T ⊬ G 且 T ⊬ ¬G。"
-> "In any sufficiently strong consistent formal system T, there exists a sentence G such that T ⊬ G and T ⊬ ¬G."
-
-关键区别：完备性定理说的是**逻辑系统本身**不遗漏有效推理；不完备性定理说的是**算术理论**无法穷尽所有真理。二者不矛盾——完备性保证"推理规则够用"，不完备性揭示"算术真理超出任何固定公理集"。
-
-## Löwenheim-Skolem 定理 / Löwenheim-Skolem Theorem (1920, 1922)
-
-> "若一阶理论 T 有无穷模型，则 T 对每个无穷基数 κ ≥ ℵ₀ 都有模型。"
-> "If a first-order theory T has an infinite model, then T has a model of every infinite cardinality κ ≥ ℵ₀."
-
-下 Löwenheim-Skolem：T 必有可数模型。上 Löwenheim-Skolem：T 必有任意大基数模型。
-
-震撼性推论：一阶理论**无法控制其模型的基数**。即使 ZFC 旨在描述一个不可数集合宇宙，ZFC 本身也有可数模型（Skolem 悖论）。这揭示了一阶逻辑的表达力根本性限制——一阶语句无法区分"可数"与"不可数"的内部视角与外部视角。
-
-## Tarski 真理的语义理论 / Tarski's Semantic Theory of Truth (1933)
-
-> "'雪是白的'为真，当且仅当雪是白的。"
-> "'Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white."
-
-Tarski 给出了真理的形式定义 (T-schema)，展示了逻辑中"真"与"可证"的区别——"真"是语义概念（取决于模型），"可证"是语法概念（取决于证明系统）。完备性定理连接二者（在 FOL 中 T ⊢ φ ⇔ T ⊨ φ），但在算术等强理论中二者永久分离（Gödel 不完备性）。
-
-Tarski 还证明了：足够强的语言**不可能在自身内部一致地定义真理**——真理定义必须使用更强的元语言。这与 Russell 悖论和 Gödel 不完备性形成三重不可自指限制。
-
-## Gentzen 自然演绎与相继演算 / Gentzen's Natural Deduction and Sequent Calculus (1935)
-
-Gerhard Gentzen 在 *Investigations into Logical Deduction* 中发明了两种全新的证明结构：
-
-**自然演绎 (Natural Deduction)**：推理规则围绕引入 (I) 和消除 (E) 每个逻辑联结词组织——∧I, ∧E, →I, →E, ∀I, ∀E 等。这捕捉了数学家的实际推理方式：假设一个前提，推导结论，然后取消假设（→I 即条件证明）。
-
-**相继演算 (Sequent Calculus)**：证明的对象是相继式 Γ ⊢ Δ（左边假设，右边结论），规则在相继式之间操作。关键突破：**切割消除定理** (Hauptsatz)——任何使用切割规则 (Cut) 的证明都可以被转化为无切割证明。
-
-> "主定理 (Hauptsatz) 表明：所有证明都可以被转化为无切割的证明，即消除一切'中间公式'。"
-> "The Hauptsatz states that all proofs can be transformed into cut-free proofs, eliminating all 'intermediate formulas'."
-
-切割消除是证明论的核心工具：它保证了子公式性质（无切割证明的每一步只涉及最终结论的子公式），使得一致性和可判定性证明成为可能。Gentzen 的工作将逻辑从"公理化"转向"结构化"，开创了证明论 (Proof Theory) 这一学科。
-
-## Turing 停机问题 / Turing's Halting Problem (1936)
-
-Alan Turing 在 *On Computable Numbers* 中定义了 Turing 机，并证明了：
-
-> "不存在通用算法能判定任意 Turing 机是否在任意输入上停机。"
-> "There is no general algorithm that can decide whether an arbitrary Turing machine halts on an arbitrary input."
