Results

**1 - 3**of**3**### Canonical proof nets for classical logic

"... Abstract. Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Abstract. Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that (a) there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, (b) it should be possible to check the correctness of a net in polynomial time, (c) every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and (d) there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness. Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In [23], the author presented a calculus of proof nets (expansion nets) satisfying (a) and (b); the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of (c). That sequent calculus, called LK ∗ in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper (a selfcontained extended version of [23]) , we give a full proof of (c) for expansion nets with respect to LK ∗, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets – this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria. 1

### A Systematic Approach to Canonicity in the Classical Sequent Calculus

"... The sequent calculus is often criticized for requiring proofs to be laden with large volumes of low-level syntactic details that can obscure the essence of a given proof. Because each inference rule introduces only a single connective, cut-free sequent proofs can separate closely related steps—such ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

The sequent calculus is often criticized for requiring proofs to be laden with large volumes of low-level syntactic details that can obscure the essence of a given proof. Because each inference rule introduces only a single connective, cut-free sequent proofs can separate closely related steps—such as instantiating a block of quantifiers—by irrelevant noise. Moreover, the sequential nature of sequent proofs forces proof steps that are syntactically non-interfering and permutable to nevertheless be written in some arbitrary order. The sequent calculus thus lacks a notion of canonicity: proofs that should be considered essentially the same may not have a common syntactic form. To fix this problem, many researchers revolt against the sequent calculus and replace it with proof structures that are more parallel or geometric. Proof-nets, matings, and atomic flows are examples of such revolutionary formalisms. In this paper, we propose taking, instead, an evolutionary approach to recover canonicity within the sequent calculus, an approach we illustrate for classical first-order logic. We use a multi-focused sequent system as our means of abstracting away the details from classical sequent proofs. We then show that, among the focused sequent proofs, the maximally multi-focused proofs, which make the foci as parallel as possible, are canonical. Moreover, such proofs are isomorphic to expansion tree proofs—a well known, simple, and parallel generalization of Herbrand disjunctions—for classical first-order logic. We thus provide a systematic method of recovering the essence of any sequent proof without abandoning the sequent calculus. 1

### The Isomorphism Between Expansion Proofs and Multi-Focused Sequent Proofs

, 2012

"... The sequent calculus is often criticized for requiring proofs to contain large amounts of low-level syntactic details that can obscure the essence of a given proof. Because each inference rule introduces only a single connective, sequent proofs can separate closely related steps—such as instantiatin ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

The sequent calculus is often criticized for requiring proofs to contain large amounts of low-level syntactic details that can obscure the essence of a given proof. Because each inference rule introduces only a single connective, sequent proofs can separate closely related steps—such as instantiating a block of quantifiers—by irrelevant noise. Moreover, the sequential nature of sequent proofs forces proof steps that are syntactically non-interfering and permutable to nevertheless be written in some arbitrary order. The sequent calculus thus lacks a notion of canonicity: proofs that should be considered essentially the same may not have a common syntactic form. To fix this problem, many researchers have proposed replacing the sequent calculus with proof structures that are more parallel or geometric. Proof-nets, matings, and atomic flows are examples of such revolutionary formalisms. We propose, instead, an evolutionary approach to recover canonicity within the sequent calculus, which we illustrate for classical first-order logic. The essential element of our approach is the use of a multi-focused sequent calculus as the means for abstracting away low-level details from classical cut-free sequent proofs. We show that, among the multi-focused proofs, the maximally multi-focused proofs that collect together all possible parallel foci are canonical. Moreover, if we start with a certain focused sequent proof system, such proofs are isomorphic to expansion proofs—a well known, minimalistic, and parallel generalization of Herbrand disjunctions—for classical first-order logic. This technique appears to be a systematic way to recover the essence of sequent calculus proofs. 1