We describe a sequent calculus, based on work of Herbelin, of which the cut-free derivations are in 1-1 correspondence with the normal natural deduction proofs of intuitionistic logic. We present a simple proof of Herbelin's strong cutelimination theorem for the calculus, using the recursive path ordering theorem of Dershowitz.

Abstract not found

In this paper we present a strongly normalising cut-elimination procedure for classical logic. This procedure adapts Gentzen's standard cut-reductions, but is less restrictive than previous strongly normalising cut-elimination procedures. In comparison, for example, with works by Dragalin and Danos et al., our procedure requires no special annotations on formulae and allows cut-rules to pass over other cut-rules. In order to adapt the notion of symmetric reducibility candidates for proving the strong normalisation property, we introduce a novel term assignment for sequent proofs of classical logic and formalise cut-reductions as term rewriting rules.

Classical logic is one of the best examples of a mathematical theory that is truly useful to computer science. Hardware and software engineers apply the theory routinely. Yet from a foundational standpoint, there are aspects of classical logic that are problematic. Unlike intuitionistic logic, classical logic is often held to be non-constructive, and so, is said to admit no proof semantics. To draw an analogy in the proofsas -programs paradigm, it is as if we understand well the theory of manipulation between equivalent specifications (which we do), but have comparatively little foundational insight of the process of transforming one program to another that implements the same specification. This extended abstract outlines a semantic theory of classical proofs based on a variant of Parigot's λµ-calculus [24], but presented here as a type theory. After reviewing the conceptual problems in the area and the potential benefits of such a theory, we sketch the key steps of our approach in ...

We prove a folklore theorem, that two derivations in a cut-free sequent calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic (based on Kleene's G3) are inter-permutable (using a set of basic "permutation reduction rules" derived from Kleene's work in 1952) iff they determine the same natural deduction. The basic rules form a confluent and weakly normalising rewriting system. We refer to Schwichtenberg's proof elsewhere that a modification of this system is strongly normalising. Key words: intuitionistic logic, proof theory, natural deduction, sequent calculus. 1 Introduction There is a folklore theorem that two intuitionistic sequent calculus derivations are "really the same" iff they are inter-permutable, using permutations as described by Kleene in [13]. Our purpose here is to make precise and prove such a "permutability theorem". Prawitz [18] showed how intuitionistic sequent calculus derivations determine natural deductions, via a mapping ' from LJ to NJ (here we consider only ...

In this paper, we show the correspondence existing between normalization in calculi with explicit substitution and cut elimination in sequent calculus for Linear Logic, via Proof Nets. This correspondence allows us to prove that a typed version of the #x-calculus [30, 29] is strongly normalizing, as well as of all the calculi isomorphic to it such as # # [24], # s [19], # d [21], and # f [11]. In order to achieve this result, we introduce a new notion of reduction in Proof Nets: this extended reduction is still confluent and strongly normalizing, and is of interest of its own, as it correspond to more identifications of proofs in Linear Logic that differ by inessential details. These results show that calculi with explicit substitutions are really an intermediate formalism between lambda calculus and proof nets, and suggest a completely new way to look at the problems still open in the field of explicit substitutions.

We define a weak -calculus, oe w , as a subsystem of the full -calculus with explicit substitutions oe * . We claim that oe w could be the archetypal output language of functional compilers, just as the -calculus is their universal input language. Furthermore, oe * could be the adequate theory to establish the correctness of simplified functional compilers. Here, we illustrate these claims by proving the correctness of four simplified compilers and runtime systems modeled as abstract machines. The four machines we prove are the Krivine machine, the SECD, the FAM and the CAM. Thereby, we give the first formal proofs of Cardelli's FAM and of its compiler.

The combinatorics of classical propositional logic lies at the heart of both local and global methods of proof-search enabling the achievement of least-commitment search. Extension of such methods to the predicate calculus, or to non-classical systems, presents us with the problem of recovering this least-commitment principle in the context of non-invertible rules. One successful approach is to view the nonclassical logic as a perturbation on search in classical logic and characterize when a least-commitment (classical) search yields sufficient evidence for provability in the (non-classical) logic. This technique has been successfully applied to both local and global methods at the cost of subsidiary searches and is the analogue of the standard treatment of quantifiers via skolemization and unification. In this paper, we take a type-theoretic view of this approach for the case in which the non-classical logic is intuitionistic. We develop a system of realizers (proof-obje...

this paper deals exclusively with intuitionistic logic (in fact, only the implicative fragment), we require succedents to be a single consequent formula. Natural deduction systems, which we choose to call N-systems, are symbolic logics generally given via introduction and elimination rules for the logical connectives which operate on the right, i.e., they manipulate the succedent formula. Examples are Gentzen's NJ and NK (Gentzen 1935). Logical deduction systems are given via left-introduction and right-introduction rules for the logical connectives. Although others have called these systems "sequent calculi", we call them L-systems to avoid confusion with other systems given in sequent style. Examples are Gentzen's LK and LJ (Gentzen 1935). In this paper we are primarily interested in L-systems. The advantage of N-systems is that they seem closer to actual reasoning, while L-systems on the other hand seem to have an easier proof theory. L-systems are often extended with a "cut" rule as part of showing that for a given L-system and N-system, the derivations of each system can be encoded in the other. For example, NK proves the same as LK + cut (Gentzen 1935). Proof Normalization. A system is consistent when it is impossible to prove false, i.e., derive absurdity from zero assumptions. A system is analytic (has the analycity property) when there is an e#ective method to decompose any conclusion sequent into simpler premise sequents from which the conclusion can be obtained by some rule in the system such that the conclusion is derivable i# the premises are derivable (Maenpaa 1993). To achieve the goals of consistency and analycity, it has been customary to consider

We define an optimal proof-by-proof embedding of intuitionistic sequent calculus into linear logic and analyse the (purely logical) linearity information thus obtained. 1 Introduction Uniform translations of intuitionistic into linear logic, with their plethoric use of exponentials, are bound to give only `universal linearity information' about proofs. This paper aims at displaying the structure of `specific linearity information ' hidden in a given derivation. How can we apply this to intuitionistic proofs? We have to build a translation into linear logic such that reductions of the intuitionistic proof can be simulated by reductions of its linear image. A necessary condition for this to hold, is that the `skeleton' of the original proof is preserved by the translation. We call translations with this property `decorations '. Specifically, we construct a proof-by-proof embedding of IL into LL (formulated as sequent calculi) such that: 1/ the skeleton of the original proof is preserve...