-
-停机问题的不可判定性是计算与逻辑的根本性限制。它的逻辑本质与 Gödel 不完备性等价：若停机可判定，则算术不完备性可被绕过；若算术完备，则停机可被判定。二者互为对偶——同一堵墙的两个面。
-
-停机问题的直接推论：一阶逻辑的**有效性判定问题** (Entscheidungsproblem) 也是不可判定的（Church, 1936; Turing, 1936）——不存在通用算法能判定任意一阶公式是否逻辑有效。逻辑演绎可以被执行，但不可被机械地全面预判。
-
-## Robinson 消解与合一 / Resolution and Unification (1965)
-
-J. A. Robinson 在 *A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle* 中引入了消解规则：
-
-> "从 P ∨ Q 和 ¬P ∨ R 消解得到 Q ∨ R。"
-> "Resolve P ∨ Q and ¬P ∨ R to obtain Q ∨ R."
-
-消解将所有推理压缩为一条规则加上合一算法 (Unification)——自动寻找使两个项相等的代数替换 σ，使得 σ(P) = σ(P')，从而对互补文字执行消解。
-
-消解-合一是自动定理证明 (Automated Theorem Proving) 和逻辑编程 (Logic Programming, e.g. Prolog) 的数学核心。它证明了：一阶逻辑的证明搜索可以被统一为一个算法过程，尽管效率问题（搜索空间爆炸）在实践中仍然严峻。
-
-## Curry-Howard 对应 / Curry-Howard Correspondence (1969)
-
-> "命题即类型，证明即程序。"
-> "Propositions as types, proofs as programs."
-
-Curry (1958) 首先观察到组合逻辑的类型与命题逻辑的公式之间的对应；Howard (1969) 将其扩展到构造性谓词逻辑：
-
-| 逻辑概念 | 类型论/编程概念 |
-|----------|----------------|
-| 命题 A | 类型 A |
-| A ∧ B | A × B (积类型) |
-| A ∨ B | A + B (和类型) |
-| A → B | A → B (函数类型) |
-| ∀x. P(x) | Πx:A. P(x) (依赖函数类型) |
-| ∃x. P(x) | Σx:A. P(x) (依赖对类型) |
-| 构造性证明 | 可执行程序 |
-
-Curry-Howard 对应揭示了逻辑演绎与计算之间的深层同构：一个构造性证明就是一个程序，程序的执行就是证明的归约 (proof normalization)。这是 Gentzen 切割消除在计算层面的对应——β-归约就是切割消除。
-
-此对应成为类型论 (Martin-Löf, 1972)、依赖类型编程 (Coq, Agda) 和同伦类型论 (HoTT, 2013) 的理论基础，将"证明正确性"与"程序正确性"统一为同一问题。
-
-## 常见逻辑谬误的形式化
-
-| 谬误名 | 形式 | 反例 |
-|--------|------|------|
-| 肯定后件 | P → Q, Q ∴ P | "如果下雨则地湿，地湿，所以下雨了"（可能是洒水车） |
-| 否定前件 | P → Q, ¬P ∴ ¬Q | "如果下雨则地湿，没下雨，所以地不湿"（可能是洒水车） |
-| 循环论证 | P ∴ P | "这本书说的是真话，因为书上这么写的" |
-| 稻草人 | 攻击 P' ≠ P | A: "应该增加教育预算" B: "你想把所有钱都给学校" |
-| 滑坡 | A → B → ... → Z, ∴ ¬A | "允许这个→那个→灾难，所以不能允许" |

package/skills/modeling/SKILL.en.md

@@ -1,135 +0,0 @@
----
-name: modeling
-description: |
-  Trigger when translating real-world problems into mathematics (reality->math->interpretation), building predictive/explanatory models, performing dimensional analysis and model selection, or establishing computable models for algorithms/operators/structures.
----
-
-# Modeling
-
-> "Transforming real-world problems into mathematical problems, solving them mathematically to explain and predict reality. All models are wrong, but some are useful."
->
-> -- Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Modeling
-
-## Core Principle
-
-**A model is a simplified representation of reality, not reality itself. A good model is not one that is "true," but one that makes accurate predictions within its domain of applicability.**
-
-The golden cycle of modeling: (1) **Real-world problem -> Mathematical problem** (translation); (2) **Mathematical problem -> Mathematical solution** (solving); (3) **Mathematical solution -> Real-world interpretation** (back-translation); (4) **Real-world interpretation -> Experimental validation** (verification).
-
-> **Mathematical Formalization**
->
-> **Dimensional Analysis & Buckingham Pi Theorem**: Before constructing equations, one must verify dimensional consistency. If a system involves $n$ physical quantities spanning $m$ fundamental dimensions, one can construct $k=n-m$ dimensionless Pi terms, thereby reducing the number of variables and simplifying the equations; dimensionally inconsistent equations are physically inadmissible.
