Results 1  10
of
14
Reasoning about the consequences of authorization policies in a linear epistemic logic
, 2009
"... Authorization policies are not standalone objects: they are used to selectively permit actions that change the state of a system. Thus, it is desirable to have a framework for reasoning about the semantic consequences of policies. To this end, we extend a rewriting interpretation of linear logic w ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Authorization policies are not standalone objects: they are used to selectively permit actions that change the state of a system. Thus, it is desirable to have a framework for reasoning about the semantic consequences of policies. To this end, we extend a rewriting interpretation of linear logic with connectives for modeling affirmation, knowledge, and possession. To cleanly confine semantic effects to the rewrite sequence, we introduce a monad. The result is a richly expressive logic that elegantly integrates policies and their effects. After presenting this logic and its metatheory, we demonstrate its utility by proving properties that relate a simple file system’s policies to their semantic consequences.
Explicit Substitutions and Reducibility
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 2001
"... . We consider reducibility sets dened not by induction on types but by induction on sequents as a tool to prove strong normalization of systems with explicit substitution. To illustrate this point, we give a proof of strong normalization (SN) for simplytyped callbyname ~calculus enriched with op ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We consider reducibility sets dened not by induction on types but by induction on sequents as a tool to prove strong normalization of systems with explicit substitution. To illustrate this point, we give a proof of strong normalization (SN) for simplytyped callbyname ~calculus enriched with operators of explicit unary substitutions. The ~calculus, dened by Curien & Herbelin, is a variant of calculus with a let operator that exhibits symmetries such as terms/contexts and callbyname /callbyvalue reduction. The ~calculus embeds various standard calculi (and Gentzen's style sequent calculi too) and as an application we derive the strong normalization of Parigot's simplytyped calculus with explicit substitution. Introduction Explicit substitution in calculus The traditional theory of calculus relies on reduction, that is the capture by a function of its argument followed by the process of substituting this argument to the places where it is used. The ...
Chu’s Construction: A Prooftheoretic Approach
 LOGIC FOR CONCURRENCY AND SYNCHRONISATION”, KLUWER TRENDS IN LOGIC N.18, 2003, PP.93114. LAMBDA CALCULUS 37
, 2001
"... ..."
Linear L"auchli semantics
 Annals Pure Appl. Logic
, 1996
"... Dedicated to the memory of Moez Alimohamed ..."
A formal framework for specifying sequent calculus proof systems
, 2012
"... Intuitionistic logic and intuitionistic type systems are commonly used as frameworks for the specification of natural deduction proof systems. In this paper we show how to use classical linear logic as a logical framework to specify sequent calculus proof systems and to establish some simple consequ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Intuitionistic logic and intuitionistic type systems are commonly used as frameworks for the specification of natural deduction proof systems. In this paper we show how to use classical linear logic as a logical framework to specify sequent calculus proof systems and to establish some simple consequences of the specified sequent calculus proof systems. In particular, derivability of an inference rule from a set of inference rules can be decided by bounded (linear) logic programming search on the specified rules. We also present two simple and decidable conditions that guarantee that the cut rule and nonatomic initial rules can be eliminated.
Flexible QueryAnswering Systems Modelled in Metalogic Programming
 Proc. 21st Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Adelaide
, 1990
"... Metaprogramming adds new expressive power to logic programming which can be advantageous to transfer to the field of deductive databases. We propose metaprogramming as a way to model and develop new, flexible queryanswering systems. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Metaprogramming adds new expressive power to logic programming which can be advantageous to transfer to the field of deductive databases. We propose metaprogramming as a way to model and develop new, flexible queryanswering systems.
Predicate Transformers and Linear Logic: SecondOrder
"... In [Hyv04b] we gave a denotational model whose core was the "trivial" relational model. The structure added on top of it was that of a predicate transformer. In the presence of atoms, this gave a nontrivial denotational model of full linear logic where proofs are interpreted by postfixedpoints of ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
In [Hyv04b] we gave a denotational model whose core was the "trivial" relational model. The structure added on top of it was that of a predicate transformer. In the presence of atoms, this gave a nontrivial denotational model of full linear logic where proofs are interpreted by postfixedpoints of the associated predicate transformer. We extend this model to # logic and then to full secondorder. Contents 1 First order in a nutshell 2 1.1 Relations, predicate transformers and multisets . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Interpreting formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Interpreting proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Main result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (linear) logic 5 2.1 Motivations and ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 The state space, permutations and renaming . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1 State space: relational interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2 Permutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Some examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.1 The empty type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.2 The singleton type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.3 The booleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.4 Linear booleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3 Interpreting open formulas 11 3.1 The relational model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.1 Preliminaries about injections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.2 Stable functors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.3 Trace of a stable functor . . . . . ....
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMBINATORICS AND COMPLEXITY OF CUT ELIMINATION
"... Abstract. Modus Ponens says that if you know A and you know that A implies B, then you know B. This is a basic rule that we take for granted ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Modus Ponens says that if you know A and you know that A implies B, then you know B. This is a basic rule that we take for granted