Results 1  10
of
15
A New Deconstructive Logic: Linear Logic
, 1995
"... The main concern of this paper is the design of a noetherian and confluent normalization for LK 2 (that is, classical second order predicate logic presented as a sequent calculus). The method we present is powerful: since it allows us to recover as fragments formalisms as seemingly different a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 110 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The main concern of this paper is the design of a noetherian and confluent normalization for LK 2 (that is, classical second order predicate logic presented as a sequent calculus). The method we present is powerful: since it allows us to recover as fragments formalisms as seemingly different as Girard's LC and Parigot's , FD ([9, 11, 27, 31]), delineates other viable systems as well, and gives means to extend the Krivine/Leivant paradigm of `programmingwithproofs' ([22, 23]) to classical logic; it is painless: since we reduce strong normalization and confluence to the same properties for linear logic (for nonadditive proof nets, to be precise) using appropriate embeddings (socalled decorations); it is unifying: it organizes known solutions in a simple pattern that makes apparent the how and why of their making. A comparison of our method to that of embedding LK into LJ (intuitionistic sequent calculus) brings to the fore the latter's defects for these `deconstructi...
Typed lambdacalculus in classical ZermeloFraenkel set theory
 ARCHIVE OF MATHEMATICAL LOGIC
, 2001
"... In this paper, we develop a system of typed lambdacalculus for the ZermeloFraenkel set theory, in the framework of classical logic. The first, and the simplest system of typed lambdacalculus is the system of simple types, which uses the intuitionistic propositional calculus, with the only connect ..."
Abstract

Cited by 33 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we develop a system of typed lambdacalculus for the ZermeloFraenkel set theory, in the framework of classical logic. The first, and the simplest system of typed lambdacalculus is the system of simple types, which uses the intuitionistic propositional calculus, with the only connective #. It is very important, because the well known CurryHoward correspondence between proofs and programs was originally discovered with it, and because it enjoys the normalization property : every typed term is strongly normalizable. It was extended to second order intuitionistic logic, in 1970, by J.Y. Girard[4], under the name of system F, still with the normalization property. More recently, in 1990, the CurryHoward correspondence was extended to classical logic, following Felleisen and Griffin [6] who discovered that the law of Peirce corresponds to control instructions in functional programming
Dependent choices, ‘quote’ and the clock
 Th. Comp. Sc
, 2003
"... When using the CurryHoward correspondence in order to obtain executable programs from mathematical proofs, we are faced with a difficult problem: to interpret each axiom of our axiom system for mathematics (which may be, for example, second order classical logic, or classical set theory) as an inst ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
When using the CurryHoward correspondence in order to obtain executable programs from mathematical proofs, we are faced with a difficult problem: to interpret each axiom of our axiom system for mathematics (which may be, for example, second order classical logic, or classical set theory) as an instruction of our programming language. This problem
About Translations of Classical Logic into Polarized Linear Logic
 IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2003
"... We show that the decomposition of Intuitionistic Logic into Linear Logic along the equation A ! B = !A ( B may be adapted into a decomposition of classical logic into LLP, the polarized version of Linear Logic. Firstly we build a categorical model of classical logic (a Control Category) from a categ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that the decomposition of Intuitionistic Logic into Linear Logic along the equation A ! B = !A ( B may be adapted into a decomposition of classical logic into LLP, the polarized version of Linear Logic. Firstly we build a categorical model of classical logic (a Control Category) from a categorical model of Linear Logic by a construction similar to the coKleisli category. Secondly we analyse two standard ContinuationPassing Style (CPS) translations, the Plotkin and the Krivine's translations, which are shown to correspond to two embeddings of LLP into LL.
Mixed Logic and Storage Operators
 ARCHIVE FOR MATHEMATICAL LOGIC
, 2000
"... In 1990 JL. Krivine introduced the notion of storage operators. They are λterms which simulate callbyvalue in the callbyname strategy and they can be used in order to modelize assignment instructions. JL. Krivine has shown that there is a very simple second order type in AF 2 type system for ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In 1990 JL. Krivine introduced the notion of storage operators. They are λterms which simulate callbyvalue in the callbyname strategy and they can be used in order to modelize assignment instructions. JL. Krivine has shown that there is a very simple second order type in AF 2 type system for storage operators using Gődel translation of classical to intuitionistic logic. In order to modelize the control operators, JL. Krivine has extended the system AF 2 to the classical logic. In his system the property of the unicity of integers representation is lost, but he has shown that storage operators typable in the system AF 2 can be used to find the values of classical integers. In this paper, we present a new classical type system based on a logical system called mixed logic. We prove that in this system we can characterize, by types, the storage operators and the control operators. We present also a similar result in the M. Parigot’s λµcalculus.
About Classical Logic and Imperative Programming
 Annals of mathematics and Articial Intelligence
, 1996
"... Introduction In this lecture, we shall consider a very well known typed #calculus system, which is the second order #calculus (also called "system F") of Girard [2], rediscovered by Reynolds [16] in a computer science frame. We shall extend it in two ways: . Types will be formulas of s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction In this lecture, we shall consider a very well known typed #calculus system, which is the second order #calculus (also called "system F") of Girard [2], rediscovered by Reynolds [16] in a computer science frame. We shall extend it in two ways: . Types will be formulas of second order predicate calculus, and not only, as in system F, second order propositional calculus [5, 6]. In a certain sense, this is a harmless extension, since the #terms which are typable are the same. This kind of extension has already been considered by D. Leivant [11]. . A much more serious extension is the following: the underlying logic will be classical logic, and not only, as in system F, intuitionistic logic. Extraction of programs from classical proofs has been considered, since two or three years by several people (C. Murthy [12], J.Y. Girardapproach has the following features: 1. We
Getting results from programs extracted from classical proofs
, 2002
"... We present a new method to extract from a classical proof of ∀x(I[x] → ∃y(O[y] ∧ S[x, y])) a program computing y from x. This method applies when O is a data type and S is a decidable predicate. Algorithms extracted this way are often far better than a stupid enumeration of all the possible outputs ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a new method to extract from a classical proof of ∀x(I[x] → ∃y(O[y] ∧ S[x, y])) a program computing y from x. This method applies when O is a data type and S is a decidable predicate. Algorithms extracted this way are often far better than a stupid enumeration of all the possible outputs and this is verified on a non trivial example: a proof of Dickson’s lemma.
Realizability in classical logic
, 2007
"... The essential aim is to explore the CurryHoward correspondence: we want to associate a program with each mathematical proof and to consider each theorem as a specification, i.e. to find the common behavior of the programs associated with every proof of this theorem. It is a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The essential aim is to explore the CurryHoward correspondence: we want to associate a program with each mathematical proof and to consider each theorem as a specification, i.e. to find the common behavior of the programs associated with every proof of this theorem. It is a