->
-> **Model Specification**: Let the system output be $y$, with inputs $x_1,\dots,x_p$, and model $y=f(x_1,\dots,x_p;\theta)+\varepsilon$, where $f$ is the model function, $\theta$ is the parameter vector, and $\varepsilon$ is the error term. Model selection amounts to choosing the bias-variance-optimal $f$ from a candidate set $\{f_1,f_2,\dots\}$.
-
-## GPU-Friendliness (Cross-Cutting Check)
-
-When a model is used for **algorithm/operator/training design**, model selection and parameterization directly determine GPU viability -- pass the eight-dimensional gate in `../../references/gpu-friendly-math.md`:
-
-- **Linear / GEMM-compatible parameterization**: $y=f(x;\theta)$ where $f$ can be expressed as dense tensor algebra or a chain of matrix multiplications (linear regression, MLP) -- friendly, fully utilizes Tensor Cores.
-- **Low-rank parameterization**: $\theta$ uses low-rank / block structure instead of dense representation -- memory-friendly, compressible (see `../../references/books/matrix-analysis.md`).
-- **Operator splitting / block parallelism**: PDE/ODE models decomposed by spatial/temporal blocks, serial recurrence converted to parallel scan -- amenable to adaptation.
-- **Anti-patterns**: Model requires $O(n^2)$ dense global operations (naive full attention), data-dependent branching / scalar loops, ill-conditioned numerics requiring fp64, non-differentiable operations requiring discrete search -- "beautiful but incomputable"; switch to a tensorizable, fusible, numerically stable equivalent parameterization.
-
-Eight-dimensional minimum assessment (formal terms): **Tensorization** -- whether model equations can be evaluated in batch; **GEMM-mappability** -- whether the parameterization can be expressed as matrix multiplication / convolution / low-rank factors; **Complexity** -- growth of state dimension, time steps, interaction terms; **Memory & KV-Cache** -- whether hidden states, activations, and caches can be compressed; **Low-precision stability** -- whether equations are ill-conditioned or require fp64; **Parallelism & communication** -- whether the dynamical system can be decomposed into blocks / scans; **Sparse structure** -- whether the coupling graph is structured; **Operator fusion** -- whether model updates and loss computation can be fused.
-
-> Cross-reference `../../references/books/optimization-ml.md` (model parameterization and training), `matrix-analysis.md` (low-rank, condition number, compression).
-
-## When NOT to Use
-
-- **The problem cannot be quantified or structured** -- modeling requires well-defined variables and relationships.
-- **Only qualitative understanding is needed** (e.g., "roughly how does this phenomenon work") -- modeling would be overly precise.
-- **Fundamental data is lacking** -- a model without data is merely conjecture.
-
-## When to Use
-
-- When a real-world problem needs to be precisely formulated in mathematical language (reality -> math -> interpretation).
-- Building predictive / explanatory models to interpret experimental data or predict new phenomena.
-- Understanding interactions and sensitivities among factors in complex systems.
-- Performing dimensional analysis, model selection (AIC/BIC/CV), and sensitivity analysis.
-- **Establishing computable models for algorithms/operators/structures** and evaluating the GPU viability of their parameterizations.
-
-## Method
-
-### Step 1: Define the Real-World Problem
-Describe the problem to be solved in the clearest possible language. Key questions: What are the **inputs** of the system? What are the **outputs**? Is the goal prediction, explanation, or optimization? Without clear direction, modeling goes astray.
-
-### Step 2: State Assumptions
-This is the most critical and most perilous step in modeling. All models require simplification, but one must **explicitly document every assumption**: Which factors are important and which can be neglected? Is the system deterministic or stochastic? Static or dynamic? Are variable relationships linear or nonlinear? Every assumption must be justified.
