Results 1  10
of
73
Constructivism and Proof Theory
, 2003
"... Introduction to the constructive point of view in the foundations of mathematics, in
particular intuitionism due to L.E.J. Brouwer, constructive recursive mathematics
due to A.A. Markov, and Bishop’s constructive mathematics. The constructive interpretation
and formalization of logic is described. F ..."
Abstract

Cited by 162 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Introduction to the constructive point of view in the foundations of mathematics, in
particular intuitionism due to L.E.J. Brouwer, constructive recursive mathematics
due to A.A. Markov, and Bishop’s constructive mathematics. The constructive interpretation
and formalization of logic is described. For constructive (intuitionistic)
arithmetic, Kleene’s realizability interpretation is given; this provides an example
of the possibility of a constructive mathematical practice which diverges from classical
mathematics. The crucial notion in intuitionistic analysis, choice sequence, is
briefly described and some principles which are valid for choice sequences are discussed.
The second half of the article deals with some aspects of proof theory, i.e.,
the study of formal proofs as combinatorial objects. Gentzen’s fundamental contributions
are outlined: his introduction of the socalled Gentzen systems which use
sequents instead of formulas and his result on firstorder arithmetic showing that
(suitably formalized) transfinite induction up to the ordinal "0 cannot be proved in
firstorder arithmetic.
A tutorial on Stålmarck's proof procedure for propositional logic
 Formal Methods in System Design
, 1998
"... We explain Stalmarck's proof procedure for classical propositional logic. The method is implemented in a commercial tool that has been used successfully in real industrial verification projects. Here, we present the proof system underlying the method, and motivate the various design decisions th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 64 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We explain Stalmarck's proof procedure for classical propositional logic. The method is implemented in a commercial tool that has been used successfully in real industrial verification projects. Here, we present the proof system underlying the method, and motivate the various design decisions that have resulted in a system that copes well with the large formulas encountered in industrialscale verification. 1
What's so special about Kruskal's Theorem AND THE ORDINAL Γ0? A SURVEY OF SOME RESULTS IN PROOF THEORY
 ANNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED LOGIC, 53 (1991), 199260
, 1991
"... This paper consists primarily of a survey of results of Harvey Friedman about some proof theoretic aspects of various forms of Kruskal’s tree theorem, and in particular the connection with the ordinal Γ0. We also include a fairly extensive treatment of normal functions on the countable ordinals, an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 43 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper consists primarily of a survey of results of Harvey Friedman about some proof theoretic aspects of various forms of Kruskal’s tree theorem, and in particular the connection with the ordinal Γ0. We also include a fairly extensive treatment of normal functions on the countable ordinals, and we give a glimpse of Veblen hierarchies, some subsystems of secondorder logic, slowgrowing and fastgrowing hierarchies including Girard’s result, and Goodstein sequences. The central theme of this paper is a powerful theorem due to Kruskal, the “tree theorem”, as well as a “finite miniaturization ” of Kruskal’s theorem due to Harvey Friedman. These versions of Kruskal’s theorem are remarkable from a prooftheoretic point of view because they are not provable in relatively strong logical systems. They are examples of socalled “natural independence phenomena”, which are considered by most logicians as more natural than the metamathematical incompleteness results first discovered by Gödel. Kruskal’s tree theorem also plays a fundamental role in computer science, because it is one of the main tools for showing that certain orderings on trees are well founded. These orderings play a crucial role in proving the termination of systems of rewrite rules and the correctness of KnuthBendix completion procedures. There is also a close connection between a certain infinite countable ordinal called Γ0 and Kruskal’s theorem. Previous definitions of the function involved in this connection are known to be incorrect, in that, the function is not monotonic. We offer a repaired definition of this function, and explore briefly the consequences of its existence.