-
-### Step 3: Establish Mathematical Structure / Dimensional Analysis
-Choose a mathematical framework based on the assumptions:
-
-| Phenomenon Characteristics | Mathematical Framework |
-|---|---|
-| Causal relationships among variables | ODE/PDE (ordinary/partial differential equations) |
-| Spatial distribution and propagation | Partial differential equations (heat conduction, wave, diffusion) |
-| Relationships among discrete objects | Graph theory |
-| Decision-making under uncertainty | Probabilistic models |
-| Resource allocation | Optimization models |
-| Population behavior and interactions | Statistical models / Markov chains / Agent-based models |
-| Classification and prediction | Function approximation / Regression |
-
-Before constructing equations, one must verify dimensional consistency and construct $k=n-m$ dimensionless Pi terms to reduce variables and simplify equations; dimensionally inconsistent equations are physically inadmissible.
-
-### Step 4: Solve
-Solve the model using mathematical methods: **analytical solutions** (exact but possibly nonexistent), **numerical solutions** (approximate but always obtainable), **qualitative analysis** (seeking properties such as stability and monotonicity rather than explicit solutions).
-
-### Step 5: Interpret and Validate
-Translate the mathematical solution back into real-world language; compare with existing data or experimental results; perform sanity checks to verify whether predictions are reasonable. Conclusions inconsistent with reality are invalid no matter how "elegant" they may be.
-
-### Step 6: Sensitivity Analysis and Model Selection
-**Sensitivity analysis**: If a small perturbation in a parameter causes a large change in output, that parameter is sensitive and its precision must be carefully controlled.
-**Bias-variance trade-off**: Simple models have high bias and low variance (underfitting); complex models have low bias and high variance (overfitting); the optimal model strikes a balance between the two.
-**Model selection criteria**: AIC $= -2\log L + 2k$ (favors slightly more complex models, suitable for prediction); BIC $= -2\log L + k\log n$ (heavier penalty, favors parsimony, suitable for explanation); Cross-validation (CV) evaluates out-of-sample predictive performance and guards against overfitting.
-
-### Step 7: Iterate and Improve
-Models almost always require refinement. If predictions conflict with evidence: Which assumption is at fault? Should new factors be introduced? Should the mathematical framework be changed? When predictions disagree with reality, the response is not to abandon modeling but to revise the model.
-
-### Step 8: Declare Scope of Applicability
-Explicitly state the conditions under which the model is valid and those under which it fails. All models have boundaries -- a scope-of-applicability declaration is the model's "expiration label" and is the key safeguard against misuse.
-
-## Common Errors
-
-| Error | Critique | Correct Approach |
-|---|---|---|
-| Overfitting | Model is too complex, fitting noise rather than signal | Apply Occam's razor: do not multiply entities beyond necessity |
-| Underfitting | Model is too simple to capture key phenomena | Inspect residual patterns to identify missing factors |
-| Ignoring assumption validity | Assumptions are made for mathematical convenience rather than physical plausibility | Every assumption must be grounded in real-world justification |
-| Extrapolating beyond the domain of applicability | Model is valid only within a certain range; beyond it, predictions fail | Explicitly declare the model's scope of applicability |
-| Confusing correlation with causation | Relationships in a model do not imply causation | Distinguish descriptive models from causal models |
-| Forgetting validation | Using a model immediately after construction without checking predictions | Validate with independent data |
-| Ignoring dimensional consistency | Dimensions on both sides of an equation do not match; physically inadmissible | Perform dimensional analysis before constructing equations; construct dimensionless Pi terms |
-| Selecting models based only on in-sample fit | In-sample error underestimates true prediction error | Use AIC/BIC or cross-validation to assess out-of-sample performance |
-| Neglecting sensitivity analysis | Not knowing which parameters drive the results | Perform sensitivity analysis on key parameters and focus on sensitive ones |
-| Confusing validation with model selection | Validation tests a given model; selection compares among candidates | First select a model using AIC/BIC/CV, then validate with independent data |
-| Excessively complex model leading to incomputability | Parameterization cannot be tensorized / GEMM-mapped; $O(n^2)$ memory explosion | Choose a tensorizable, fusible, numerically stable equivalent parameterization; pass the GPU eight-dimensional gate |
-
-## Operating Procedure
-
-When this skill is triggered, the output must include:
-
-1. **Problem definition**: A one-sentence description of the real-world problem to be solved
-2. **Assumption list**: `[Assumption N]: [Content] (Plausibility: High/Medium/Low)`
-3. **Dimensional check**: Perform dimensional analysis on key physical quantities and construct dimensionless Pi terms
-4. **Model selection**: `[Framework]: [Choice] because [Reason]`
-5. **Variable definitions**: Define all variables, parameters, and their physical meanings
-6. **Solution approach**: Specify the solving method (analytical / numerical / qualitative)
-7. **Sensitivity analysis**: Identify sensitive parameters and assess their impact on the output
-8. **Model selection criteria**: If candidate models exist, compare them using AIC/BIC/CV and select the best
-9. **Validation plan**: How will the model's validity be tested?
-10. **Scope of applicability**: Explicitly state the conditions under which the model is valid and those under which it fails
-11. **[GPU viability]** (if used for algorithm/operator/structure): Whether the model parameterization is tensorizable / GEMM-mappable, whether complexity and memory are acceptable; pass the eight-dimensional gate in `../../references/gpu-friendly-math.md`; label as friendly / retrofittable / unfriendly, with adaptation recommendations.
-
-**Output must not consist of analysis alone without conclusions.**
-
-## Relations to Other Skills
-
-- **Axiomatic thinking**: The assumptions of a model are analogous to axioms; their consistency must be verified.
-- **Abstraction**: Modeling is an application of abstraction -- abstracting from reality to a mathematical structure.
-- **Optimization**: The objective function of many models is itself an optimization problem.
-- **Probability and statistics**: Modeling uncertainty requires the tools of probability theory.
-- **Transformation**: Solving a model often requires transforming it into a more tractable representation.
-- **Algorithmic thinking**: Computational models (agent-based, cellular automata) employ algorithms as the modeling framework.
-- **Causal inference**: Causal models (DAGs, structural causal models) explicitly distinguish causation from correlation.
-- **Modern mathematics activation**: `../../references/books/smooth-manifolds.md` (manifold constraints / latent-space geometry), `../../references/books/differential-geometry.md` (metrics / curvature), `../../references/books/optimization-ml.md` (parameterization and training).

package/skills/modeling/SKILL.md

@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
----
-name: modeling
-description: |
-  触发：当需要将现实问题转化为数学问题（现实→数学→解释）、构建预测/解释模型、进行量纲分析与模型选择、为算法/算子/结构建立可计算模型时调用。
-  English: Trigger when translating real-world problems into mathematics (reality→math→interpretation), building predictive/explanatory models, performing dimensional analysis and model selection, or establishing computable models for algorithms/operators/structures.
----
-
-> **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。
-
-# 🌉 建模思想 / Modeling
-
-> "将现实世界的问题转化为数学问题，通过求解数学问题来解释和预测现实。所有模型都是错的，但有些是有用的。"