A Taxonomy of Csystems
, 2002
"... The logics of formal inconsistency (LFIs) are paraconsistent logics which permit us to internalize the concepts of consistency or inconsistency inside our object language, introducing new operators to talk about them, and allowing us, in principle, to logically separate the notions of contradictorin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The logics of formal inconsistency (LFIs) are paraconsistent logics which permit us to internalize the concepts of consistency or inconsistency inside our object language, introducing new operators to talk about them, and allowing us, in principle, to logically separate the notions of contradictoriness and of inconsistency. We present the formal definitions of these logics in the context of General Abstract Logics, argue that they in fact represent the majority of all paraconsistent logics existing up to this point, if not the most exceptional ones, and we single out a subclass of them called Csystems, as the LFIs that are built over the positive basis of some given consistent logic. Given precise characterizations of some received logical principles, we point out that the gist of paraconsistent logic lies in the Principle of Explosion, rather than in the Principle of NonContradiction, and we also sharply distinguish these two from the Principle of NonTriviality, considering the next various weaker formulations of explosion, and investigating their interrelations. Subsequently, we present the syntactical formulations of some of the main Csystems based on classical logic, showing how several wellknown logics in the literature can be recast as such a kind of Csystems, and carefully study their properties and shortcomings, showing for instance how they can be used to faithfully
On Behavioural Abstraction and Behavioural Satisfaction in HigherOrder Logic
, 1996
"... The behavioural semantics of specifications with higherorder logical formulae as axioms is analyzed. A characterization of behavioural abstraction via behavioural satisfaction of formulae in which the equality symbol is interpreted as indistinguishability, which is due to Reichel and was recently g ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The behavioural semantics of specifications with higherorder logical formulae as axioms is analyzed. A characterization of behavioural abstraction via behavioural satisfaction of formulae in which the equality symbol is interpreted as indistinguishability, which is due to Reichel and was recently generalized to the case of firstorder logic by Bidoit et al, is further generalized to this case. The fact that higherorder logic is powerful enough to express the indistinguishability relation is used to characterize behavioural satisfaction in terms of ordinary satisfaction, and to develop new methods for reasoning about specifications under behavioural semantics. 1 Introduction An important ingredient in the use of algebraic specifications to describe data abstractions is the concept of behavioural equivalence between algebras, which seems to appropriately capture the "black box" character of data abstractions, see e.g. [GGM76], [GM82], [ST87] and [ST95]. Roughly speaking (since there ...
A systematic proof theory for several modal logics
 Advances in Modal Logic, volume 5 of King’s College Publications
, 2005
"... abstract. The family of normal propositional modal logic systems is given a very systematic organisation by their model theory. This model theory is generally given using frame semantics, and it is systematic in the sense that for the most important systems we have a clean, exact correspondence betw ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
abstract. The family of normal propositional modal logic systems is given a very systematic organisation by their model theory. This model theory is generally given using frame semantics, and it is systematic in the sense that for the most important systems we have a clean, exact correspondence between their constitutive axioms as they are usually given in a HilbertLewis style and conditions on the accessibility relation on frames. By contrast, the usual structural proof theory of modal logic, as given in Gentzen systems, is adhoc. While we can formulate several modal logics in the sequent calculus that enjoy cutelimination, their formalisation arises through systembysystem fine tuning to ensure that the cutelimination holds, and the correspondence to the axioms of the HilbertLewis systems becomes opaque. This paper introduces a systematic presentation for the systems K, D, M, S4, and S5 in the calculus of structures, a structural proof theory that employs deep inference. Because of this, we are able to axiomatise the modal logics in a manner directly analogous to the HilbertLewis axiomatisation. We show that the calculus possesses a cutelimination property directly analogous to cutelimination for the sequent calculus for these systems, and we discuss the extension to several other modal logics. 1
Wellordering proofs for MartinLöf Type Theory
 Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
, 1998
"... We present wellordering proofs for MartinLof's type theory with Wtype and one universe. These proofs, together with an embedding of the type theory in a set theoretical system as carried out in [Set93] show that the proof theoretical strength of the type theory is precisely ## 1# I+# , which is ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present wellordering proofs for MartinLof's type theory with Wtype and one universe. These proofs, together with an embedding of the type theory in a set theoretical system as carried out in [Set93] show that the proof theoretical strength of the type theory is precisely ## 1# I+# , which is slightly more than the strength of Feferman's theory T 0 , classical set theory KPI and the subsystem of analysis (# 1 2 CA)+(BI). The strength of intensional and extensional version, of the version a la Tarski and a la Russell are shown to be the same. 0 Introduction 0.1 Proof theory and Type Theory Proof theory and type theory have been two answers of mathematical logic to the crisis of the foundations of mathematics at the beginning of the century. Proof theory was originally established by Hilbert in order to prove the consistency of theories by using finitary methods. When Godel showed that Hilbert's program cannot be carried out as originally intended, the focus of proof theory ch...