-> "Transforming real-world problems into mathematical problems, solving them mathematically to explain and predict reality. All models are wrong, but some are useful."
->
-> —— 应用数学、数学建模 / Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Modeling
-
-## 核心原则 / Core Principle
-
-**模型是现实的简化表示，不是现实本身。一个好模型不是"真实"的模型，而是在其适用范围内能做出准确预测的模型。**
-
-建模的黄金循环：① **现实问题→数学问题**（翻译）；② **数学问题→数学解**（求解）；③ **数学解→现实解释**（回译）；④ **现实解释→实验验证**（检验）。
-
-> **数学形式化 / Mathematical Formalization**
->
-> **量纲分析与 Buckingham Pi 定理 / Dimensional Analysis & Buckingham Pi Theorem**：建方程前必须检查量纲一致性。若系统有 $n$ 个物理量涉及 $m$ 个基本量纲，可构造 $k=n-m$ 个无量纲 Pi 项，减少变量、简化方程；量纲不一致的方程物理上不可接受。
->
-> **模型规格 / Model Specification**：设系统输出 $y$，输入 $x_1,\dots,x_p$，模型 $y=f(x_1,\dots,x_p;\theta)+\varepsilon$，其中 $f$ 为模型函数、$\theta$ 为参数向量、$\varepsilon$ 为误差项。模型选择即在候选集 $\{f_1,f_2,\dots\}$ 中选出偏差-方差最优的 $f$。
-
-## GPU 友好性 / GPU-Friendliness（横切检查）
-
-当模型用于**算法/算子/训练设计**时，模型选择与参数化直接决定 GPU 可行性——过 `../../references/gpu-friendly-math.md` 八维门：
-
-- **线性/可 GEMM 化参数化**：$y=f(x;\theta)$ 中 $f$ 表为稠密张量代数或矩阵乘链（线性回归、MLP）→ 友好，吃满 Tensor Core。
-- **低秩参数化**：$\theta$ 用低秩/块结构代替稠密 → 显存友好、可压缩（见 `../../references/books/matrix-analysis.md`）。
-- **算子分裂/块并行**：PDE/ODE 模型按空间/时间分块、串行递推改并行扫描 → 可改造。
-- **反模式**：模型需 $O(n^2)$ 稠密全局算子（朴素全注意力）、数据相关分支/标量循环、病态需 fp64、不可微需离散搜索 → "美但不可算"，改选可张量化、可融合、数值稳定的等价参数化。
-
-八维最低判定（正式术语）：**张量化**看模型方程能否批量求值；**GEMM 可映射**看参数化是否可写成矩阵乘/卷积/低秩因子；**复杂度**看状态维、时间步、交互项增长；**显存与 KV-Cache**看隐状态、激活、缓存能否压缩；**低精度稳定**看方程是否病态或需 fp64；**并行与通信**看动态系统能否分块/scan；**稀疏结构**看耦合图是否结构化；**算子融合**看模型更新与 loss 是否可融合。
-
-> 配合 `../../references/books/optimization-ml.md`（模型参数化与训练）、`matrix-analysis.md`（低秩、条件数、压缩）。
-
-## 不适用场景 / When NOT to Use
-
-- **问题无法量化或结构化**——建模需要可定义的变量和关系。
-- **只需要定性理解**（如"这个现象大概怎么回事"）——建模会过度精确。
-- **缺乏基本数据**——没有数据的模型只是猜测。
-
-## 何时使用 / When to Use
-
-- 需要将现实问题用数学语言精确表述（现实→数学→解释）。
-- 构建预测/解释模型以解读实验数据或预测新现象。
-- 理解复杂系统中各因素的相互作用与敏感度。
-- 进行量纲分析、模型选择（AIC/BIC/CV）与敏感度分析。
-- **为算法/算子/结构建立可计算模型**，并评估其参数化的 GPU 可行性。
-
-## 方法流程 / Method
-
-### 第一步：明确现实问题
-用最清晰的语言描述要解决的问题。关键：系统的**输入**是什么？**输出**是什么？**目标**是预测、解释还是优化？方向不清，建模即失准。
-
-### 第二步：做出假设
-建模中最关键也最危险的一步。所有模型都需简化，但必须**明确记录每一个假设**：哪些因素重要、哪些可忽略？系统是确定性还是随机？静态还是动态？变量关系线性还是非线性？每个假设都要有依据。
-
-### 第三步：建立数学结构 / 量纲分析
-根据假设选择数学框架：
-
-| 现象特征 | 数学框架 |
-|---|---|
-| 变量间因果关系 | 微分/差分方程 ODE/PDE |
-| 空间分布与传播 | 偏微分方程（热传导、波动、扩散）|
-| 离散对象的关系 | 图论 |
-| 不确定性下的决策 | 概率模型 |
-| 资源分配 | 优化模型 |
-| 群体行为与交互 | 统计模型 / 马尔可夫链 / Agent-based |
-| 分类与预测 | 函数逼近 / 回归 |
-
-建方程前必须检查量纲一致性，构造 $k=n-m$ 个无量纲 Pi 项以减少变量、简化方程；量纲不一致的方程物理上不可接受。
-
-### 第四步：求解
-用数学方法求解模型：**解析解**（精确但可能不存在）、**数值解**（近似但总能得到）、**定性分析**（不求具体解，只求性质如稳定性、单调性）。
-
-### 第五步：解释与验证
-将数学解翻译回现实语言；与已有数据或实验结果对比；做 sanity check 检验预测是否合理。与现实不符的结论无论多"漂亮"都无效。
-
-### 第六步：敏感度分析与模型选择
-**敏感度分析**：若某参数小扰动导致输出大幅变化，则为敏感参数，需重点关注其取值精度。
-**偏差-方差权衡**：简单模型偏差高、方差低（欠拟合）；复杂模型偏差低、方差高（过拟合）；最优模型在两者间平衡。
-**模型选择准则**：AIC $= -2\log L + 2k$（倾向略复杂，适合预测）；BIC $= -2\log L + k\log n$（惩罚更重，倾向简约，适合解释）；交叉验证（CV）评估样本外预测性能、防过拟合。
-
-### 第七步：迭代与改进
-模型几乎总需改进。若预测与事实不符：哪个假设出了问题？是否需要增加新因素？是否需要改变数学框架？与现实不符时不是放弃建模，而是修正模型。
-
-### 第八步：适用范围声明
-明确标注模型在什么条件下有效、什么条件下失效。所有模型都有边界——适用范围声明是模型的"保质期标签"，是防止误用的关键。
-
-## 常见错误 / Common Errors
-
-| 错误 / Error | 批评 / Critique | 正确做法 / Correct Approach |
-|---|---|---|
-| 过度拟合 | 模型太复杂，拟合了噪声而非信号 | 用奥卡姆剃刀：如无必要勿增实体 |
-| 欠拟合 | 模型太简单，无法捕捉关键现象 | 检查残差模式，识别缺失因素 |
-| 忽略假设的合理性 | 假设只为数学方便而非现实合理 | 每个假设都要有现实依据 |
-| 外推超出适用范围 | 模型只在某范围内有效，超出失效 | 明确标注模型适用范围 |
-| 把相关性当因果性 | 模型中的关系≠因果关系 | 区分描述性模型与因果模型 |
-| 忘记验证 | 建完模型直接用，不检验预测 | 必须用独立数据验证 |
-| 忽略量纲一致性 | 方程两侧量纲不匹配，物理不可接受 | 建方程前做量纲分析，构造无量纲 Pi 项 |
-| 仅用样本内拟合选模型 | 样本内误差低估真实预测误差 | 用 AIC/BIC 或交叉验证评估样本外性能 |
-| 忽略敏感度分析 | 不知哪些参数驱动结果 | 对关键参数做敏感度分析，重点关注敏感参数 |
-| 混淆验证与模型选择 | 验证检验给定模型；选择在候选间比较 | 先用 AIC/BIC/CV 选模型，再用独立数据验证 |
-| 模型过度复杂→不可算 | 参数化无法张量化/GEMM 化，$O(n^2)$ 显存爆炸 | 选可张量化、可融合、数值稳定的等价参数化，过 GPU 八维门 |
-
-## 操作规程 / Operating Procedure
-
-当本 skill 被触发时，输出必须包含：
-
-1. **问题定义**：用一句话描述要解决的现实问题
-2. **假设清单**：列出 `[假设N]: [内容]（合理性：高/中/低）`
-3. **量纲检查**：对关键物理量做量纲分析，构造无量纲 Pi 项
-4. **模型选择**：`[框架]: [选择] 因为 [理由]`
-5. **变量定义**：定义所有变量、参数及其物理意义
-6. **求解方案**：说明求解方法（解析/数值/定性）
-7. **敏感度分析**：识别敏感参数，评估其对输出的影响
-8. **模型选择准则**：若有候选模型，用 AIC/BIC/CV 比较并选出最优
-9. **验证计划**：如何检验模型的有效性？
-10. **适用范围**：明确标注模型在什么条件下有效、什么条件下失效
-11. **[GPU 可行性]**（若用于算法/算子/结构）：模型参数化是否可张量化/GEMM 化、复杂度与显存是否可接受，过 `../../references/gpu-friendly-math.md` 八维门，标注友好/可改造/不友好 + 改造建议。
-
-**输出不得只给分析而无结论。**
-
-## 与其他 skill 的关系 / Relations to Other Skills
-
-- **公理化思想**：模型的假设类似于公理，需要检验相容性。
-- **抽象化思想**：建模是抽象化的应用——从现实抽象为数学结构。
-- **优化思想**：很多模型的目标函数就是优化问题。
-- **概率与统计**：不确定性建模需要概率论工具。
-- **变换思想**：模型的求解常常需要变换到更容易处理的表示。
-- **算法思想**：计算模型（agent-based、元胞自动机）将算法作为建模框架。
-- **因果推断思想**：因果模型（DAG、结构因果模型）明确区分因果与相关。
-- **现代数学激活**：`../../references/books/smooth-manifolds.md`（流形约束/隐空间几何）、`../../references/books/differential-geometry.md`（度量/曲率）、`../../references/books/optimization-ml.md`（参数化与训练）。