Lectures on proof theory
 in Proc. Summer School in Logic, Leeds 67
, 1968
"... This is a survey of some of the principal developments in proof theory from its inception in the 1920s, at the hands of David Hilbert, up to the 1960s. Hilbert's aim was to use this as a tool in his nitary consistency program to eliminate the \actual in nite " in mathematics from proofs of purely ni ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is a survey of some of the principal developments in proof theory from its inception in the 1920s, at the hands of David Hilbert, up to the 1960s. Hilbert's aim was to use this as a tool in his nitary consistency program to eliminate the \actual in nite " in mathematics from proofs of purely nitary statements. One of the main approaches that turned out to be the most useful in pursuit of this program was that due to Gerhard Gentzen, in the 1930s, via his calculi of \sequents" and his CutElimination Theorem for them. Following that we trace how and why prima facie in nitary concepts, such as ordinals, and in nitary methods, such as the use of in nitely long proofs, gradually came to dominate prooftheoretical developments. In this rst lecture I will give anoverview of the developments in proof theory since Hilbert's initiative in establishing the subject in the 1920s. For this purpose I am following the rst part of a series of expository lectures that I gave for the Logic Colloquium `94 held in ClermontFerrand 2123 July 1994, but haven't published. The theme of my lectures there was that although Hilbert established his theory of proofs as a part of his foundational program and, for philosophical reasons whichwe shall get into, aimed to have it developed in a completely nitistic way, the actual work in proof theory This is the rst of three lectures that I delivered at the conference, Proof Theory: History
A Complete Axiomatization of the ThreeValued Completion of Logic Programs
 Journal of Logic and Computation
, 1991
"... We prove the completeness of extended SLDNFresolution for the new class of #programs with respect to the threevalued completion of a logic program. Not only the class of allowed programs but also the class of definite programs are contained in the class of #programs. To understand better the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove the completeness of extended SLDNFresolution for the new class of #programs with respect to the threevalued completion of a logic program. Not only the class of allowed programs but also the class of definite programs are contained in the class of #programs. To understand better the threevalued completion of a logic program we introduce a formal system for threevalued logic in which one can derive exactly the threevalued consequences of the completion of a logic program. The system is proof theoretically interesting, since it is a fragment of Gentzen's sequent calculus LK. Keywords: Logic programming; threevalued logic; negation as failure; SLDNFresolution; sequent calculus. 1
Algorithms for ordinal arithmetic
 In 19th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE
, 2003
"... Abstract. Proofs of termination are essential for establishing the correct behavior of computing systems. There are various ways of establishing termination, but the most general involves the use of ordinals. An example of a theorem proving system in which ordinals are used to prove termination is A ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Proofs of termination are essential for establishing the correct behavior of computing systems. There are various ways of establishing termination, but the most general involves the use of ordinals. An example of a theorem proving system in which ordinals are used to prove termination is ACL2. In ACL2, every function defined must be shown to terminate using the ordinals up to ɛ0. We use a compact notation for the ordinals up to ɛ0 (exponentially more succinct than the one used by ACL2) and define efficient algorithms for ordinal addition, subtraction, multiplication, and exponentiation. In this paper we describe our notation and algorithms, prove their correctness, and analyze their complexity. 1